1. Testing reliability of sources In history you often have to decide if the evidence (sources) are reliable (trustworthy). The following is a guide to assessing reliability. Consider each of the four factors that influence a source’s reliability then make your decision. Not all apply to every source. Check 1 – WHO? Were they involved in what they are describing (they might claim credit for things which went well or imply things which went badly weren’t their fault; they might be saying what their audience wants to hear) or were they ‘neutral’ observers? Were they in a good position to know all the facts? Check 4 – WHAT? What type of source is it? Some (textbooks, statistics, diaries) tend to be more accurate while others (propaganda, memoirs) are less so. Does the content match other known facts or is it merely opinion? Is it selective in what includes or leaves out? Check 3 – WHEN? Accounts written down soon after the event tend to accurately reflect what it looked or felt like from one person’s or group’s perspective. Secondary accounts, mostly history books, tend to be reliable. Historians filter many sources to search for the truth. The main problem is with sources by people recounting their experiences later in their life. The main issues are: memory hearsay hindsight Check 2 – WHY? Sources are produced for a variety of reasons and you should consider the author’s motives. The commonest reasons: to record what happened to persuade to entertain to educate to make a profit to blame or justify There are others and often more than one will apply. DECISION TIME! Bearing all these factors in mind, which pigeon hole are you going to put the source in?

2. An extract from the poem ‘Aftermath’ by Siegfried Sassoon, published in 1919. Do you remember the dark months you held the sector at Mametz – The nights you watched and wired and dug and piled on sandbags on parapets? Do you remember the rats; and the stench Of corpses rotting in the front of the front-line trench – And dawn coming, dirty-white, and chill with a hopeless rain? Do you ever stop and ask, ‘Is it all going to happen again?’ Sassoon was one of many war poets of the First World War. He enlisted in 1914, fought on the Western Front and won the Military Cross for bravery. However, as the war dragged on he became opposed to it. He made an official protest against the continuation of the war which, he argues, was unnecessary. DECISION TIME! In spite of the negative points (Sassoon’s view & it’s a poem), there is enough to suggest that is a reliable source – certainly for giving a feeling of trench life, if not a detailed description. Check 1 – WHO? Sassoon was a British soldier so he did spend time in the trenches. He is therefore an eyewitness and bound to know what it was like. This suggests a reliable source. Check 2 – WHY? Poems tend to produced for entertainment. However, we know Sassoon was very much against the war by the time he wrote this and he is obviously trying to convince his readers (with the tone) that the war was a terrible waste and that soldiers are still suffering. It is a political statement. This suggests an unreliable source. Check 3 – WHEN? The poem was written just after the war not at the time. However, the events were still recent and it is not the sort of thing one is going to forget easily. This suggests a reliable source. Check 4 – WHAT? This is a poem and therefore does not accurately record events, but rather gives a certain mood or feeling. Much of the content is accurate e.g. the rats and the smell. However, the overall tone is very dark and negative and even hints that the war was a waste – ‘Is it all going to happen again?’. This suggests a slightly reliable source. 00