Stendhal Quotes

Fact-checking doesn't exist primarily because some of us are liars and cheats. It exists because writers will be writers, much as they may mean to be historians.

Kids are smart: don't underestimate their bull detector. Contemporary kids have access to a lot of information, so don't even try to fool them. I have never been more nervous about my research than when writing for young adults because they pick up every single error.

The historian has a special obligation to sobriety and fidelity to the record.

The good historian is not for any time or any country: while he loves his fatherland, he never flatters it in anything.

See, I have no journalism in my background, so I wasn't practised at research or writing non-fiction, nor at handling the truth in a journalistic way. Journalists know when to call a halt and write something, but I kept on looking for answers.

Seek truth from facts.

But I'm very careful with opinions because I never know what the truth is. When I read what the press says about me, I don't really believe what it says about other people.

Intellectual honesty is the quality that the public in free countries always has expected of historians; much more than that it does not expect, nor often get.

Never question the relevance of truth, but always question the truth of relevance.

I do not fear truth. I welcome it. But I wish all of my facts to be in their proper context.

Writers don't have to keep themselves honest. They have to keep themselves accurate.

I haven't exaggerated anything, I've stuck to the facts.

It becomes him that writes an History, sometimes to extol enemies in his praises, when their praise worthy actions bespeak it, and at the same time to reprove the best friends, when their deeds appear worthy of a reproof; in-as-much as History is good for nothing, if truth (which is the very eye of the animal) be not in it.

We don't print the truth. We don't pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It's up to the public to decide what's the truth.

I think you get into trouble as an author and a journalist when, rather than owning the gaps, you try to elide them.

When there are falsehoods and ludicrous statements made at briefings, we've got to call that out.

I tell the truth. That's my training as a reporter.

With nonfiction, I go in trying to be really honest about what my preconceptions are.

The first law of history is to dread uttering a falsehood; the next is not to fear stating the truth; lastly, the historian's writings should be open to no suspicion of partiality or animosity.

Who doesn't know that the first law of history is not to dare to say anything false, and the second is not to refrain from saying anything true?

History is not history unless it is the truth.

Who does not know that the first law of historical writing is the truth.

The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.

First, what does truth require? It requires us to face the facts as they are, not to involve ourselves in self-deception; to refuse to think merely in slogans. If we are to work for the future of the city, let us deal with the realities as they actually are, not as they might have been, and not as we wish they were.

The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is omission or de-emphasis of important data. The definition of 'important', of course, depends on one's values.