Historical thinking, a term that encompasses a diverse set of definitions and competencies, calls on students to replicate the work and cognitive processes of historians by analyzing and interpreting evidence and making logical conclusions based on this evidence. Given this emphasis on discipline-specific skills, "sources" (especially primary sources) constitute a significant feature of the research about historical thinking. Much of this literature stresses the need for "accurate," "reliable," "trustworthy," and "legitimate" evidence when constructing a historical argument. Although this emphasis on accuracy can be helpful in understanding the cognitive processes associated with the study of history, it does not effectively reflect the way historians work within their discipline. A historian might subject a piece of evidence to a reliability assessment, but a source's utility is not dependent solely on its accuracy. Moreover, historians regularly use different kinds of unreliable evidence to construct historical arguments. The study here thus proposes to do two things. First, it provides a new perspective on historical thinking by illustrating the role that inaccurate and unreliable evidence can play in the creation of a historical account. Second, this study examines the idea of evidence use as a component of historical expertise and the discipline-specific skills associated with the study of history.