Primary & Secondary Resources

" I don’t come on the forum to educate. I come on it to discuss. That can only be done from a basis of knowledge."

I come on here to learn and am quite happy to be educated by Julian, or anyone else on here.
Julian, if you are expecting everyone else on this forum to have the same knowledge base as you, then you may well be debating and discussing only with yourself in a forum of one on a fairly regular basis!
I thought forums were a place where opinions could be offered? Happy to have them rebuffed or disproved anytime however, as I have learned lots by making opinions and observations, then, subseuently being pointed in the right direction by more knowledgeable members than myself.

Tasker
No, I don't expecting everyone else to have the same knowledge base as myself but I do expect them to have a different knowledge base, as you do, and one that is informed, as is yours. I also can learn from those. Neal's posts, in areas I am not competent in, are a good example. It doesn't matter whether the knowledge or information comes out of the BL or has been quoted in one of Knight's books - just so long as it's valid and contemporary. It's the use of secondary sources as a primary source that's a waste of time and doesn't advance a discussion. That's just backing up an opinion with an opinion.
Now, as you say, forums are a place where opinions can be offered, certainly. But, if I offer the opinion that grass is not green but provide no evidence for it, other than Donald Morris says grass is not green, then we don't get very far. And, despite the length of this topic to date, that's where we've reached, not very far.
A hypothesis was put forward based on the numbers of bodies in Boast's graves, on the basis that the numbers did not add up. I demonstrated that they do add up. I ask for that to be disproved (and I am perfectly happy if that can be shown) but I get no answer, just a distraction, which makes further discussion frustrating as the tack is changed again.

Point taken Admin. although it was a reasonable comment.

Perhaps we should created a section on the forum where only primary sources can be used, that way those of us who used secondary sources can observe and learn. Before you know it, we will all be singing from the same sheet.

Just to clarify, I thought it might be worth posting this..


"A primary source is a document, speech, or other sort of evidence written, created or otherwise produced during the time under study. Primary sources offer an inside view of a particular event. 

Secondary sources provide interpretation and analysis of primary sources. Secondary sources are one step removed from the original event or "horse's mouth."

Finding sources are research tools that lead to primary or secondary sources. Developed by subject experts, they provide quality filters unavailable via the Internet's search engines."

Hi all

You should all rejoice to have someone like Julian on the forum.

Cheers

Pascal

Julian, thanks for the above. Perfectly clear as usual and understood.

Pascal, yes we are very lucky indeed to have Julian on this forum. As we are to have you, Neil Aspinshaw, Bill Cainan, LH, 90th, 1879Graves, DB14, Chard, 24th......

Pascal. I rejoice that we have all the members on the forum. Julian is more knowledgeable than most of if not all. But if it wasn't for all the members it would be pointless. Every member on this forum as an interest in this subject. If there were no primary sources Julian would be redundant.

Hi all

I was" a fan of A Mc B " in the late 70 ? "a fan of IK" in the 80, then after Rothwell in the years that followed ...

Well now it's Julian .. ES ( only for Isandhlwana & RD alas ).replaces all possible books on this war, there is no more stringent and meticulous as Julian ...



Pascal

Primary sources are not necessarily the be all and end all either, they are not sacred documents.

I am afraid that I have seen statements, reports, forms, etc etc that have been written, dictated sometimes by a third party on behalf of the supposed author, and subsequently altered either at the time of completion or at a later date. In a hundred years or more, these same documents will be "primary sources."
This is not (and never has been) an uncommon practice. Any misleading was, and is, invariably done for the greater good; to ease the pain of the next of kin; to make insurance claims more straightforward; not to damage unit or public morale and confidence; to save the public exchequer money (or penny pinch depending on your viewpoint) etc.
I am not going to say any more or elaborate, but there are numerous examples in the public domain of well meaning caualty reports that have on deeper investigation, been found to be far less straight forward than what they initially appeared to be. Mysterious symptoms that have been attributed to a particular syndrome if the serviceman is of the US, but those same symptoms have no known cause if the man is British etc.

Hi all

Please more from Julian on the forum !



Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Hi all

Please more from Julian on the forum !



Pascal

[quote]

Hi Pascal,

Totally agree with you!
It's a great pleasure for me to read Mister WHYBRA (and Springbok)
I
Cheers

Yomb

Quote :

Please more from Julian on the forum

Steady, He will be asking for commission!!!!!

or even a commission, in the rank of General.

some forums do have ranks for members you know!

Forums good the way it is.

Hi all

Yeah it's true there are forums where they give stupid military ranks to idiots who have never been a soldier ...

For one - it would require grades to the imperial , and the colonial troops and zulu army ...

I remain neutral ,I'm civil...



Pascal