[defrost]

As a degree mathematician who has done a little contract work for both historians and lawyers and may have occasionally regarded law as the study of first order logic and theatrics (fun sledge, amusement rather than disrespect intended) I have to ask whether the history crowd had a valid point wrt to strength of reference in supporting an argument.

If five decades onwards one were to write a History of Our Times (the Central North American Edition) it would be correct to, say, point out that claims were made in the media and courts regarding a stolen election and to then cite court filings, articles in prominent newspapers, and perhaps videos from both network and youtube archives.

It's fair to say that such claims formed the zeitgeist of our recent times for a substantial portion of the population affected and that any citation failed to logically support what it purported to support.

This is the "History is what happened" argument not the "History makes sense" position.

I freely acknowledge I've slid past the arguments made in this thread source, that current history isn't being rigourous with open access to sources and annoted commentary of primary material - but I note that the crafting of alternative histories can be coincident with primary events.

[sdwr]

The election is something that distance makes clearer, although 50 years might not be enough time. Think of the history of the roman senate. Truth is barely talked about, the narrative revolves around factions, power, and outcomes.

Call it post-truth, call it machiavellian, but being on top is a social game, not a practical one.

[dmvdoug]

> If five decades onwards one were to write a History of Our Times (the Central North American Edition) it would be correct to, say, point out that claims were made in the media and courts regarding a stolen election and to then cite court filings, articles in prominent newspapers, and perhaps videos from both network and youtube archives. It's fair to say that such claims formed the zeitgeist of our recent times for a substantial portion of the population affected and that any citation failed to logically support what it purported to support.

If you argued claims were made in the media regarding a stolen election and cited a variety of newspapers and blogs where people talk about how DT thought he won the election because of 10,000 dead people voting in GA or whatever, so he should be President not Biden, how would those citations fail to logically support your argument that claims were made in the media regarding a stolen election?

[defrost]

We're doomed to be in agreement, I'm afraid I have a hard time avoiding passive indirect citing of "factoids" ..

it's absolutely correct to state that "On <some date> the New York Post reported that aliens landed in Washington [1]"

it's deceptive (whether with delibrate intent to mislead others or just self deceptive) to state that "Aliens landed in Washington on <some date> [1]"

which is one of the root causes of the proliferation of "alternative facts".

It's not just that something is cited, it also matters how it is cited.

[1] link to New York Post article of <some date> reporting the landing of aliens.

[dmvdoug]

> It's not just that something is cited, it also matters how it is cited.

You called it: I couldn’t agree more!