Ray Saintonge wrote:
Delirium wrote:
That is no more useful or desirable than going to
[[Neutrino]] and seeing original physical research that some physics
crank has decided to publish on Wikipedia. If you've made novel
historical discoveries by digging through primary sources, then great,
but Wikipedia is not the place to publish them any more than it's the
place to publish your novel physics discoveries.
The difference is the one betwen invention and discovery, and the
physics example is one of invention, not discovery. In discovery we
find what was already there, and invention only becomes a factor in
historical research when the authenticity of the documents is disputed.
This seems like a strange distinction to me. I have never heard of
physics discoveries being referred to as "inventions"; one might invent
a machine that helps in making those discoveries, but the discoveries
are simply finding what is already there. What makes it original
research is that you're the first to have claimed to find it. In such
cases (whether in physics or history), the proper place to put forth
your claimed discoveries is in a journal or some other such place where
they can be evaluated (and possibly refuted) by others.
As for whether the authenticity of documents is disputed, that's exactly
the sort of thing we should be relying on secondary sources to
determine. If I find some random archival document that *appears* to
say something about World War II, it would be inappropriate for me to
start relying on it in the article by citing it; I should instead see
what historians have said about it, how it's been interpreted before, if
there is consensus or disagreement on its authenticity or implications,
etc. If it's never been mentioned before, I would have to conclude that
its authenticity and implications are unknown. There are many journals
devoted to hashing out that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be
replicating their work on talk pages, imo.
-Mark