Yep, there are those. I’m curious, did he have an agenda in the wrong facts or just didn’t do proper research....or went with local tales that he didn’t bother to verify?
I can’t speak to the person in question, but as a historian reading other historians one thing I have noticed with some is that someone will come along, read one or a handful of books and then all of a sudden thinks they’re an expert. And when challenged by a clearly verifiable fact they spit venom instead of changing their opinions.
I’ve had this challenge myself(unknowingly) in my readings of progressive era documents and books, as the era isn’t fully documented. Most conservatives do not want to look at it, and progressives have a vested interest in covering it up and making it smell good. So what documentation does exist, the vast majority of it is wrong.
For example, so and so historical figure actually wrote 8 books, not the 6 he or she has become known for over the years. And those two less known books are really the ones that get to the meat of the matter. Or so and so was involved with some group and every single historian glosses over that fact even though it tells so much of the full story. Those sorts of things.
The issue is more compounded for me personally as I take the time to record audiobooks using the original source material, and put them on the internet for free download, because I want others around me to be more educated.
It slows me down but it needs to be done.