[elevation]

> I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything

Isn't this a key lesson in the study of history? There are no "definitive sources." Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources have their own biases, limitations, and cultural influences, sometimes to the point that they say more about their own lives than the history they portray. Sometimes it takes centuries for anyone to notice.

Your best hope for assembling an accurate picture of the past is to characterize how the biases you're aware of may have influenced the evidence available to you.

[burntsushi]

I agree..? Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian. That's what I was trying to capture with pithy phrasing. I'll leave it to you to come up with the words to draw that distinction, if you think there is one at all. (And this is actually the point of contention in this thread, which I believe your comment isn't really addressing. I'd consider your comment more of a truism IMO.)

[idontwantthis]

> Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian.

You’re not wrong but that’s also something he openly reminds listeners of about 9 times per episode. I just listened to one of his early episodes and he voiced an opinion that is entirely wrong, but he couched it by basically saying “this is a crazy idea but maybe…” so I have no problem with it.

[burntsushi]

I don't see how that changes anything I've said. And I don't see how anything I've said is in conflict with that. Moreover, not all critiques of Carlin are limited to specific sections where Carlin fastidiously points out he might be wrong.

Carlin does of course remind everyone that he isn't a historian quite regularly. And that's a good thing and a good reminder. But that doesn't mean his content cannot be critiqued for accuracy.

You may consider reading my comments on this thread again. I was defending Carlin.