An old book says a king was great and kind
An old book says a king was great and kind. The book was written in that king's own court. Ravi says it must be true because it was written at the time. Is Ravi's reasoning strong?
Who do you think is right? Pick one.
The answer: No — who wrote it matters
Why
Ravi has a fair point — being written at the time IS a real strength; the writer was actually there. But 'was there' isn't the same as 'told the whole truth'. This book was written in the king's OWN court, by people who served him and depended on him. They had every reason to praise and none to record his faults, so their account leans one way. To judge a source, historians ask two things: was the writer present, AND did they have a reason to bend the truth? This one passes the first, fails the second. Test: would you trust a player's own team to be the referee for their match? They saw it — but they're not neutral. Who wrote it matters: an eyewitness with a stake in the story is a clue, not a verdict — you'd check it against sources that had no reason to flatter.
On Socho, you explain your thinking out loud and a coach asks about YOUR reasoning — one question a day, free, in Hindi, Hinglish or English.
Try a question on Socho →More disagreements in Timeline and Sources of History