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Unpublished primary sources are regularly used in academic research.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
