* Delirium wrote:
I strongly disagree with that, and think this comes
out of an
unfortunately widespread view that non-scientific research isn't
"really" research.
You apparently weren't understanding me... because I don't think that at
all. Research is research... in any field.
If you
discover some new primary sources relating to his life that have not
been mentioned in the existing secondary sources, that constitutes
original historical research, and you should publish it in a history
journal or book, or at the very least convince someone to write a
newspaper article about it, before it should go into Wikipedia.
I made precisely the same argument in the post which you "strongly
disagree" with. Wikipedia should not be promoting information that has not
already been widely distributed in professional commentary.
The distinction I was drawing is that if a primary source is NOT 'newly
discovered' and HAS been 'mentioned in the existing secondary sources'
then we should not be banning citation of it. To take your Jefferson
example... if we are quoting the contents of the Declaration of
Independence we should CITE the Declaration of Independence... even though
it is a 'primary source'. It isn't 'new' information and it has
definitely
been established as 'notable' by secondary sources. Any interpretation of
meaning or intent should be left to secondary sources, but if we are
simply quoting content then it should go directly to the original.
Citing primary sources is not, by itself, 'original research'... it only
becomes such when the primary sources haven't previously been deemed
noteworthy and Wikipedia would thus be putting itself in the position of
'arbiter of truth and relevance' rather than 'recorder of things deemed
notable by neutral observers in the field'.