So this is a bit of a meta question, but how do we know what books or videos or articles referencing historical facts have actually got those facts right? As I understand it, history is incredibly difficult because it's often very hard to distinguish fact from fiction in writings made centuries ago. I've had several experiences now of reading one fact, and then coming across another that directly contradicts that fact. Not to mention historians must distinguish propaganda, from accidental bias, from a proper recording of facts within old texts and I don't think the average layman is qualified to make such assessments.
In light of this, does anyone have any suggestions as to how a person not in the know might be able to verify what they read about history? I don't know if this question is appropriate for this sub but I figure if anyone will be able to answer this it's historians. Hope this fits the sub's rules, apologies to the mods if it doesn't.
Layman here.
A book should provide a footnote with the source or say in the passage where they got something from. If you can find that source, it should at least tell you if the person hasn't misinterpreted it. You can also look at reviews for the book to see if it and if the author is held in good standing. Check the author's record to at least get a sense of the figure your reading is credible (and covering their area of expertise) as a starting point.
For a video (or articles) the problem can be a lack of easy to find sources. Still, as a starting point, is this person someone who knows the era or someone working outside their sphere? If something or someone covering a lot of eras of history, they may be doing their best but won't have a strong knowledge of the histories of the time. Or what they have heard might not be correct or that ingrained assumptions might be wrong.
I don't want to say history is incredibly difficult, that makes it seem a lot more intimidating and scary than it is, more that it requires time to build up knowledge. Like most things really, nobody knows the intricacies of a sport via seeing one game for example, nobody is a strong cook after one meal. Still, your right that quick search might get you "an" answer but that it might not get you the right one as there are a lot of old history theories, commonly held myths, fiction getting mixed in.
For history, knowledge about the primary sources (who wrote them, what their background and perspective is, reliability), knowledge about the era and people as a general whole rather than just "ah this text says". Learning how to put the pieces of fact A and fact B together while putting things into the right context. There isn't a quick way of doing this so you can quickly verify something from a video or know which contrasting claim is right.
Modern and ancient times have the same problem in that history involves, both as participant and recorder, are human beings. A figure isn't always going to give a 100% honest account of their actions and why they did something. A historian writing the texts is shaped by their background/experiences/political pressures and may be writing for reasons that aren't entirely to do with "must get an accurate record down." There is also the issue that two people, while being honest, can see the same incident in a very different light so there can be conflict and it may not always be 100% clear which version is correct. Life is complex and history would not be so interesting if it didn't capture that.
Modern history has the advantage of multiple sources from all manners of perspectives and nations, fewer holes but that doesn't mean one isn't sorting through a lot of bias. Ancient history does have the problem of fewer sources and more holes that the texts may not always exist to fill in but it doesn't mean it is as difficult as you perhaps fear to be able to separate fact from fiction. Just takes time and practice to build up the knowledge required.
Not everybody has the time to devote to that or the interest in history is more of pop in and out. Or people need a starting point. As u/TripleTongue3 has kindly pointed out, AskHistorians are here to help. If there is something you are unsure about, we have the simple questions and simple answers thread every week or you can post a question in the main section of this subreddit. Feel free to ask about whatever clashes you are finding in your searches or the uncertainty you have.
Hundreds of questions each week get answered by those who have studied the histories in detail, people who know the modern understanding of the past, know the sources and will check through them to provide an answer, they will provide sources in 24 hours of asking if the post itself doesn't have the sources. The answers have to be in-depth and comprehensive so that you won't just get a yes or a no but an explanation to help further your understanding. We have a FAQ that might be worth scanning through and we do have a Booklist that might give you places to start with if there are areas you wish to study.
It's pretty much the reason for the existence of this sub. As you say the average layman is not usually in a position to study a wide range of sources to compare, contrast and assess them. Questions raised here are frequently answered by multiple people who have often spent decades studying specific periods and areas.
You should give priority to peer-reviewed publications over other sources, because the research and conclusions have been reviewed for accuracy and appropriate methodology by other historians who are experts on the subject matter. Peer-reviewed journals and publications from university presses (and major trade presses that utilize peer review) are generally considered the goal standard because they've been through this vetting process. It can be a nerve-wracking process to go through as an author, but it helps to ensure factual accuracy and improves the quality of the work.