I would like to hear people's input when dealing with conflicting sources.

The question came up when I was wading through info on Oda Nobunaga's Mino campaign. Depending on how one count it, Nobunaga took about a decade to subjugate Mino. Mino and Nobunaga's Owari provinces have roughly equal agricultural parity, so this is not surprising. It is clear that obviously the fight didn't always proceed the way Nobunaga wanted. That is not in question.

But our sources differ on what happened year to year in a few cases. According to the Shinchōkoki:

1. In 1561, Nobunaga won a great victory at Moribe, and constructed a fort at Sunomata. When the Mino forces came to challenge his position, Nobunaga met them battle, and though originally forced to retreat to a new position, Nobunaga was able to hold on and counterattack successfully in the night, and defeated the enemy. Nobunaga returned to Sunomata in the morning, destroyed the fortifications and withdrew.
2. In 1563, Nobunaga constructed and moved his main position to Komaki mountain. The proximity to Komaki mountain forced Mino forces to abandon Oguchi.
3. In the fourth month of 1566, Mino forces met Nobunaga at Shinkanon. Nobunaga saw the location was poor for combat, withdrew without fighting.

But according to Edo era gunkimono, Nobunaga fell into a trap and was forced to withdraw in 1561. While this could be taken as a different interpretation to the same events (both sides claiming tactical victory in what is basically a strategic draw) it is also recorded that Nobunaga was heavily defeated in 1563 at Shinkanon (Shinchōkoki makes no mention of anything happening at Shinkanon except the encounter in 1566). And surviving letters from Mino forces tells of how they made Nobunaga a laughing stock in the eighth month of 1566, with a lot of Oda forces drowning trying to recross the Kiso river.

In this case, as is often the case, all sources are quite possibily biased. Shinchōkoki being biased for Nobunaga, downplaying or omitting defeats, while the others could be exaggerating victories, for entertainment, to play up an ancestor or relative, or for propaganda.

In the grand scheme of things, the specifics of what occurred in these engagements are unimportant. What was important was that Nobunaga slowly but surely conquered Mino. But such interpretation strikes me as very based on hindsight. If we're trying to piece together what happened, and the causes and effects of decisions that took place, then finding out the truth is important. And of course, philosophically speaking, finding the truth is the goal in and of itself.

And this, of course, doesn't only apply to Nobunaga, but all over the world at all times. Like what actually happened at Kadesh and who actually won?

How do you deal with conflicting sources when they are all biased and likely none are telling the truth?

I'm not sure how to frame this question, but I've been seeing a spike in left-leaning social media outlets viewing Stalin as some kind of a socialist hero. Does this reflect a change in historiographical treatment of Stalin, or perhaps a shift in the treatment of Soviet-era communism? Meaning - are present-day socialists responding to new literature that reflects fundamental shift in how historians are writing about and discussing Stalin?

I'm a student of literature, and I'm curious to what extent historians value and/or make use of literary studies in their work? Obviously I'm sure it varies from field to field and topic to topic but I guess I'm asking a more overall, generalized version of things.

I wrote this post and I want you to notice it.

Abstract: From the end of the 17 till end of the 19 century there were mass suicides(by self immolation mostly) of Old Believers across european part of Russian Empire. 10 000 people didn't accept the new church rules and decided to burn themselves instead.