Template:Secondary source: Difference between revisions
Infobox>Koyaanis Qatsi mNo edit summary |
Sources>Robert Merkel preference for secondary sources. Somebody who is a real historian should clarify this... |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
If, however, the author uses writings by participants and contemporaries--people who have personal, first-hand knowledge of the events in question--the author is using primary sources to write history. | If, however, the author uses writings by participants and contemporaries--people who have personal, first-hand knowledge of the events in question--the author is using primary sources to write history. | ||
As a very general rule (and possibly an oversimplification), if primary sources are available academics tend to prefer that they be used and cited rather than secondary sources. This of course does not preclude secondary sources being used as a guide to find and interpret primary sources. | |||
Revision as of 04:36, 23 January 2003
Secondary sources, in the study of history, are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question.
For example, if an author reads a history book and then uses the information in that book as a source for writing a new history of the same events, the author is using a secondary source.
If, however, the author uses writings by participants and contemporaries--people who have personal, first-hand knowledge of the events in question--the author is using primary sources to write history.
As a very general rule (and possibly an oversimplification), if primary sources are available academics tend to prefer that they be used and cited rather than secondary sources. This of course does not preclude secondary sources being used as a guide to find and interpret primary sources.