This is less about history in the academy than it is about dealing with history outside of the academy -- but here it is.

Yesterday, in the comments on a submission in a Facebook group dedicated to discussing the history of the First World War, I posted a short comment correcting something that had been a bit misleading. A picture of one thing had been posted in a submission about a similar but not-at-all-the-same thing, but with no indication that this was the case. Consequently, I offered up a short, single-sentence comment clarifying the fact. I was not even the first to have done something like this; another user, who I recognized as being the author of a number of very fine books about the war, had already politely corrected some other misconceptions in the initial post. My job done, I went about my day.

Well, I won't be making that mistake again.

I returned to discover that the two correcting comments had ignited a firestorm of indignation from the rest of the people in the group, coupled with loud demands for apologies. Some of the complaints:

• Corrections to misconceptions or errors are intrinsically rude and should not be offered.

• If they must be, they should be done privately at all times so that only the user in question can see them in spite of the group being dedicated to historical education.

• The original user had "done his best", and so was immune to criticism or correction.

• As I and the other correcting user had not posted submissions of our own for the group to read, we had no room to discuss or correct the ones that existed.

• A debate over the interpretation of facts -- or noting that certain things are or are not facts -- is uncomfortably like the war itself and so must be avoided at all cost (seriously).

• Pointing out that something is factually incorrect is indistinguishable from schoolyard bullying.

• Disagreements of this sort are a betrayal of the millions of men who laid down their etc.

• Everyone in the group is obviously there "for the exact same reason" and so disagreement should be impossible; those disagreeing must have an agenda or not understand the group's purpose.

• Plenty of other users had made the same errors or falsely been taught the same things as the original submission made, so obviously it was unfair to complain about it in this case. "If he's wrong, he's not the only one."

• I wouldn't take this kind of cheek from my grandchildren, and I will not take it here. This user routinely appealed to her own authority as "a grandmother and pensioner" whenever the remotest challenge was offered to her opinion.

• None of us has the right to say we understand the war more or less than any other person because none of us were actually there.

• The original submitter declared variously that he had received plenty of private messages from other, unnamed users thanking him for his submission and saying how wonderful it was, and that even if his facts were wrong they nevertheless got at the real truth of the war, and anyway even if they didn't they at least got people talking about it, and anyway who is to say what the truth really was. Who indeed.

• It was eventually pointed out by another user that my original fellow-critic had in fact written a well-regarded book on the very topic under discussion, but this seemed to count for nothing at all and was eventually dismissed as a sort of snobbery on his part. He never even brought it up himself, I should add.

The "debate" is still going on as I type this, fifty or sixty replies later. I never made another comment after my first one.

TL;DR: /r/AskHistorians has spoiled me, I think.

Quick question about History in Academia, I apologize if this isn't the correct thread.

I've been reading the newest updated edition of The Pinochet Files, which looks at declassified national security documents between Kissinger, Nixon, and the Chilean regime. The consensus reached by both the author and the contents of the documents is that the US government played an integral and extremely significant role in the toppling of the Allende government.

Now my question is, at what point is this considered to be the common teaching? I realize it is only one source, but the documents are very clear and condemning towards Kissinger and Nixon. Should I approach the idea that the US played a big role in the coup as a theory and back it up with the evidence as I would normally do? As more of a fact?

Is there a school of history or historiography that takes a Bayesian approach? Like, instead of trying to establish specific chains of causes and effects, it might assign different probabilities to hypothetical events given that other hypothical events did or didn’t happen (or given that particular theories about general historical processes are correct or incorrect).

So, I submitted this answer yesterday to the poster who was asking about a book on "big history." Then I started second guessing myself. (I had Braudel on the mind because I recently found my grad school copy of The Mediterranean etc. in an old box of books.)

Is Braudel or the Annales school still commonly taught in historiography? It's been almost 15 years since I was in grad school (gulp!) so I don't know if there's something that is "big picture" history that is more current.