Talk:Primary source

Incorrect definitions

Comment by Birger Hjørland (Marts 30, 2005)

The way in which primary source, secondary source and tertiary source has been defined in Wikipedia is not in accordance with the way in which is has been defined by UNISIST in 1971 and taken over, by among others, the present writer. (See Fjordback Søndergaard; Andersen & Hjørland, 2003).

Also, the normal language in Library and information science is to speak of bibliografies and the like as secondary sources (or secundary literature).

There are variations in the use of these concepts between the humanities and the sciences, however, if a general terminology should be established, we recommend the UNISIST terminology.

Fjordback Søndergaard, T.; Andersen, J. & Hjørland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information. Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 278-320. Available at: http://www.db.dk/bh/UNISIST.pdf

Rewrite

This article needs a rewrite along the lines of the recent changes to Secondary source. It needs more coverage of non-event-oriented history, and more on the strengths and weaknesses of primary sources. Also, the rather patronizing comment that one needs an advanced degree to use primary sources should go. It's true that interpretation of some primary sources calls for advanced training; it's also true that grade-school children read primary sources all the time without knowing it. Wikipedia can do better. I might do this in a week or two, but I wouldn't object to someone else taking up the task. Katherine Tredwell 01:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This was completely rewritten a while ago, and I think the previous version was much better. You might consider taking a look at that. (I only made a very minor edit to the old version, so I don't have any personal pride that was injured through the rewrite.) up+land 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact is there are several hundred graduate programs in history in the US alone--and many more around the world--that focus on how to interpret primary sources. To say anybody can do it is meaningless. Yes elementary school students can look through telescopes and see the rings of Saturn but that does not make them astronomers who can write the Wiki article on Saturn. Rjensen 11:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely unacquainted with the existence of graduate programs in history. Sure, some texts are difficult, but the article goes too far. "In general, primary sources are difficult to use and advanced college or postgraduate training is normally required..." is simply untrue. A university freshman or bright high-school student can be given a research project and taught to ask questions about a source and its context. In the US at least, we don't do it, so nobody knows how to do it even with the simplest sources. Katherine Tredwell 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The freshmen are given a preassigned text and carefully taught how to handle it. They are NOT allowed to pick any primary source they want and plunge in. They do not learn general skills for dealing with primary sources--that is only taught in advanced college or grad school courses. Keep in mind that Wiki in historical articles strongly frowns on original research with primary sources. Rjensen 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that anyone can do any level of historical research on anything without any training, just that the current article overstates the case. Wikipedia frowns on original research in articles on any subject because it's an encyclopedia. Most generalist encyclopedias these days contain little or no original research. I won't discuss the matter further right now; I have better ways to spend my time. Whenever the article is revised we can take it up again. Katherine Tredwell 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I work with students in grades 4-12 on a program that is mostly devoted to students at those grades taking on research projects and supporting their thesis with primary and secondary sources. To say you need graduate training is completely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.21.99 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article says you need graduate training - "The interpretation of primary texts is typically taught as part of an advanced college or postgraduate history course, however advanced self-study or informal training is also possible." There are a few primary sources that are widely used below post grad - census returns for example. Nonetheless, AFAIK, formal training in "the interpretation of primary texts" is unusual in schools. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right that it does overstate the case. But I do think that it should be emphasized that most historians feel that some training is usually needed, or, at least, that the interpretation of primary sources is often quite difficult and requires a good deal of contextual knowledge (and one can interpret it as they wish -- perhaps it is just job security, after all!). --Fastfission 21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an age of specialization. Most people need special training to diagnose a medical condition, except that 200+ million people diagnose and treat themselves every day. The biggest problem in teaching historiography is that students come into the course with a lot of preconceptions about "truth" and "facts" that are seriously wrong-headed. Students assume there is one "truth" and the idea that historians have multiple competing explanations for the same events is a tough one. Happily these skills are not really needed on Wiki since we don't allow much original research on history. Rjensen 22:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to re-write part of this section. I was not convinced about some of the assertions. For example, some accurate histories can be written without use of a primary source. In any case, interpretation of modern primary sources is less difficult than earlier sources, although some earlier sources (eg parish registers) are relatively straight forward. Schools tend to avoid using difficult primary sources, but amateur historians may have no choice; they cannot wait until an appropriately trained professional takes an interest. Rjm at sleepers 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. primary source is by definition more authoritative than secondary source. I think there is a bit of confusion here. Yes, the seconary source could mean academic reseach. It could also refer to reference to contemporary social commentaries or journalism. Yes, one single primarly source is not authoritative. This miss that point. To establish a historical fact, primarly source have to be corraborated. You don't built historical fact from hearsay (i.e secondary source). Vapour

