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 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.wikime > dia.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 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
