[WikiEN-l] Primary sources

[Kirill Lokshin]

On 3/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's only true for unpublished primary sources, though.  Plenty of
> > primary sources (e.g. memoirs, diaries, etc.) are quite easily
> > verifiable, if not always reliable.
>
> They're reliable if they're being treated as a primary source (Eg,
> Lord Kent wrote on the 14th of March 1932 that the Germans would
> invade the next day). Treated as a secondary source (Germany invaded
> England on the 15th of March 1932 [1]), they are unreliable.
>
> Steve
>
> [1] Lord Kent's diary, 14th of March 1932

Which is only part of the picture, of course.  Certain primary sources
are quite reliable (or as reliable as anything else we have, anyway)
-- for example, Guicciardini's History of Italy is a primary source,
but is generally considered to be a highly reliable one.

In any case, all sources should be cited; we can then examine their
reliability on a case-by-case basis.

Kirill Lokshin