Talk:Historiography
From Academic Kids
Chronology of journals: Rather then censoring this international chronology one should enhance it by complementing it!
"A person living at a time witnesses events. If she writes about the events she witnessed she has created a primary source. When a historian uses the primary source (to discuss events witnessed) in another text we now have a secondary source. When another historian argues that the secondary source misuses (or correctly uses) the primary source, we have historiography."
This example may be potentially confusing. A lot of historians would not automatically list memoirs and autobiographies as primary sources. Even diaries can be suspect, especially when there is a prospect of future publication at the time of writing. The potential for distortion can override the validity of the source. Is there a better way to phrase the above paragraph? Timrollpickering 23:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well, there can always be distortion, but I think most historians would agree that, if someone witnesses something and writes about it, it can't be classified as a secondary source. Primary source doesn't mean it's accurate. It just means it's from an actual participant or direct observer. Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm - I think many would be dubious about later accounts, especially those printed after some of the best known secondary sources. The use of the term "primary source" has resulted in an irritating tendency of many students to assume that it is automatically more accurate when it isn't.
- How about using an example of a newspaper report or something similarly prepared for instant publication? That might square the circle. Timrollpickering 09:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know how you could possible not consider a diary a primary source. Can you give an example of a diary entry which would be a secondary source? Primary/secondary have no comment on validity, of course. And they don't have comment on primacy to the event -- Joe Schmoe writing in his diary about his feelings about CNN's coverage of the 2000 Elections is still a primary source, even if it is itself writing about a primary source. It's his feelings that make it primary -- it is reflective of one moment in time. Personally I think primary/secondary depends on how you use a source to construct your argument (a historian writing about historiography is actually using what are normally secondary sources as primary sources -- works of history become evidences in a historical argument), but I think it's a one-way street: I can see how to transform what were originally secondary sources into primary sources, but I can't see how you can turn what was originally a primary source (an original document) into a secondary source. And I don't see how you can define a diary as anything other than a primary source, unless, of course, it is a pretty amazing and brilliant diary -- a historical manuscript in diary form. But I've never heard of such a thing. --Fastfission 02:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- How about using an example of a newspaper report or something similarly prepared for instant publication? That might square the circle. Timrollpickering 09:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
REdefine the use
A primary source is an account of a first hand witness. If I was to say I witnessed Pearl Harbor and then I wrote about my experiences using other Primary sources that would be a Secondary source. Right? So if then someone went ahead and wrote on my book or what ever I wrote and said I was wrong for using certain things then that would be Historiography. Well to write any secondary source or Historiography you must be able to use Diaries or Memoirs as well as Historically written Documents as Primary sources. The word and Definition of Historiography should be amended to create room for using many different sources. All of these sources must be direct accounts of what happened from people who lived through the event. I know for a fact that Letters and Diaries can be some of the Best sources around. During a School Project I used the letters form my Dads Mother and relatives as they lived through the Holocaust and the other horrors of WWII. These letters were sent out after the war, along with many others from her relatives talking about their experiences and of trying to locate her two brothers who were missing during the Horror. These letters created a very solid background to the report and added an element of realism. Should those be regarded as Primary Sources? I think so the criticism if someone used the info provided in them wrongly then I think that should be pointed out and the work corrected. Ghostrider
-Hello, Ghostrider. Please forgive me, but my computer cannot, at this time, support an online account to Wikipedia.org. This means I need to use your entry in order to make one of my own. I'll try not to do this in the future. Plus, I'm hoping you read the dislclaimer at the bottom of the page, and therefore know the "consequences" of submitting your work. However, I will not, in any way skew your original text. Anyway, I agree with most of the previous statements about primary and secondary sources. If I were a survivor of the Hindinburgh disaster, I'd certainly write a first-hand account of what I went through. This would probably result in some exaggeration upon mundane details of the incident. An example would be a Journal entry similar to this: "I can remember the floorboards shreiking and bending all around me as the hull ruptured with demonic flames. I was so frightened that I leapt 12 feet up to the celing of the cabin, and grabbed onto a pipeline that hung parallel to the walkway below me." In reality, there is almost no way that I would leap 12 feet up. But this does not change the fact that, it is still a first hand account, however innacurate it is. And a first hand accound becomes a primary source once written.
