history is fun

Reliability

Reliability of a source is about its accuracy!

• The reliability of the evidence in an historical source can depend on what you want to use it for.
• An historical source may be reliable in some parts and unreliable in others.
e.g. A cartoon might prove unreliable in telling you the facts about an event, but it could be very reliable for showing the way people thought about the incident at that time.

You might suspect a source provides unreliable evidence because:
• It shows the clear bias of the writer.
• It contains factual errors.
• It contains exaggerated comments.
• It is inconsistent with similar sources.
• It was written a long time after the events it describes. (Or it can just be immediately to add more fuel to the fires.)
• It was produced for a particular purpose which might affect its reliability.

E.g. PROPAGANDA = INFORMATION WHICH GIVES A ONE VIEW OF EVENTS EITHER BY CAREFUL SELECTION, EXAGGERATION OR DELIBERATE UNTRUTHS WHICH IS DESIGNED TO GENERATE SUPPORT FOR ONE SIDE IN A CONFLICT, OR QUARREL OR COMPETITION.

RELIABLE = CAN BE TRUSTED OR MADE USE OF AT FACE VALUE.
REMEMBER - JUST BECAUSE A SOURCE IS UNRELIABLE, THIS
DOES NOT MAKE IT TOTALLY USELESS.

If you want to discuss the bias of a source then what reveals its bias?
- its content?
- its attribution? (provenance)
- your knowledge of the period?

ATTRIBUTION / PROVENANCE = THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH A SOURCE WAS PRODUCED REMEMBER - INACCURATE OR UNRELIABLE SOURCES DO NOT MEAN USELESS SOURCES.

There are three ways a historian can seek to establish the reliability of a source:
a. Site visits (this is out in exam context)
b. Cross-referencing with other sources from the same period
c. Referring to background information

There are several key questions which you can ask of a source in order to establish its reliability.

• Who produced the source and when?
• Was the writer/artist an eyewitness? What were the sources of her/his information?
• Why was the source produced?
• What is the origin of the source? (i.e. where was it produced?)
• Is there consistency in the source? (i.e. does everything in the source make sense?)
• Is there consistency with other sources? (i.e. do other sources agree with this source?)

Level of analysis
L1/1 Provenance or details only
L2/2 Uncritical acceptance of content
L3/3 Unsupported assertion of bias
L4/4 Reliability affected by date of the source
L5/5 Cross-reference to other sources/specific contextual knowledge [1. Identify content 2. Identify supporting or contradictory content from other sources 3. Draw your conclusion]
L6/6 Evaluation of source content using provenance/purpose/audience etc. [Content + who, where, when > purpose + motive > audience and how (tone)]

A safe approach that consists of L5 and L6, this is how it looks.

Yes, I can believe what this source says when it claims that … because if I look at Source A I can see that …

However, as a whole, I’m not sure that I can accept this source as a complete explanation of what … It tries to …(content/supporting details) …but it ignores the fact that … Obviously, in a history produced for the PAP’s annual celebrations, he is bound to give an account of the … which will put his party in a good light.

Here is another example:

Source A
Under the Japanese, Singapore is enjoying peace and prosperity. No one has gone hungry ever since we chased the British away. Unlike the past when only the rich could go to school, now children from all social backgrounds can go to school. This is what we mean by Asia for the Asians.

A Japanese officer talking to a newspaper reporter from Japan in 1943.

Source B
Life was hard. People were living in fear most of the time. Families went hungry and many suffered from malnutrition. Supplies of good food were either kept for the Japanese or only to be found in the black market.

An eyewitness’s account of the Japanese Occupation.

Is source A reliable as evidence of the conditions in Singapore under the Japanese Occupation? (6m)

No, I can’t believe Source A is reliable as evidence of the conditions in Singapore under the Japanese Occupation. Source A claims that the Japanese were good rulers in Singapore as it says that no one went hungry. However, when I cross reference with Source B, B says that the Japanese were harsh and many families did not have enough food to eat. Therefore, Source A is not reliable.

Moreover, I can’t trust the source because it is said by a Japanese officer who is talking to a Japanese reporter who eventually would publish what he said to the Japanese back home. This means that the Japanese officer would want to say things that would convince his fellow countrymen that Japan was fighting a just war to liberate Asia from the West and they were good rulers so that they would receive the support of the common Japanese for their conquests. Hence, what he said would be a distorted picture of what was happening and thus, I think A is not reliable.