Content deleted Content added
Fgnievinski (talk | contribs) |
Fgnievinski (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 9:
Primary sources are distinguished from ''[[secondary source]]s'', which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20130726061349/http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources Primary, secondary and tertiary sources]". University Libraries, University of Maryland.</ref> A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.<ref>"[http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary Primary and secondary sources] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301225514/http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary |date=1 March 2016 }}". Ithaca College Library.</ref> For example, a [[memoir]] would be considered a primary source in research concerning its author or about their friends characterized within it, but the same memoir would be a secondary source if it were used to examine the culture in which its author lived. "Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.<ref name=Handlin/>{{rp|118–246}}<ref name="Kragh">{{Cite book |last=Kragh |first=Helge |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OX7d7u_2rF4C&pg=PA121 |title=An Introduction to the Historiography of Science |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1989 |isbn=0-521-38921-6 |page=121 |quote=[T]he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for.}}</ref>
==Classifying sources==▼
{{see also|Secondary source#Classification of sources|Source text#Classification in levels}}
Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined.<ref name=Kragh/> Moreover, the distinction between ''primary'' and ''secondary'' sources is subjective and contextual,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dalton| first1=Margaret Stieg|last2=Charnigo|first2=Laurie|title=Historians and Their Information Sources|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=September 2004|volume=65|issue=5|page=419| doi=10.5860/crl.65.5.400|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/400.full.pdf+html|access-date=3 January 2017|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> so that precise definitions are difficult to make.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Delgadillo|first1=Roberto|last2=Lynch|first2=Beverly|title=Future Historians: Their Quest for Information|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/60/3/245.full.pdf+html|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=May 1999|volume=60|issue=3 |pages=245–259, at 253|quote=[T]he same document can be a primary or a secondary source depending on the particular analysis the historian is doing.|doi=10.5860/crl.60.3.245|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> A book review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source.<ref name="Princeton">{{Cite web|url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review|title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Princeton |year=2011 |author=Princeton|work=Scholarly definition document }}</ref><ref name="VirginiaTech">{{Cite web |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |year=2011 |author=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |work=Scholarly definition document |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110910082750/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archive-date=10 September 2011 }}</ref>▼
If a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion. Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary<ref name=Duffin>{{Cite book|last=Duffin|first=Jacalyn|title=History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=__oDQ6yDO7kC&q=%22secondary+source%22+historiography&pg=PA366|year=1999|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=0-8020-7912-1|page=366}}</ref> or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.<ref name=Duffin/>▼
Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Henige|first=David|title=Primary Source by Primary Source? On the Role of Epidemics in New World Depopulation|journal=Ethnohistory|volume=33|issue=3|year=1986|pages=292–312, at 292|doi=10.2307/481816|jstor=481816|publisher=Ethnohistory, Vol. 33, No. 3|pmid=11616953|quote=[T]he term 'primary' inevitably carries a relative meaning insofar as it defines those pieces of information that stand in closest relationship to an event or process ''in the present state of our knowledge''. Indeed, in most instances the very nature of a primary source tells us that it is actually derivative.…[H]istorians have no choice but to regard certain of the available sources as 'primary' since they are as near to truly original sources as they can now secure}}</ref> For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary"<ref>{{Harvnb|Henige|1986|p=292}}.</ref>▼
In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information cited.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Ambraseys|first1=Nicholas|last2=Melville|first2=Charles Peter|last3=Adams|first3=Robin Dartrey|title=The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia, and the Red Sea|year=1994|isbn=0-521-39120-2|publisher=Cambridge University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dtVqdSKnBq4C&q=historiography+%22primary+source%22+%22secondary+source%22&pg=PA7|page=7|quote=The same chronicle can be a primary source for the period contemporary with the author, a secondary source for earlier material derived from previous works, but also a primary source when these earlier works have not survived}}</ref>▼
==Significance of source classification==
Line 62 ⟶ 73:
Participants and [[witness|eyewitness]]es may misunderstand events or distort their reports, deliberately or not, to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate.<ref>Barbara W. Sommer and Mary Kay Quinlan, ''The Oral History Manual'' (2002)</ref> For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias.<ref>Library of Congress, " Analysis of Primary Sources" [http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/psources/analyze.html online 2007]</ref> As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it may be [[censorship|censored]] or altered for propaganda or [[cover-up]] purposes. The facts can be [[distortion|distorted]] to present the opposing sides in a negative light. [[Barrister]]s are taught that evidence in a court case may be truthful but may still be distorted to support or oppose the position of one of the parties.
▲==Classifying sources==
▲Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined.<ref name=Kragh/> Moreover, the distinction between ''primary'' and ''secondary'' sources is subjective and contextual,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dalton| first1=Margaret Stieg|last2=Charnigo|first2=Laurie|title=Historians and Their Information Sources|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=September 2004|volume=65|issue=5|page=419| doi=10.5860/crl.65.5.400|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/400.full.pdf+html|access-date=3 January 2017|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> so that precise definitions are difficult to make.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Delgadillo|first1=Roberto|last2=Lynch|first2=Beverly|title=Future Historians: Their Quest for Information|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/60/3/245.full.pdf+html|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=May 1999|volume=60|issue=3 |pages=245–259, at 253|quote=[T]he same document can be a primary or a secondary source depending on the particular analysis the historian is doing.|doi=10.5860/crl.60.3.245|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> A book review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source.<ref name="Princeton">{{Cite web|url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review|title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Princeton |year=2011 |author=Princeton|work=Scholarly definition document }}</ref><ref name="VirginiaTech">{{Cite web |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |year=2011 |author=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |work=Scholarly definition document |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110910082750/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archive-date=10 September 2011 }}</ref>
▲If a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion. Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary<ref name=Duffin>{{Cite book|last=Duffin|first=Jacalyn|title=History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=__oDQ6yDO7kC&q=%22secondary+source%22+historiography&pg=PA366|year=1999|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=0-8020-7912-1|page=366}}</ref> or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.<ref name=Duffin/>
▲Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Henige|first=David|title=Primary Source by Primary Source? On the Role of Epidemics in New World Depopulation|journal=Ethnohistory|volume=33|issue=3|year=1986|pages=292–312, at 292|doi=10.2307/481816|jstor=481816|publisher=Ethnohistory, Vol. 33, No. 3|pmid=11616953|quote=[T]he term 'primary' inevitably carries a relative meaning insofar as it defines those pieces of information that stand in closest relationship to an event or process ''in the present state of our knowledge''. Indeed, in most instances the very nature of a primary source tells us that it is actually derivative.…[H]istorians have no choice but to regard certain of the available sources as 'primary' since they are as near to truly original sources as they can now secure}}</ref> For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary"<ref>{{Harvnb|Henige|1986|p=292}}.</ref>
▲In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information cited.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Ambraseys|first1=Nicholas|last2=Melville|first2=Charles Peter|last3=Adams|first3=Robin Dartrey|title=The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia, and the Red Sea|year=1994|isbn=0-521-39120-2|publisher=Cambridge University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dtVqdSKnBq4C&q=historiography+%22primary+source%22+%22secondary+source%22&pg=PA7|page=7|quote=The same chronicle can be a primary source for the period contemporary with the author, a secondary source for earlier material derived from previous works, but also a primary source when these earlier works have not survived}}</ref>
==Forgeries==
| |||