Hello. You did not enter the text to which this question refers, which makes it impossible to answer it efficiently. However, I will try to help you in the best possible way.
An objective historian is one who exposes historical facts impartially, that is, that historian does not expose his feelings regarding the research or the period he is reporting, on the contrary, this type of historian proposes to tell historical facts in a rational way and as the name says, objective. It is likely that Barbot has presented contradictory information in this regard, interfering with the impartial presentation of the facts, which justifies the reasons why an objective historian should be careful in relying too much on Barbot's words.