It doesn't miss the point to think about how to regard primary sources on the individual level, as well as the aggregate. On the individual level, many well-researched secondary sources are more authoritative than some primary sources. Katherine Tredwell 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A primary source is by no means more authoritative. "Primary" refers only to the way it is used, not to its veracity, its applicability, or its usefulness in understanding anything at all. Secondary sources are not "hearsay" at all (perhaps you mean something else by that than the literal definition)—in fact many primary sources are hearsay in the literal definition (Joe Doe writes in his diary that he heard Jane Doe say something). --Fastfission 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Bible a source?

There are many articles purporting to be History which are just Bible stories. We don't even know who wrote most of the bible or its provenance. If I ask for better sources I am ignored. If I delete the bible stories, I get blocked without any stated reason. Don't know why I bother. Fourtildas 06:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question in your heading, yes, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are both primary sources for ancient history, and the many other "bibles" out there can also be primary sources. They should be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other primary sources. What I think of as "Bible stories" are relevant to encyclopedias; they might be referred to in literary sources, for example. Instead of deleting them, just be sure the source is made clear in the article; e.g., if an article on an ancient war or city is based entirely on a biblical book, make sure that is mentioned in Wikipedia. Katherine Tredwell 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it it already is mentioned. I could replace the article with one sourced to the Scientology bible(or whatever they call it). At least we have a pretty good idea who wrote that. But I suspect you would use your Jimbo-given admin powers to revert it to the version based on the Judaeo-Christian story, without bothering with any justification or explanation.

All this could be avoided if we adopted the standards of peer-reviewed academic journals: If nobody there supports the flat earth or the earth centred universe or the parting of the red sea or the burning bush in the peer reviewed literature then these ideas are toast. But these ideas still live on in WP as long as "some people believe" in them.

Papers in Scholarly/Academic Journals...

... should often be classified as primary sources, IMHO. The classic case is the publication of results of experiments or fieldwork, especially when statistical or other forensic methodologies are involved. That is, the paper is not establishing facts, it is reporting evidence of some kind, all the more so when the research was motivated by some as yet unresolved issue. The basic problem here is the misuse of primary sources, already mentioned in WP policy. The paper being published in a reputable journal may meet the minimal requirements of a reliable source, but this does not automatically make the paper a secondary source suitable for citation in support of supposedly established facts. Put another way, the paper is original research, and its presence in the journal only makes it a primary source from a reliable source.

Failing to make this clear allows fringecreep, where an article on a controversy gets swamped by all sorts of tangential references, defended on the grounds that they are reliably sourced! rudra 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently this article is mainly about the use of primary sources by historians - presumably because that is the main interest of those who have edited it. It is addressed to the casual Wikipedia user. I don't believe it is intended as a contribution to a debate on WP policy. It is extremely rare for a paper in a scholarly or academic journal by a historian to be a primary source. There are a few exceptions - for example a scholarly edition of a primary text - where some of the content can legitimately be treated as primary. Most historians would treat the Philimore edition of Domesday as primary, particularly as access to the original is not permitted. None the less, even in such a scholarly edition, interpretation by the author is secondary. Scientists (of course) are not concerned about primary vs secondary sources, nor about verifiability as defined by WP. Their touchstone is whether a result can be confirmed by repeating the experiment. Rjm at sleepers 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

It is hard to tell if anything in this article is sourced, because of the almost complete lack of footnotes.--Sefringle 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Following your comments, the article now has 9 footnotes as well as references and external links. As far as I can see, the only thing controversial on the page is what level of training is needed to use primary sources. If you think it needs further citations, please note the specific assertions which you regard as unsourced. Rjm at sleepers 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgeries

How do people feel about:

"Although virtually every type of document that has been used by historians as a primary source has been forged at one time or another, primary sources in a reputable record office are likely to be authentic".

