The first key points historians want to check about a source is whether the source is based on accurate knowledge and understanding. To do this, they might check whether the author was there at the time, whether the author was involved in the event, whether the author understood the overall context.

Dear Aïnes Bachir Belmehdi,

Interesting question. Research methods are determined by the development of technology used to improve the applied research methods. In addition, an important issue is the determinants of the possibility of applying specific research techniques and publishing the results of the research. These determinants also often include a specific policy of the dominant trends in shaping the general social public opinion in a given community. Therefore, the key issue is the full independence of the conducted research, formulating conclusions resulting from the conducted research and their publication from many other factors, spheres of political and economic influence. Under this condition of complete independence, full objectivity is possible and it is also possible to apply any research techniques and methods.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The first key points historians want to check about a source is whether the source is based on accurate knowledge and understanding. To do this, they might check whether the author was there at the time, whether the author was involved in the event, whether the author understood the overall context.

It is the responsibility of the historians to identify the primary and secondary sources. The bias should not be there. Authentic information is necessary because in history there may be oral sources available. We couldn't avoid that. By oral sources also we can frame the history. The awareness regarding sources to historians is important

يتم تحد ذلك من خلال شيوخهم ،،وخاصة الأوائل من المؤرخون يذكرون سلسلة الاسناد على الرغم من انه .

ليس حديثا نبويا

فلذا تجده يقول حدثتا او اخبربنا ، عن فلان عن فلان

I find that you only know, what you know through your own eyes and ears. For everything else, it takes a lot of research into everything you can read or view about the subject area. And even then, your only giving it your best impression. so much of history is slanted in one direction or another. Finding the fullest facts about occurrences demands looking beyond what is obvious, and going into deep-seated documented or video sources within that time and place. Also, interviewing people who were involved in events should be a standards resource, just to acquire the difference in perspectives about what they were doing at the time and why; and include all sides within the event. In modern history, there is so much more to the stories we hear, than what has been told in the obvious sources.

A historian should only accept the narrative that is based, ideally, on first-hand reporting. If such is not available then they may accept verifiable information. The process of verification should be through acceptable standards.

Historians can determine whether the source is reliable or not by doing internal and external criticism. These criticism basically examines the truthfulness, authenticity and reliability of a particular historical source whether primary or secondary source. This is one of the beauty of historical research

He has acquire knowledge on the subject through his experiments. it cannot be achieved in a day.

The historian has the historical document, he collects the views of all parties and analyzes them himself to arrive at the truth - the truth is not ready and needs serious research, analysis and study.

Historians have to know and study much to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different sources

Historians need to look at the documents, and see if there is a bias present, most, even older documents show bias. These documents can be used, but honesty , is important, especially in identifying a bias. Other documents should be looked at maybe of an opposing point of view. I give my class an exercise using two Civil War newspapers with opposing view points (same location, same day and same event). We must also recognize that no two eye witnesses will give he same account.

Aïnes Bachir Belmehdi . حيدر سالم المالكي added an answer 5 days ago, as follows:

"يتم تحد ذلك من خلال شيوخهم ،،وخاصة الأوائل من المؤرخون يذكرون سلسلة الاسناد على الرغم من انه . ليس حديثا نبويا " " فلذا تجده يقول حدثتا او اخبربنا ، عن فلان عن فلان "

Translated into English, as follows: "This is limited by their sheikhs, especially early historians who mention the chain of transmission even though it is not a prophetic hadith."

"So you find them saying, "Talk it up, or tell us, on the authority of so-and-so and so on so-and-so."

Source of the translation from Arabic to English: Internet Artificially Intelligent Translator