Disagreement in terminology between disciplines in science cries out for a unique, unambiguous solution: invent a new terminology that only overlaps the old with the unambiguous terms. (and could selectively not overlap even with the unambiguous ones, by choice). Perhaps a critical look at what terms are necessary, and necessary to have a known definition, regardless of viewpoint of the speaker, should be taken. Maybe the terms: original, derivative, primary, secondary, direct, indirect have synonyms that don't collide with terms other disciplines define or just use differently, or with less rigor. Then it would be a matter of letting other disciplines adopt the new terms with their careful definitions rather than trying to convince them to use the existing terms "correctly". The latter being a more hopeless task. I was going to have a go at some of this before posting, but with time constraints, I think I'll just post the concept for now. But one caution. No one person should "invent" a new lexicon, it should be a cooperative and iterative process with the best and brightest. And it should start with the precise definitions of what terms are needed, and only then the lexicon term be suggested. New terms could allow shades of meaning only implied in the past, but made explicit by a new definition. And there should be an extensive comment period before final acceptance of a new lexicon. I've already seen one instance of what I consider adding a fruit to a classification of vegetables. Anyway, my scientific view. Your mileage may vary. John On 6/1/2015 9:06 AM, Harold Henderson via wrote: > As one of the misunderstanders, I think historians do have definitions for > this term (not that I like them much). Here's the beginning of one found at > www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html > > > These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an > inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include: > ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable): Diaries, > speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, news film footage, > autobiographies, official records. > > > I think that for historians' use of this terminology, as for our use of > ours, the thought process that is stimulated is more important than the > definition itself. For instance, any decent historian would (like any > decent genealogist) have a careful ear cocked for the bias potential in an > autobiography -- regardless of what terminology they applied to it. > > That said, I honestly do not see why historians don't appreciate the more > precise definitional tools that genealogy has made available. It just makes > my teeth hurt to hear someone referring to sources "being present during an > experience" or using "inside view" to define them. (Surely the Gettysburg > Address is a primary source? But it offers no inside view in the way that a > letter home from someone who heard it would.) Maybe the historians on this > list can provide some insight? > > Harold > > > Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net > > *Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop > Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center * > http://www.midwestroots.net/ > <http://www.midwestroots.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACPLGC-April-2013.pdf> > > Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 > Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks > of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the > Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation > and used under license by the Board’s associates. > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:39 AM, JDBEsq via < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Good Morning All >> Thanks to those of you who have responded to my question but I was >> apparently not real clear about what I was asking. >> I KNOW the difference as genealogist use Primary, Secondary, Direct etc >> today. >> >> I was and still am to some degree trying to understand the difference >> between the definition for genealogist and writers in the world of >> historians >> and academia. I think Karen may have given me the clearest picture of the >> difference but since no one has pointed it out I guess historians and the >> like have no definitions for the terms they use such as primary and >> secondary >> sources. Is it valid to ass/u/me that? >> >> Douglas Burnett >> Satellite Beach FL >> >> >> >> >> In a message dated 5/31/2015 9:23:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> EE may discuss Primary Source but it is in the context of general sources >> that many disciplines use. Genealogists use the terms on page 24 which >> refer >> to Original sources and Primary Information. >> >> Genealogists use these terms because they are clearer when we discuss the >> types of materials we use -- from Artifact to Cyberspace as EE's subtitle >> says. Those who are used to other disciplines, especially those coming >> from >> the field of history, need to learn these terms and not assume their >> meaning >> since they are different. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >