What are the records in Chinese history books that are considered untrustworthy or doubtful today?

In fact, to answer this question, as long as we ourselves are the ones who record history, and we experience the work of historians by ourselves, we can understand.

Now a few of us are historians, and we are responsible for sorting out the domestic and international events that are happening now, writing them into words, and leaving them to future generations, and future generations will look at what is happening to us now that we are now recording in writing, and future generations will be reading the history books.

So what do we, the historians, write? A few of us went to the scene of each incident to see it in person, and then wrote after reading it? Of course, this is good, so that you can grasp the first-hand information, as long as you keep an eye on the incident from the beginning to the end of the incident, then the information recorded in this way can be as close to the original facts as possible.

This kind of historical information is more authentic and credible. However, there are so many events that happen every day that we historians have only grown a few legs and eyes, and with a few of us, we can't run or see it! How many events can we see in person?

That's just a drop in the bucket! Most of the information can only be collected from others by our historians. In other words, let us record what happened in the world, and most of what we wrote down as historians was not what we saw and heard with our own eyes and ears at the scene, but what we were told by others.

That is to say, what our descendants will see in the future that the present historical events recorded by a few of our historians are nothing more than the information and materials that we, the historians, have heard from others and some of our own personal experiences.

So how reliable is the information we obtain from other people about various events?

In fact, in real operation, most of the information we obtain from a person is not the first-hand information of this person, and this person listens to what others say, and others listen to what others say. Of course, the people at the scene of the incident knew the true situation of the incident, but after such a transmission of the occurrence of the incident to the ears of us historians, it has long been different. How true are the so-called historical events that we have recorded based on these materials?

In fact, we historians ourselves don't know.

It would be better if those who provided us historians with information just did not read it all, did not remember it completely, and misheard and misremembered, but if these people deliberately distorted the facts, the authenticity would be even worse. If we, the historians, can truthfully record what we hear and see, then it would be a little better, and if our historians falsify again, then our descendants will see the history books we compiled in the future, and they can only use them as references.

In this way, after experiencing the work of historians, we can understand how we should view historical documents correctly through empathy.

In fact, the content in the current history books has been slowly being confirmed to be true. Therefore, the things that are not necessarily recorded in the official history are undoubted.

Because the history books record the events of the past, it is impossible for everything to be conclusive.

It's definitely all elegant, but it's not 100%, and it's still a little bit watery.

Not everything is conclusively evidenced, as it will certainly be influenced by both objective and subjective factors.

The reason why history books are called official histories is because they are mixed with relatively few personal subjective thoughts.

It should be said that it is basically in line with historical facts, but there are also some things that are mixed with the author's thoughts.

I don't think it's necessarily conclusive, because the ancient history books were all about the later dynasties and the previous dynasties, and what they wrote was in their favor.

It's a bit too absolute, but it's basically fine.

I think most of the recorded things are still unmistakable.