Trust Herodotus? I'm no Classicist, but even the introduction to my beat-up college Penguin paperback of Aubrey de Sélincourt's translation of the History was full of warnings and caveats. And warnings about the "Father of Lies" go very far back. Herodotus was very early- he pre-dates Thucydides and Plutarch, and he clearly saw his purpose as to entertain and divert, to tell stories of old times in far-off lands. Plutarch and Thucydides felt that history was to be used for education, was serious business, and to them historians had to try to both get their facts right and to tell the important stuff, stuff that could be used to inspire and instruct, do something useful for society, not just make them gasp and giggle; and they didn't like Herodotus. But of course, though he's unreliable he's irreplaceable- I mean, it's not as though the Scythians were writing about themselves and leaving us their books. Even in the 19th c. scholars were trying to puzzle out what sources lay beyond Herodotus, what could be gleaned from his stories. It'd be great to have a Classicist stop by and say how Herodotus is used now, but I can at least say that , yes, there have been plenty of challenges and lots of distrust.

Evans, J. A. S. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527