Talk:Raid of Ruthven

Primary source or secondary?
"Boyd, William K. ed., Calendar of State Papers Scotland, vol. 6 (1910), 240." Usually a calendar is a list with summary of action so it really is not a secondary source but another form of a primary source. Any one in the know about this source.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a primary source. For an example of the type of stuff it'd contain see volume four here at Internet Archive . I can't find a freely viewable version of volume six online, but there appears to be a subscription version available at British History Online .--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Then should it not be excluded from WP as it would concern original research, even if popularly acceptable as true?66.74.176.59 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A primary source is OK for a simple statement of fact like "Earl of Gowrie, Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, was owed £33,000 Scots". A secondary source is needed for things that are more of a matter of interpretation, such as this being a cause of the coup or being due to Lennox's extravagance.
 * The example calendar linked to by Brianann does contain a significant secondary source, namely the 21 pages of introduction written by William K Boyd in 1905. If there is a similar introduction in volume 6, this may be the source for the matters of interpretation.
 * All of which means that it is quite annoying that we can't easily access the source online. Especially since it looks like these calendars were digitized by Google.  I would expect to find them in Google Books.... but apparently I would be wrong.
 * I have left a message on the page of the editor who originally [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raid_of_Ruthven&diff=prev&oldid=370807164 added the source.] We might not get a response because Unoquha seems to edit infrequently nowadays.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points, more citations from secondary source analysis welcome here! In the next line, (see note 7), the quote about the household expense is from a PhD and an unpublished source, so that really won't do for wikipedia. CSPScot, vi, 240, reports an English paper of advice to be sent to James VI in 1582 which ends with, 'The debt which his majesty now owes by the excessive prodigality of the Duke' [of Lennox]. It isn't cited in the introduction to this calendar. I expect some secondary source could be found which makes the point that this king's favourite was perceived as extravagant, and actually was, and was removed during a coup - all of which may be uncontroversial. However, this is still an an inference that I'm making, rather than citing from a published history. One solution may be to move and insert this sentence & reference in the paragraph above, 'Opponents of the regime'; as "... died in Paris in May 1583. Lennox, according to an English source, had been an extravagant favourite of James VI, resulting in a royal debt to Gowrie as treasurer of £33,0000 Scots.(fn.6:) Another prominent ...". This uses the information from the calendar as a 'fact' about what was said of Lennox as a favourite, which it is - nearer to a 'simple statement', rather than attributing to this 'fact' a causal role in the coup, which it may be, but for which a secondary source might be preferred. Unoquha (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is a primary source the credibility is not necessarily affirmed; that is the point of secondary sources evaluating and putting things in context. But this points to a long term problem that will be encountered by WP--what is to be done with those incidences, events, issues, opinions that are part of something but not from secondary analyses and would provide those that look at WP as a general introductory reference so that they get a better understanding of that which they seek. Such as what is done in the courts system that does not have much secondary comment or even legislative action that is a stating of policy and rule but not necessarily much more comment. Remember that he who olds the gold generally makes the rules so what we have today can be someone's perception of then or how someone with the gold wanted it to be expressed, etc. therefore primary but not necessarily a representation of the facts regardless whether good for them or bad.

The original reason that this came to mind was the " £33,0000 Scots" since WP is suppose to be for the general public; that use is not very universally known and to expect people who did not grow up in an environment that either knows this or would come to know it displays a bit of centrism that may unintentionally call upon some to think that it is appropriate to establish a practice that what they know is expected by every other person to know; and that is just not a good course of logic.

This can evolve into the situation that can be found with the general subject of medieval Europe articles that have general sources and absolutely nothing inline and the tenacity of those that seem to be associated with that group--and what may be a rather large group--leave nothing to be changed in that area since those that would know do not follow the official policy of inline sources/secondary references. The same might be said of words that are archaic or not easily transferred from one language to another because the nuance is centric to that mother society and may take a history lesson to be totally understood by the exploring society.66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I linked the currency Pound Scots, and cited the figure £48k from a secondary source. This source doesn't attribute the debt to Lennox's spending, so I knocked that out.Unoquha (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution but if the WP instructions do not already recommend it, that the reference should include a commented that the "primary" source has been annotated or commented upon so that it is clearly known what is the source publication.66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)