This week, ending in February 25 2016:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
I'm not sure if this belongs here or not, so if it doesn't please excuse me. But what makes a "good" history book or historian? I've been browsing this sub for a little while now and posting questions when I think of them and I've come across numerous posts saying a source wasn't up to par.
Dan Carlin comes to mind specifically. Although by his own admission he isn't a historian, he cites his information rather well and goes into depth.
So what is the litmus for validity?