You've completely missed what I was saying. A historian doesn't cite Mein Kampf to give context to what they're saying, the historian uses Mein Kampf as data. F

You've completely missed what I was saying. A historian doesn't cite Mein Kampf to give context to what they're saying, the historian uses Mein Kampf as data. For a historian, Mein Kampf is perfectly valid data. On the other hand, Mein Kampf 2: Meiner Kampfer is not valid data, and any paper citing it as if it were should be immediately considered suspect. A scientist citing a retracted paper is like a historian citing a forgery: fine if it's a harmless aside, catastrophic if their claims hinge upon its reliability.