User:Petrouchka/Sources

Citations and the ancient world
Verifiability is one of the key foundations of Wikipedia. Articles on the ancient world, perhaps even on all historical subjects, present some problems which are comparatively unusual in articles about modern topics.

Proximate vs. secondary sources
The biggest problem is the use of secondary sources, where there exists a primary source that provides enough information. For example, suppose an article were to describe a historical event &mdash; say, the plague at Athens during the Peloponnesian War &mdash; and cite as its source


 * J.V.A. Fine 1983, The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History (Cambridge, MA) pp. 463f.

... that sounds all right, doesn't it?

Well, actually, no. In fact that's a terrible source. To me that would immediately set off all kinds of alarm bells, all at top volume.

Fundamental principle:

This looks as though it flies in the face of what Wikipedia itself says about primary sources, and in some ways it does. Here's a quote from that article (as of 10 Oct. 2006):

"A primary source is not, by default, more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source. Secondary sources often are subjected to peer review, are well documented, and are often produced through institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation."

It has a point. Let's refine our original statement, then:

Raw data doesn't come from secondary sources; that's what "secondary" means. That doesn't mean there can't be new primary sources, of course. Archaeologists are always turning up new stuff, new scientific techniques can be applied to old problems, more is discovered about the way the world works. For example: in the case of the Athenian plague, more is now known about how disease works than Thucydides could possibly have known.

But modern medicine is not a source of raw data about what happened in the 5th century BCE; it is a source of raw data about how disease works generally. For raw data about what happened during the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides is still our main source. A modern source that doesn't cite any of its own sources might as well be a crackpot for all anyone should care.

For example: Lucretius writes an account of the plague too; but because it's completely derived from Thucydides, it doesn't add any value. The original is superior.

Let's try for a general upshot to all this:

For example: if you're talking about something to do with Greek mythology, an ancient source is always, always superior to Powell's Greek Mythology (4th edition) or other such books. Even if the book is a compilation or ancient sources &mdash; as Powell is &mdash; it's far better to cite the ancient source directly. Always, always, always go to the horse's mouth. If you're talking about Oedipus, cite Homer or Sophocles; but if you're talking about the Oedipus complex, that's when you've got reason to start citing Freud or other modern interpreters.

When to use what kind of citation
In the case I cited, the most proximate source for the Athenian plague is the account of the Greek historian Thucydides. He's about as proximate as you can get: he says he had the plague himself. All the other ancient sources are derived from him, and are therefore of lesser value.

However ... while Thucydides is the best source for the raw data, he's not necessarily the best source for all aspects of the topic. He was no doctor, and living in the 5th century BCE he certainly didn't have a clue what viruses or bacteria are.

So in this case,


 * for events that took place in the course of the plague, i.e. the raw data, Thucydides is the most proximate and therefore most important source;
 * other contemporary sources, also being proximate, may provide further information;
 * sources later than Thucydides but who had access to accounts that no longer survive would also count as quite proximate, though their value relative to Thucydides would depend on circumstances;
 * for a diagnosis of the disease, the most proximate sources would be those that have the best information about such things: i.e. modern medical texts, informed by Thucydides' description of the symptoms.

If you're talking about medicine, cite medical research. If you're talking about theoretical models of socio-economic phenomena, cite the relevant theorists. And if you're talking about the events that happened in the Athenian plague, cite Thucydides.

As it happens, in this case, a bit more research would reveal that there was no problem after all: the book I cited above (J.V.A. Fine) does, in fact, cite Thucydides. But citing an intermediate source just complicates everyone's lives. Why not go to the horse's mouth?

You really want to avoid a situation where your citation needs citations.

There are really very few situations where the dictum above would not apply. Some exceptions that come to mind:

But the first two of these situations are rare.

Unreliable sources
The most proximate sources are not always reliable. This goes for all ancient sources. In that sense, it is not just legitimate, but necessary, to cite modern interpretations as well, as they are "proximate" in the sense of having a better grasp of the raw data than the ancient writer did. This goes for Thucydides on the plague, too. Thucydides' description of the plague's symptoms are quite simply impossible: no disease has, or could have, all of the stupefying range of symptoms that he describes.

Therefore, critical judgment has to be used to determine what is salient and what is not; and for the job of interpreting which source is superior, that's when judgments expressed by modern sources come into play.

But remember: interpretations of the raw data can always change. Therefore, the more proximate sources are still always going to be the essential foundation of anything purporting to be a factual account. As stated above: "For raw data, a primary source always has more lasting value than a source derived from it."

Theories of when and where and if Homer lived come and go; the Homeric text stays. Theories of what disease the Athenian plague actually was change every five years, it seems (ten years ago it was cholera; I don't know what it's supposed to have been now); but Thucydides isn't going anywhere. His work is, as he says he wanted it to be, a "possession for all time".

So cite the primary sources already.