Emerald Monarch
Hello Emerald Monarch Yes your account of the Hindinburgh disaster may be more exciting telling your story with exaggerations about you, but the question are you still giving an exact account of what happened to the airship or what happened to you during the accident. If you were just telling your story then I would take your account as a Primary source but with a grain of Salt. It would still count as a Primary source due to the fact that you were there to witness the accident. But I would take the facts from a actual book written for a historical reference by a survivor as more trustful, wouldn't you? My question is though would most people consider something written after the fact say after a war that lasted for 6 years but written maybe the year afterward. This account would bring to play their specific memories but it would not have been a direct account written while memory was fresh. Would you consider this a Primary source? if not what is your definition of a Primary source? Ghostrider
Kieran26
i think that although a memory of an event, may not be as accurate as a primary source, (someone who survived or a person's diary entry) and others may argue this point futher that sometimes a person's memories of an event can be just as accurate as those who survived the event or wrote in a journal. I don't know how you would determine the difference, but I think a lot would have to do with a person's character. most people will naturally exaggerate the truth to make a point or to gain sypathy. Where as few others (those I think can be used as a primary source) who do not exaggerate (all that much or at all) or who are easy to determine that they are, can and should be used. I think that it's important to understand what people are going through during wars. Most of the history I've learned has been all facts, which is great, but I always wondered what the people were going through when their brother was sent off to war, and then found MIA and then they had to evacuate their homes. Or when families had to start rationing things, it's fun to hear what my dad remembers from his childhood living through wars and such. So I'm not sure what should or should not be considered a primary source, but I think that history should include some people's accounts/stories/memories of what happened when....
Primary sources
Primary sources are any documents which are regarded as artifacts in and of themselves. Secondary sources are works which use or comment on primary sources. Neither primary nor secondary sources are necessarily more or less accurate than one another, indeed most historians regard primary sources with more suspicion than secondary sources (at least a secondary source has passed through the hands of a professional with access to many different primary sources and a reputation to maintain). Historiography, in general, is methodology of history (how researching and writing history is done), and it is also more broadly when one uses secondary sources as primary sources: commenting on and using existing written histories to derive meaning (or criticize how the history has been done). A lot of critical historiography in the 1960s focused, for example, on the exclusion of the role of women, minorities, and labor from written histories of the USA, and thus instructed historians to "errors" they were making in their construction of the past. Hopefully this will clear up some confusion over the terminology in here... --Fastfission 14:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A primary source must also be considered in its context. Is it a document like a letter, diary, newsarticle incidental to the times or event, or is it intended to be a written preserved record of sorts for use at some future time. Nobs 03:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Meta-level analysis, not meta-analysis
Meta-analysis, a technical statistical term, was used erroneously in the header. I have changed "meta-analysis" to "meta-level analysis," and removed the intra-link. I also do not see fit to set up a dismabiguation page. The only other purpose that I can see for it would be in the casual sense applied here, and that's not deserving of anything more substantial than a Wiktionary entry, if even that. Vorpal Suds 03:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) 03:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- "Historiography or literally historical writing" is what I propose for the opener. Nobs 03:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- "Meta-level analysis" is more precise, sure. The word "meta-analysis" is thrown around a lot casually but only in a vulgar (and often unconscious) reference to the statistical term. As for the opener... historiography means more then "historical writing" even if it that is what it "literally" translates to. Historiography is writing about historical writing. Anyway, nobody will ever search for "historical writing" and hope to find "historiography". At least, that's how I consider it. --Fastfission 04:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Fastfission. Historiography is more complex than a literal interpretation of its etymology ("historical writing") would suggest. It is the study of history as a discipline—the history of history, or the philosophy of history. It is the study of the norms, assumptions, methodologies, and source materials of historical scholarship. It is a theoretical endeavour, and "historical writing" in no way captures that.
- Also, looking over the opener again, that first sentence really ought to be re-written to something clearer; there is little or no meaningful distinction between the two prepositions 'of' and 'about'. I tried rewriting it myself, but I'm not in any mood for it right now. Maybe later, unless someone else gets to it first. Vorpal Suds 06:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
announcing policy proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- How would such a policy affect insertion of valid historical documents? Would such a policy either mandate alteration of historic materials, or require some sort of disclaimer that the reference is counter of a Wikipedia policy. Nobs 16:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
New article on related subject
Perhaps the editors here will feel like folding the new article I just created, Historiography and nationalism, into this article. If so, that's fine. I'd collected material arguing over the Elamite Empire and it was broader than the subject in question. Since I am still exploring this topic, there is probably much more to be added. Zora 09:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
