Hi there,
history grad student here. I am currently writing a chapter on the early history of an international organisation and am encountering a problem I have thought about often before: How do historians deal with contradictory evidence, i.e. of different historical sources on the same events make contradictory statements?
In general, I do know what to do of course: Discuss it in the main text or a footnote and explain your reasoning for trusting one source over the other.
However, with my current chapter, there are quite a few minor facts about that organisation's early history that aren't really consequential for the argument I am making, but nevertheless are reflected differently in different sources (e.g. whether it was June or July 1925 when the organisation was first established). Now do I have to specifically discuss each of these small detailed differences in the sources in the text or footnotes? Or is this not necessary and in these small cases historians are just expected to use their own judgement without having to explain each time? I am asking as it seems at the moment that this really blows up my footnotes and at times derails the main narrative I am trying to construct.
Thanks!
[cross-post from /askacademia]
Consequential is the key word here. If explaining such discrepancies is important for the wider point you are making, the discussion belongs in the main text. If it's tangential to the point at hand, but seems worth clearing up in a more general sense (particularly if you're concerned that an informed reader might notice the issue), then an explanatory footnote. If it's not relevant to the point at hand and is of trivial importance more generally, then let it go.
In all of these cases, it can also be useful to adjust your language somewhat to avoid making potentially false statements. For instance, if in the example you gave there's uncertainty about the month an organisation was founded, you might use 'summer 19XX' rather than 'July 19XX' - ie using slightly vaguer language that encompasses the range of possibilities rather than getting bogged down in picking and justifying one in particular. This isn't always going to be possible, of course, but generally for things like dates, figures and so on, you can find this kind of wiggle room.