Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Jay you are confusing source-based research with original research. If you research something to *confirm* it by researching in sources, you are not doing original research.? If you research it by repeating experiments then you would be. I doubt that any textbook author confirms their sources by repeating the experiments. Will -Original Message- From: Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources I agree with Gerard on this. Textbooks are typically loaded with primary sources, and the textbook is a secondary source, even if the author of the textbook did some orijinal research to confirm what the primary source said -- does not mean that research was reviewed. As far as private definitions are concerned, if there is a key difference between yours and my definition, it can be either inconsequential in a context or a key point of difference in a conversation. Every debate leads to confusion. If you are lucky, it does not lead to polarization. ___ http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/Tiggerz.mp3 Tune http://www.pooh-corner.org/tigger_lyrics.shtml Lyrics wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message news:8cbff4f848d9479-2ee4-14...@webmail-m017.sysops.aol.com... I dispute that this is my private meaning. And I propose that this is the standard meaning. As well as the inworld meaning. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources 2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com: What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter what their source was. You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term is not the established meaning for this term, which has been in use since well before Wikipedia started. And that using private definitions of terms without acknowledging doing so only leads to confusion. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
I agree with Gerard on this. Textbooks are typically loaded with primary sources, and the textbook is a secondary source, even if the author of the textbook did some orijinal research to confirm what the primary source said -- does not mean that research was reviewed. As far as private definitions are concerned, if there is a key difference between yours and my definition, it can be either inconsequential in a context or a key point of difference in a conversation. Every debate leads to confusion. If you are lucky, it does not lead to polarization. ___ http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/Tiggerz.mp3 Tune http://www.pooh-corner.org/tigger_lyrics.shtml Lyrics wjhon...@aol.com wrote in message news:8cbff4f848d9479-2ee4-14...@webmail-m017.sysops.aol.com... I dispute that this is my private meaning. And I propose that this is the standard meaning. As well as the inworld meaning. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources 2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com: What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter what their source was. You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term is not the established meaning for this term, which has been in use since well before Wikipedia started. And that using private definitions of terms without acknowledging doing so only leads to confusion. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Carl (CBM) wrote: It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit their own objectives. Yes, this happens quite often. It's partially a consequence of certain policies, such as WP:N, directly referring to secondary sources, even when this is not the right metric. For example, one reason that people want to count contemporary newspaper articles as secondary sources is to establish notability immediately for contemporary events, without waiting a year for better sources to develop. We need to go back to the old rubicon of reliable sources. The idea of primary and secondary sources is one which causes too much confusion on Wikipedia because these terms rely on context. When I quote some historian they becomes a primary source. When I summarise their work they are a secondary source. A newspaper can be a primary and a secondary source, whether it was published today or 100 years ago. It's a primary source for how things were reported at the time, but it is a secondary source for the events themselves. Nobody would regard a newspaper report of the assassination of Lincoln as a primary source for the actual assassination, but they would regard it a reliable source for information on the assassination, and really, that should be all that matters to us. I agree that the notability guidance makes things a lot harder for us, but that's because people seem to have misunderstood its purpose, or I seem to have misunderstood its goal when I was framing half of it. It's supposed to be there to stop us writing about stuff no-one independent of the thing itself has written about, but it has meandered far from that purpose to become something we simply argue about and fail to understand. It would be easier if we got rid of it and relied instead on stripped back versions of WP:V, WP:NOR WP:NPOV and WP:COI, but there's too much invested in the way we are now to ever go back. Isn't there some curse somewhere about the road to hell. I certainly regret my good intentions regarding notability. I have found it easier to ignore notability, follow what I think the spirit of WP:V, WP:NOR WP:NPOV and WP:COI are and not get waylaid by too much drama, but I've learnt to run away when drama ensues and let time sort it out.What's that other maxim about the best way to defeat your enemies is to outlast them? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com: What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter what their source was. You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term is not the established meaning for this term, which has been in use since well before Wikipedia started. And that using private definitions of terms without acknowledging doing so only leads to confusion. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly cause a book to revert to primary source status? I have seen the dual argument as well: that sources which would certainly be counted as primary if they were 100 years old must be counted as secondary sources if they are recent. For example, if we wrote an article about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln entirely from newspaper articles published in 1865, nobody would say we had written this from secondary sources. But some do argue that an article written entirely from newspaper articles published in 2009 is written from secondary sources. It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit their own objectives. Yes, this happens quite often. It's partially a consequence of certain policies, such as WP:N, directly referring to secondary sources, even when this is not the right metric. For example, one reason that people want to count contemporary newspaper articles as secondary sources is to establish notability immediately for contemporary events, without waiting a year for better sources to develop. - Carl ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
I dispute that this is my private meaning. And I propose that this is the standard meaning. As well as the inworld meaning. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources 2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com: What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter what their source was. You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term is not the established meaning for this term, which has been in use since well before Wikipedia started. And that using private definitions of terms without acknowledging doing so only leads to confusion. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter what their source was. -Original Message- From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:44 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources From: wjhon...@aol.com Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly cause a book to revert to primary source status? It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit their own objectives. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