Rjm at sleepers 07:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the meaning and purpose--to warn people about what? Online forgeries? There are very few forgeries I can think of in last 100+ years that made any difference in historiography. How about this: "Historians dealing with recent centuries rarely encounter forgeries of any importance." Rjensen 08:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose I had in mind was to indicate to amateur family and local historians (probably the majority readers of this article) that documents in a county record office or in the National Archives are likely to be authentic. I'm happy with your wording, but I'll wait for other comments before putting it in. Rjm at sleepers 09:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a positive statement of reassurance makes more sense. It's very hard and rare to forge a historical document (usually it's to "authenticate" a forged art work or swindle.) . Rjensen 10:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Historians dealing with earlier centuries also rarely encounter major forgeries. Unless one counts pseudonymous works, most of which may not be "forgeries" in the modern sense. Katherine Tredwell 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

@ Rjm at Sleepers: The source you're using (Everyone has Roots) for the mention of Edward Dering's forgery, do you own it or have easy access to it? I can find no mention of him forging "monumental brasses" anywhere, but plenty of evidence that he forged the so-called Dering roll to enhance his own ancestry. --Labeet (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the discussion issued with a court ruling a primary source or a secondary source?

When a court issues a written ruling, with a statement of facts, followed by the discussion, the discussion has an obvious status of a primary source but also has an appearance of being a secondary source. I see a synthesis, where the judge(s) analyze prior rulings and prior history and synthesize it into a new opinion. Yet, I do not see a 'peer review'. Also, I am not sure the judge is playing the role of a scholar or a researcher, but perhaps some role close to this. I see a gray area, and I am curious of other editors opinions as to whether the discussion that accompanies court rulings is considered by Wikipedia guidelines to be a primary source, or a secondary source. SaltyBoatr 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a "discussion has an obvious status of a primary source". It seems to be after the fact and by non eye witnesses. This excludes it from being primary. Rjm at sleepers 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote obvious because Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Types_of_source_material (second paragraph) says that "historical documents (of) ... trials" are primary sources. It seems conflicted to me that on one hand: the written court opinion is primary, but somehow on the other hand: what they write in the court opinion is secondary. How can it be both? SaltyBoatr 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference in usage for the term primary source in different contexts. In historiography, a trial record is a primary source for the trial itself, but not necessarily for the events being described. The Eichmann trial for example took place so long after the event, that the evidence of the witnesses could not be considered primary. Similarly, the evidence of an "expert witness" would not usually be primary. Wikipedia seems to use the term differently. I would not regard newspaper reports as primary since they pass through the hands of a reporter and a sub-editor before appearing in print. Rjm at sleepers 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful reply. I should have been more clear with my question. I was thinking in context of the Wikipedia usage and meaning of the term. SaltyBoatr 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

During a spate of vandalism, we have lost the section on the use of primary sources. I'm not sure whether this was deliberate. I'll add it back shortly if no one argues for its removal. Rjm at sleepers 06:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of primary source

A large chunk of this section has twice been deleted and twice reverted. There may be a legitimate objection to the deleted text, but if so the deletion deserves a better explanation. At the moment, it looks to me that a constructive edit clarifying the objection would be a better way of proceeding. Rjm at sleepers 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Veracity of Primary Sources

Perhaps the 9/11 conspiracy could be used as an example of the veracity of a primary source. Yes, the live accounts at the time only mentioned a small plane instead of a commercial jetliner, or that there was a bomb going off in the buildings, but that's because nobody could believe it was even possible at the time. When the unbelievable happens, it should always be taken with a careful grain of salt. MMetro 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be helpful in an article that is about the use of source material in historical studies. Any mention of 9/11 conspiricy is likely to attract unconstructive edits. I suspect there are less contoversial examples you could choose if you want to make a point about primary sources - Canute commanding the sea to retreat, Columbus discovering America or George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Rjm at sleepers 06:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see the point about Columbus, how our maps conflict a bit with his account, but Washington chopping down the cherry tree is secondary, isn't it? -- Originating in a history book for kids? Maybe, just a regular court case of he said/she said. The transcripts of the testimony in the case is primary, even if they contradict each other.

MMetro 04:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your point is that primary sources can contradict each other and can be innacurate. A point worth making, although I think it is already covered to some extent. I would still advise against using examples from 9/11 (or the word conspiracy for that matter). Rjm at sleepers 06:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary source in scientific literature

Director Re has added "in the scientific literature, a primary source is the first report of a scientific result by the researchers themselves, and a secondary source is a synthesis of information from primary sources, usually published in review journals." I am not familiar with the usage in scientific literature, but I would have expected the publication of a result to be a secondary source whereas the primary source would be the researchers notebooks. Rjm at sleepers 05:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose it is a usage thing. In science we say "the primary literature" more often. In science we generate a lot of data which is never published. Data means nothing unless is is statistically significant. We write articles which are rejected after peer review. We live to get published. So in our way of thinking, if it wasn't published, it didn't happen. I imagine that historians are constrained by lack of data, and value the sources at the level of notebooks. So our systems are out of phase, with scientific notebooks being 0.5-ary sources (zeroary in science), articles being 1.5-ary (primary in science), review articles being 2.5-ary (secondary in science) from a historical perspective and only the tertiary being agreed on as for laypeople. Director Re 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Their notebooks are also primary sources-- the key word is synthesis. If they're presenting the findings of their experimental/theoretical research, what they show to the public: patent, book, journal article, thesis, science fair project, etc., is also a primary source. If they're writing for a mainstream medium, let's say Stephen Hawking writes an article for Time, he can't put the raw idea with its complex equations out there, so he is forced to synthesize and interpret his data into something the public can comprehend. He becomes like someone else looking at his work and writing about it, and is therefore creating a secondary source. He can also draw further conclusions from his previous research, perhaps annotating his original text. Without presenting new original research, his annotations would be creating a secondary source-- an analysis of his primary source.

That's also why the history of Fermat's Last Theorem has an annotation as a primary source.

MMetro 04:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the key word is interpretation. Virtualy no serious scientific paper simply presents the results of an experiment. The results are probably selected and certainly interpreted to extend, refute or support a particular hypothesis. In anycase, published scientific papers are not written at the time of the experiment so they fail to be contemporary. I'm not sure about "primary literature", but I have my doubts. Surely only historians (of science) go back and look at Mendel's original paper (or Newton's Principia or Galileo's Starry Messenger). Rjm at sleepers 06:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm just stating how scientists use the terms primary, secondary and tertiary when talking about scientific articles. Director Re 21:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RJM, contemporary does not mean an instantaneous moment in time. If two 18th Century researchers collaborated trans-Atlantic, they'd be contemporary but not simultaneous with the experiments. Take Franklin's kite experiment. So any reasonable delay in publishing results doesn't matter. And of course results are interpreted to support or disprove a hypothesis. That's the point of any experiment. And as for not going back to the original text, the information is much more readily available from a tertiary source such as a textbook, and presented at a level appropriate for the reader, or updated with modern information, such as including relativity with Newtonian physics in a science textbook.

