patcleaver

If you disagree then post a definition of "primary source" and give me a reference. Otherwise your just blowing smoke.

Malachi151

Google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

http://www.library.unr.edu/instructi...p/primary.html

A primary source is defined in relative terms in relation to what one is talking about.

If I am writing a paper on Plato's The Republic then The Republic is a primary source. Any copy of it from any book store or even on the internet is still a primary source.

A secondary source would be a writing ABOUT The Republic. So, if I wrote a paper on The Republic, but I never actually read The Republic and all of the references in my paper were to other books by people who had written about The Republic, then my entire paper would be based on secondary sources, because it would be based on other people's interpretation of The Republic without any first-hand knowledge myself.

On the other hand, if I were writing a paper about interpretations of The Republic, then those same books that were considered secondary sources before would now be considered primary sources. In this case a secondary source would be reviews of other books about the The Republic.

patcleaver

I read both your sites - they both indicate that a copy is not the primary source.

A copy of a primary source is not the primary source. It is only a copy of the primary source.

A copy of something may be a primary source for some purposes, but it is not the original primary source.

It is just sloppy to call the copy of a primary source the primary source. You should cite the book or other source where you found a copy of the Republic. A copy of a primary source might be good evidence of information that is contained in the primary source of you can prove that the copier is reliable.

Solitary Man

Actually, translations are secondary sources as well.

Amaleq13

You seem to have forgotten to give your reference. Given this challenge, I can only assume your post was very well researched.

patcleaver

What is a primary source? That depends on the historical fact that your trying to establish. A particular thing is a primary source for establishing the particular fact that generated it. Everything in the universe is a primary source for at least its own contents at the time the thing was last modified. However, you are usually interested other facts then that.

Making a translation is an historical event, and the original translation is an artifact, and the primary source, for the fact that the translation was made and what the translation contained when it was made. It would be great if we had the original Septuagint or Jerome's original vulgate. They are certainly historical artifacts that are primary sources for their original contents and might be evidence of other facts contemporanious with their creation.

Yea, Roger cut off my post - here is an improve version.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary historical sources of information for the purpose of establishing an historical facts are:
1. artifacts generated by people participating in or otherwise witnessing the historical fact, at the time of the fact, that are evidence of the fact; and
2. artifacts that are recordings of information, generated by participants and other witnesses of the fact, made immediately after the fact, that are evidence of the fact.

Only the actual original artifact is a primary source - not the information that the artifact contains.

A copy of a primary source is not a primary source, but if the copier can be proved to be reliable, it may be reliable evidence of the primary source.

A translation of a primary source is not the primary source.

Histories are almost never primary sources of anything except for the issue of what were the contents of the history when it was created.

The primary source has to be created contemporaneous with the fact that the primary source is being used to establish.

Documents that are forgeries, fictions, fakes, or otherwise unauthentic or unreliable for some purpose are not primary sources for that purpose. If you were studying forgeries then the forgery would be the primary source for its own contnets.

The proponent claiming that an artifact is a primary source for supporting some fact, must establish the authenticity and reliability of the artifact for supporting that fact.

If there is reasonable suspicion that an artifact is a forgery, fiction, fake or otherwise unreliable regarding the purpose of its use, then it can not be used as a primary source.

Amaleq13

Still no references though you require them of others?

patcleaver

Could you please be specific about what you disagree with?

Amaleq13

I "disagree" with your demand for references when you give none to support your own assertions. It is hypocrisy.

Malachi151

No, not really. As the links discuss, first of all, its all relative and its fuzzy.

Generally speaking, translations and copies are still considered primary sources. "THE ORIGINAL" may be considered "more primary" IF one there is concern about forgeries or poor translations or things of this nature, certainly.

The main distinction has nothing to do with whether or not the writing is "the original", but rather it has to do with commentaries and analysis.

Its much easier to define secondary sources actually. A secondary source is a commentary on another source. A secondary source would be a book about Darwin's ideas and writings, whereas the primary source would be Darwin's own books themselves.

Going to the library and checking out a copy of The Origin of Species printed in 2005 is still using a primary source. You don't need the original manuscript to be considered to be using a primary source. The only time that issue would come up is if there was controversy over what he originally wrote and what was printed.

A secondary source would be a book by Stephen J. Gould that talked about what Darwin meant in The Origin of Species.

There are no absolutes in these definitions, but what is for sure is that a commentary on someone else's writings or on what someone else said is a secondary source if the subject is what the other person wrote or said and if there is a more direct record of what the other person wrote or said.