Douglas, that snippet you pulled from EE, describing "primary source," is introduced by a paragraph that also needs to be considered: ========================================= "For more than a century, journalists and historians have borrowed from law two terms that are used generically to weigh the merits of their evidence--primary source and secondary source ... The terms are ubiquitous, **yet their definitions vary from one field to another and one authority to another. In the public mind (indeed, even among those trained in the same discipline), confusion and disagreement are common.** The most usual concepts are these: PRIMARY SOURCE - one created by someone with firsthand knowledge - one created at or about the time an event occurred" ========================================== The index reference to this discussion is "primary source, problematic term for history research." It's also problematic in other fields. Amid my background study for EE, in one academic forum, in one single thread, I counted 639 different messages debating exactly what that term means. These problems with traditional academic definitions of " primary source" is why genealogy does not use the term. Incidentally, the problem is not just with academics. We also see it among practitioners of law and journalism. Just this weekend I had an exchange with an attorney who contacted me wanting me to endorse his opinion that a family tradition dating back to the mid-1600s--first written down in the 1890s for Colonial Dames purposes--was a "primary source." (For the record, I disappointed him.) Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG BCG trustee & past president www.HistoricPathways.com www.IsleofCanes.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for everyday tips on records and record usage QuickTips: The Blog at Evidence Explained https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/ee -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JDBEsq via Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [TGF] Difference between Genealogist and Historian Deffinitions Hello All I just finished reading "Desperate Sons" by Les Standiford. He is the Director of Creative Writing at Florida International University and the book was published in 2012. I also enjoyed the book very much but... My question is in the Bibliography he lists "Primary Sources". Most of them are more than 80 years after the events he is describing. These are actions and events leading up to the American Revolution. In "EE" 2nd edition on page 22 it says Primary Source: one created by someone with firsthand knowledge or one created at or about the time an event occurred. EE also discusses a Printed Primary Source and the ones in the book don't meet that criteria either. Other than some letters he references the Bibliography consist mostly of publications starting 80 to 100 years later. Is the academic/publishing business definition that different from "ours"? Douglas Burnett Satellite Beach FL ------------------------------- 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