The reason the notebooks and first publication are both primary is that they are the original work of the scientist. Supposing the scientist had made an error in setting up the controls of the experiment, another scientist can look at either materials and say, "This needs to be reexamined". I think calculating the speed of light, spontaneous generation, and Piltdown Man are probably examples. Mmetro 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not delay in publishing results. A modern edition of Domesday is regarded as a primary source despite being more than 900 years after the fact. The delay in writing for publication is significant. There will inevitably be selectivity and interpretation. It is similar to the difference between a diary written up each day and an autobiography written some time later - even if the autobiography uses the diary as a source. The deficiencies of a scientific paper as a primary source are highlighted by reading The Double Helix. However, as Director Re points out, there is a usage of the term primary literature in Science that is different from the usage of primary source in history. So a published paper by a modern scientist may belong to the primary literature as far as a scientist is concerned whilst not being a primary source for the historian. Rjm at sleepers 07:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Using primary resources

I have removed the following: "When using primary source material, care must be taken to not include copies of primary source material. In certain circumstances, there is a place for this source material, but usually not as part of an article."

I believe it is about Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia's no original research policy and IMO is not relevant or indeed true for using primary sources in historical studies. It probably should go in the relevant Wikipedia guideline. My apologies if I have misunderstood. Rjm at sleepers 08:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision

I don't feel comfortable with the most recent revision. How about the following:

In historiography and other areas of scholarship, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.

Rjm at sleepers 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. You got rid of some of the weasel words. Director Re 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I have changed the order of the intro, so that the definition precedes the statement about characteristics of a primary source. This is to avoid the inference that the first mention of a particular "fact" is by definition a primary source. Rjm at sleepers 09:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

There are a couple of citations to some library websites, which I'm deleting because they are not reliable sources. Also, the idea that library science has some special definition of primary source that differs from that of historiography is unverifiable, probably original research, and simply wrong. Library science uses the same definitions. Also, I resored a citation to a reliable source (a published book). COGDEN 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

These repeated attempts to change the meaning of "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" by removing the library and information science usage are inappropriate, and based on an agenda that was repeatedly made quite plain on WT:NOR, where the issue has been under debate by a number of dissenters about the use of source classification in WP:NOR. Post-secondary (college-level) library website pages are quite reliable summaries of PSTS in general library science usage. And that is centrally important in this article at present, because WP:NOR was linked by you (Cogden) to the main namespace articles such as this one. The vital distinction here is that libraries and other information resources use PSTS to facilitate any type of research, very analogously to Wikipedia, while other areas of scholarship classify sources as primary, secondary and tertiary in order to facilitate original research in their respective disciplines. Thus, the library science usage is a crucial part of this article, every bit as much as more specific areas of scholarship such as historiography. ... Kenosis 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how these sources are unreliable. An explanation of why precisely they are not reliable would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 18:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how they are reliable either. In fact, I fail to see how any of the edits COGDEN has made to this article or the Secondary source article are of any value. But, perhaps he can explain why I'm mistaken in my assessment, and why his edits are not just of value, but are superior to any of those made by Kenosis and I shall declare with words of soberness that I was in error.

The question is not which edits are of "more value." The question is whether they are verifiable. I have yet to see a reliable source stating that the library science definitions are different from that used in historiography. First, they are unreliable because they are transient websites that are not subject to a fact-checking process. Second, the cites themselves do not say that their definitions are different from those used in historiography. Any such inferences are original research. Besides, all the definitions on these websites are consistent with the definitions used by historiographers. If you want to say something, make sure it is verifiable and isn't just your own interpretation of the website. COGDEN 23:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...yeah...ummm...

Transient websites? Are they going to be locked up on vagrancy charges?

Second, the cites themselves do not say that their definitions are different from those used in historiography. What does that mean? Really, what does it mean? I don't recall disclaimers in the OED along the lines of "warning: this definition is different from that of Merriam-Webster".

If the defs aren't different, why do you argue that the sources of the defs are unreliable? Or is the difference you perceive (or maybe don't perceive) OR? Or are you somehow saying that stating that chicken nuggets and filet mignon are different is OR? I'm sorry, but the entire argument you've raised makes no sense and there's really no logical way to address it. •Jim62sch• 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you need a reliable source that says the library science definition of primary/secondary differs from that of historiography. These sources don't say that. In the secondary source, there has been suggested some anonymous librarian webmaster's definition that sort of says something related, but not really, but that's not a reliable source, for the reasons discussed on that page. And it doesn't even really say that, so if you say it in the article, that constitutes WP:OR.

The reason I'm arguing against including these citations, even though the definitions in the citations are the same as that in the published peer-reviewed sources, is that we have this policy called WP:RS, that says we have to use reliable sources, not just some high school teacher's syllabus or some library's "help page". COGDEN 17:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, but you don't have consensus. I reverted. •Jim62sch• 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are reverting relevant, verifiable information that is cited to reliable sources. If you disagree, the correct approach is not to censor what you disagree with, but rather to find your own sources and incorporate contrasting points of view, if you can find them in reliable sources. COGDEN 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this isn't a pissing contest. You are trying to change policy based on arguments that are bereft of reason, unless one defines reason as a burning desire to add OR to a specific article. If you wish to make changes to policy, see frigging WP:Consensus and try to work on achieving it. •Jim62sch• 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The content here is independent of the policy. This is about the definition of a primary source, for which Wikipedia is totally irrelevant. We can't go beyond what is said in the reliable sources. This article needs verifiability, which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. We can't ignore Wikipedia policy just because one of the policy pages is related to the definitions discussed herein. We need to get this page right, and if someone thinks the policy is not compatible with the term primary source, then we'll use some other term there. But we can't sacrifice WP:V just for this page. COGDEN 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't even know what this "for which Wikipedia is totally irrelevant" means. Hell, I don't know what your entire screed means. •Jim62sch• 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at RS noticeboard

FYI, I've brought up the issue of whether library help pages are reliable sources on the Reliable Source noticeboard, so that we can have some outside comment. It's obvious where I stand, but if there appears to be a Wikipedia-wide consensus that Wikipedia should accept such websites as reliable sources, then I'll accept that. Ultimately, it doesn't matter as far as the content is concerned, since the definitions are the same, but it's the principle of the thing—I think that when peer-reviewed journals are available, we have no business citing some library nerd's website (which is all these are, for all we know). COGDEN 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, right. •Jim62sch• 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Earliest source primary

I have modified the comment "the primary nature of a source may also derive from the fact that no copy of an original source material exists, and it is the oldest extant source for the information cited". I have not checked the reference, but I assume it does accurately reflect the sentiments expressed. Nonetheless, there are many historians who would not accept this idea. For example in The Archimedes Codex (page 32), Netz points out that the earliest source for Archimedes age at death was in the 12th century AD. He describes the source as "a gossipy, fanciful poem". Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This article's lede, while well-sourced, commits original research. It presents definitions of primary sources as authoritative and unified, which couldn't be further from the truth. It pushes a particular (synthesized) POV of primary sources, instead of objectively describing the many varied and often contradicting definitions of primary sources. Vassyana (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think a particular POV is not adequately represented, then please add it. What is it, anyway? You should be more specific. COGDEN 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that a composite definition based on the POV of an editor is what is presented. A synthesized definition is provided, rather than accurately presenting the issue. Vassyana (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty understanding what you regard as original research or POV. There are 6 citations in 7 lines. The only significant statement without a citation is "a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." Is this what you regard as POV? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No. See WP:SYN. You can have tons of citations, but it doesn't mean the article is fine. The lede takes a particular POV and justifies it by weaving together different definitions. There are several common definitions of "primary source" and they can be quite different both between and within fields. The article should not be presenting them as a unified definition and should not be presenting information limited to certain fields and subfields as universal. COGDEN damn well knows better because he's discussed this issue repeatedly and been shown how his approach is flawed. Vassyana (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written and removed tag. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The rewriting is quite appropriate, since the term "primary source" not only has historiographical meaning but also medical meaning and other meanings. The original lead was quite misleading to novices. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

original recording

I've never heard a primary source be called an original recording - this may be ignorance on my part. Most internet usage of the term original recording seems to be about audio. Anyway, I'll put a fact tag on it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No source, so I will remove it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)