My list of unreliable sources
editGeneral rule of thumb: The vocabulary of an author is critical. This may seem obvious, but really study it. Does a source describe an indigenous culture as "savages"? Are violent ruffians described as boot strap-pulling adventurers? Does your source glorify violence, or romanticize a conflict or area of one? Pay attention to these things. Especially if they paint over or outright ignore well-documented fact.
- Very bad sources
- Thomas Goodrich (War to the Knife, Scalp Dance, etc.). Pro-Confederate bias.
- J. Evetts Haley. Pro-Confederate, racist. Manifest destiny cultist.
- The Southern Historical Society, publisher of the Southern Historical Society Papers. Lost Cause mythology.
- Samuel W. Mitcham, Confederate and Nazi apologist.
- John Newman Edwards, Confederate.
- Least-bad, still not great sources
- Osprey Publishing puts out books that are beautifully illustrated, but they are general works of military history and specialize on the stuff of war. They have also previously published unreliable authors such as Gordon Williamson. Absolutely useable if the author is/authors are reliable, and superb for technical details and simple statements (i.e. "This unit was stationed over there at this time.").
- Helion. See above; Helion is a less well-known Osprey.