Talk:Battle of Zhenhai

Primary sources

Repeating another section in Talk:Sino-French War. This article's body depends overwhelmingly on French primary sources authored by living persons during the war. Maurice Loir was working in the French navy at the time of the war. Emile Duboc was a French marine officer. Lecomte was also a captain in the French forces. Marolles was a vice-admiral. Auguste Bonifacy was a lieutenant-colonel. Huard, Armengaud, Garnot, Harmant, and Thomazi were all French people living at the time of the war. One source, La Dernière Campagne du Commandant Rivière by Marolles, was originally published before the war had even ended. The only Chinese source cited is Lung Chang and secondary sources are mostly relegated to the beginning and ending of the article. Qiushufang (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what a primary source is. These are things like official records, diaries of people who were present for an event, newspaper articles, and the like. Books like those cited in this article are, by definition, secondary sources. And while several of the books cited in the article are dated and very probably biased toward the French side, they are not primary sources. They should certainly be replaced by more modern works on the subject, but that is another matter. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Per primary source: In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. Qiushufang (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, let's use a Wikipedia article as our definition. Looking at academic institutions, UCSC does not agree with you (specifically excepting contemporaneous accounts that were written "as historical accounts"). Bowdoin doesn't either, stating that "...author of a secondary source may be distant in time..." (as opposed to your implicit "must"). In any event, your original complaint was that many of the sources are written by French military officers, and only one Chinese source has been consulted - again, this has nothing to do with whether they're primary or secondary sources. Loir's book, for example, is no different from Samuel Eliot Morison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II (apart from sheer scale). Neither is a primary source. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions, some which express Wikipedia's (ex. [1] is the first result when I search primary source on Google, and [2] also comes up), some that do not as you pointed out. Pointing that out does not diminish that it is considered a primary source both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Varying definitions does not change that it is a definition and rather common one. I used the Wiki as an example because it was the most immediate and your point of reference. My original statement was that it was both primary sources and French. Not either or. Qiushufang (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

To give you an example, many commentaries and descriptions of events by individuals occurred after the event or were not direct participants in it and are still considered primary sources. All of the official dynastic histories of China are subject to this and historians and Wikipedians alike treat those as primary sources. Qiushufang (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. Here is the basic distinction between primary and secondary sources: the latter are quarried from the former. In other words, secondary sources attempt to interpret primary sources. It has literally nothing to do with when a book was written. By way of example: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq was written in 2008, two years after the events in question, and in no way is it a primary source. The interviews that Ricks did for the book, military reports he cited, etc. - those are the primary sources. As with Loir; whatever sources he used to write the book are the primary sources, but his book is most definitely not one. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You are going against the definition used on WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Emphasis on often. Nowhere does it state that they have to be produced by participants. As source, wiki policy cites University of Nevada: A primary source is a document, speech, or other sort of evidence written, created or otherwise produced during the time under study.. University of California Berkeley: Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer.. Sources can be both primary and secondary when it comes to historical topics. There is more than one definition, and the broader one has been used both in academia and on wikipedia since who knows when. That's why primary source has had the "time period" part as part of its stable version for more than a decade. Clearly all the countless students, historians, and academics did not feel the need to change it when the visited the page for reference. At this point we are clearly talking past each other and I would be willing to go to arbitration or third opinion of some kind if that's what you prefer. Qiushufang (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting what WP:PRIMARY means (specifically the "close to the event" piece). Also, where did I say that primary sources are produced by the participants? On the contrary, what I said was that they are "things like official records, diaries of people who were present for an event, newspaper articles, and the like". I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. But in any case, the meaning of "close to the event" does actually mean more along the lines of "participants of the event", which is why it's followed by "often...written by people who are directly involved"; in no way should it be construed as merely close to the event in time.

Where in the Berkeley definition does it make the claim, which you are advancing, that any document produced at the time is a primary source? You are making the argument that, for example, it is impossible for me, who has zero connection to the war in Ukraine, to synthesize a secondary source covering the first year of the war that is based on the available primary sources. That is patently absurd, and it belies the reality that you have little expertise about what you're arguing here.

But I am done wasting my time arguing with Randy - there are more productive things I can be doing. I'm removing this from my watchlist and will not be returning. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)