I don't equate second hand witness to secondary source. A primary source is the first source we have that describes a certain event. Matilda was baptised in the Church of St Mary last Easter is a primary source if the author isn't merely parroting some other known source. The author doesn't need to be an eye-witness and in fact can be parroting some earlier now-lost source and *still* be a primary source. Do you agree with that last statement? The first source we know about, that we still have, is a primary source, no matter how the information came to the writer. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Yes, chronicles are accepted as primary sources, because there is nothing further back from them--they serve essentially the same function as newspapers. Obviously, they have to be used with a good deal of interpretation,just as newspapers. I don't believe everything in a newspaper happened just as they describe it either. However, the ASC, as many other chronicles, also serve as secondary sources, commenting on the events they describe: for example, the famous analysis of K. William I at 1087 is a secondary evaluation, more of less like a modern editorial in a newspaper, which is a secondary source, David Goodman, Ph.D, M .L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:24 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source. And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project. I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Some are, some aren't. Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe that every event there described is being described by an eye-witness? No. In fact it's possibly doubtful whether any of it is eye-witness testimony. Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary or secondary. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources20in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made 0Ato exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. =0 A Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement. That is not correct Andrew. Each source must be published. Typically witness statements are not themselves published. You are confusing first-hand experience with primary source. A primary souce, even a census return is not first-hand, it's merely first publication. If you took you example to extreme, then there would be no primary sources at all. W.J. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source. And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project. I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Some are, some aren't. Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe that every event there described is being described by an eye-witness? No. In fact it's possibly doubtful whether any of it is eye-witness testimony. Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary or secondary. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources20in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. =0 A Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources are phrases that are regularly used by historians and other academics whose use considerable pre-date Wikipedia. Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary source is something like a census return or, in this case, a witness statement
Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources
Yes, chronicles are accepted as primary sources, because there is nothing further back from them--they serve essentially the same function as newspapers. Obviously, they have to be used with a good deal of interpretation,just as newspapers. I don't believe everything in a newspaper happened just as they describe it either. However, the ASC, as many other chronicles, also serve as secondary sources, commenting on the events they describe: for example, the famous analysis of K. William I at 1087 is a secondary evaluation, more of less like a modern editorial in a newspaper, which is a secondary source, David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:24 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source. And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project. I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources. Some are, some aren't. Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe that every event there described is being described by an eye-witness? No. In fact it's possibly doubtful whether any of it is eye-witness testimony. Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary or secondary. -Original Message- From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing research in history or any listing of sources at the end of an historical book or article. From the POV of Wikipedia, we've been considering it a secondary source, which is the way most people think of it. what we call primary sources: is the archival material that an historian also calls primary sources, but normally lists separately in a bibliography. if the reporter's notebooks are preserved, that's also a primary source. The analysis of the differences between the primary sources20in attempting to reconstruct what happened is what historians do. The articles monographs other historians publish giving their analysis is what they consider the secondary sources. Similarly, in science, the actual archival primary sources are, in a sense, the lab notebooks--and they are preserved as such, for patents and the like. But a primary scientific paper is the one reporting the work, and a secondary paper is a review. The Wikipedia definition is a term of art at Wikipedia, used because we need some way of differentiating between material which is edited, and that which is not. The primary sources are the unedited reports. As a newspaper is edited, its a secondary source. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book only held in 12 libraries. However if that item is published that does not create a secondary source. And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not make it a secondary source. A primary source is merely the first time a given situation is made to exist. Even if King Yog took notes before his interview with me, and had them typed up and collated by someone else and then read them to me, and I copied them out and published them, I'm not creating a teritary source out of all that. =0 A Everything that comes before primary is merely part of the process of creating a source. Just because there are levels and layers of information doesn't push the source into being secondary or teritiary. The notes are primary, the typed version is primary, the manuscript is primary, and the final published version is all still primary. I think I wrote a monograph on this a while ago when someone asked me if a school transcript is a secondary source (it's not) their reasoning was that it's built from various primary sources which are the grading worksheets from various teachers. However my reasoning is that all of the preparation is merely the necessary steps to create the source. It's instructive to consider whether making images available online of a primary source creates a secondary source. How about making minor editing corrections? At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Are we talking at cross purposes here? Primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary
