Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Good evening,

I am doing a school project on Lizzie Borden. All is going great, but after re-reading the project's requirements, i found i need 4-5 primary sources. It is too late to go to the library. do any of you know of any primary sources i can site for my project?

thanks in advance,
Derek

Not to offend, but don't the sources contribute to the project?
I don't know how one can cite sources without using them?
Am I understanding your project correctly?

You are correct.

but I finished the project already. I am just looking for primary sources to add to the bibliography.

What sources did YOU use in the project you stated you've already finished?
Certainly you are including those in your bibliography?

Most all books published on the Borden case contain a bibliography, however, that doesn't mean the author used all them in creating their work. Citations, be they in the form of footnotes, endnotes, etc. are not necessarily "primary sources". Primary sources in the Borden case would be - in order of progression:
The Witness Statements
The Coroner's Inquest
The Preliminary Hearing
The Superior Court Trial

Newspaper reports could also be considered a primary source of reference to a work created, or books, or broadcasts, (i.e., video, radio, t.v.). A primary source of rerence/research could also be a play or opera.

The point is it depends upon WHAT you used as to WHAT you indicate as your primary sources. What did you use the most? Did you draw the most form the made for t.v. drama "The Legend of Lizzie Borden"? Or perhaps you drew from the many t.v. documentaries.

Your querry is confusing and lacks clarity of intent towards an objective that in and of itself, is well, vague.

Perhaps if you explained more of what you mean by "primary sources" in the context of how their inclusion was given you in the project instruction would better serve you for a response.

Nordgren,

What grade/subject did you do your project for ? (High School...Jr. High ?)

If you have already finished your project, as has been stated, list the sources you yourself used. If you have questions about some of the sources you used, or about particular facts of the case, we can help...ask away.


Tracy...

beckygoddess @ Tue May 31, 2005 9:43 pm wrote: Newspaper reports could also be considered a primary source of reference to a work created, or books, or broadcasts, (i.e., video, radio, t.v.). A primary source of rerence/research could also be a play or opera.

Just to clarify things a bit, newspaper reports are rarely considered primary sources since they involve a journalist reporting what others are saying. Primary sources are those that are of first record quality---diaries, letters, birth and death certificates, photographs, artifacts, etc.

The primary source materials of the Borden case include, like you say, the police and court transcripts. But the newspapers of the time are definitely not in this category and many are factually incorrect.

I am with Tracy, list what you used, then ask the teacher what they mean by "primary". Perhaps you already have what is necessary to fulfull the teacher's requirement and don't know it!

Students used to come into my library and frequently ask for an autobiography ("you know, a book about somebody") when what they were assigned was a biography. Point is that what you think you need may not be what you really need. That is why librarians are trained to ask certain questions to find out what you "really" want so they can help with the finding of it.

If you need a definition and list of primary sources, I found this site that might help you out.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib ... urces.html

Stefani - newspaper accounts can certainly be a primary source of reference in writing a paper, report, etc. I think we have a problem of semantics here. My earlier post, if you re-read it, used the phrase "primary source of reference." That is different from identifying what exactly are the 'primary source" materials or documents of a case., which I listed in order of progression.

To put it another way, a person could say, "my paper is based primarily on newspaper accounts, which were the main source of information used in my report. I refered to those as my primary sources of material." There is still, however, that distinction of what is considered bona fide primary source material versus primary sources of references. I was trying to illustrate that in my post. Apparently my labor was lost or inept or unclear at best. :)

In every written "assignment" I ever completed during my under and post graduate studies, newspaper accounts were not allowed to be used as a primary source document, reference or otherwise UNLESS it cited a primary source of it's own. (Which you then had to check!) OR the "assignment" you were completing was about newspapers and their (varied) coverage of various events.

By "assignment" I mean report, thesis, article, et al.

beckygoddess @ Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:09 pm wrote:Stefani - newspaper accounts can certainly be a primary source of reference in writing a paper, report, etc. I think we have a problem of semantics here. My earlier post, if you re-read it, used the phrase "primary source of reference." That is different from identifying what exactly are the 'primary source" materials or documents of a case., which I listed in order of progression.

To put it another way, a person could say, "my paper is based primarily on newspaper accounts, which were the main source of information used in my report. I refered to those as my primary sources of material." There is still, however, that distinction of what is considered bona fide primary source material versus primary sources of references. I was trying to illustrate that in my post. Apparently my labor was lost or inept or unclear at best. :)

Newspaper reports cannot be used as a "primary source of reference," as you use the term, in research papers, as Tracy explains. Even if you were reporting on the news reports themselves, such as analyzing the way a case was covered in the media, you would still have to also include sources that analyze the news reports as well (books, articles in scholarly journals, dissertations, etc.) to add authority to the piece.

Here's a great definition of a research paper: "The main point of the library research paper is to learn more about a topic relevant to the course and write down what you have learned in an organized, readable fashion. Doing a research paper involves reading what scholars and critics have had to say about a particular topic and evaluating it. Unlike a book report, it does not involve primarily reading a work and giving your own opinion of it. It does involve learning how to read criticism (scholarly analyses) and related sorts of scholarship such as literary, art, or music history and biography. Of course, you will want to read, view, or listen to the works which are the focus of your topic: one would not write a paper about Huckleberry Finn without reading Huckleberry Finn. But you are responsible for studying the scholarship about Huckleberry Finn as well."

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/general ... guide.html

So the point of all this is that research involves using scholarship, what learned thinkers have had to say about the topic. Newspapers are not scholarship and so would not be acceptable even in the limited definition you present above.

Stefani,
What wonderful and accurate information you have posted. I checked your links, and a few of the links within...BRAVO on the info you share. I will be using it when my students do a Lizzie research project next Fall. I will be spending a big part of the summer designing the project and this information will be a GIANT help to me. There is a gold mine of information available...and I appreciate you posting what you have. THANK YOU !

I presented our dilemma to the heads of the English and History departments at the school where I teach, as they both are highly involved with teaching writing/research techniques to their students. It was agreed that newspapers are not considered as primary sources/source documents when writing essays, term papers, research papers, a thesis, etc. While they may be used as 'a' source, they must be checked/verified as has been previously stated.

Tracy...

I found out how complicated this could get when I did a research paper on the similarities of the play Hamlet, and a play called The Spanish Tragedy. My professor thought it was a wonderful idea. I realized almost at once that I had only made more work for myself. We had already read Hamlet in class but I had to reread it, then read The Spanish Tragedy. I had to read the literary analysis that Stefani mentioned for both plays separately, and the analysis done for the similarities between the two. After that, I will not do a comparison of two plays ever again .

If we refer back to what Nordgren was seeking, 4-5 primary sources for the bibliography of the school project he has been doing. Citing newspaper reports in a bibliography is perfectly acceptable as a source of reference, primary or not.

Using newspaper reports as primary sources of references for any paper, without due diligence into other sources, such as official primary sources of record, (i.e., trial transcript, etc.) would render the paper/project less credible. As Stefani says, reading what "scholars and critics" say and learning from that (and forumulting your own opinions) is integral to the process of research. However, reading newspaper accounts, is also integral to the process of research. It becomes even more exciting when you know sometyhing about the newspaper itself, i.e., the publishers, editors, their relationships to the key members of the community, their political affiliations, their biases, etc. The Fall River Herald News, for example, very supportive of Lizzie, was the first to pulish on August 5th that John Morse was very much maligned from being suspicioned in the case and that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders. This was in exact opposite to the the Fall River Globe and other local papers who rushed to point out his suspicious behavior. The Globe was more "the People's paper".

The high school paper was not intended to be, I would think, a "scholarly" work such as those published in official professional journals. He was writing a school report and looking for additions for the bibliography as primary sources of reference. Books, magazine articles, newspapers - these all fall under that broad category.

Once again, I repeat that there is a distinction between between official "primary sources" of reference when engaged in research (source documents of the official record of the case/topic/subject) as opposed to primary sources of references also used in research.

Point-Counterpoint seems to be the thrust here rather than a clarity of understanding of what I'm trying to convey. :)

Beckygoddess, are you a teacher? If not, perhaps your understanding of what the student was asking for is limited. When teaching someone how to use library sources, one expects them to research the opinions of others, mostly scholarly, in order to properly examine a topic. A good review of the scholarly research is vital to any research paper. A teacher who has assigned such a report will look for that type of reference source when assigning a grade.

The high school paper is indeed intended to be "scholarly" as that is where it starts---the focus on writing properly, using appropriate sources, and crafting your argument/opinion in an organized fashion. "Primary sources of reference" DO NOT include newspapers or magazine articles. One would not add newspaper sources to pad a bibliography, but, rather, books and journal articles that would show the teacher that they have a handle on the literature of the subject.

Newspapers are not used as "primary sources of reference." I am not confused by your disctinction. But I think you might be.

Are you saying a student, let alone anyone else, can not cite newspaper sources as reference - when they've used those primarily as their sources in their research? (And we are agreed here that is not a good way to go).

The only confusion I have is why your tone is acerbic but maybe you're getting frustrated in our inability to communicate what each is attempting to say here. :)

I scanned Bridget Sullivan's Will - something that would be considered a "primary source" document if doing research on her. If it were published in a newspaper, in it's entiriety, it could still be referred to as primary source of reference. :)

I shall attempt to upload it, but this is a first attempt, so please bear with me.

If someone were to write a research paper, for publication or for school, and they primarily used newspapers as their reference sources, their conclusions would be considered suspect and they would be instructed to go back to square one to conduct appropriate research.

Well, first of all it appears uploading cannot be done from the other reply box I was just at. I'll try it here.

not working...help!

beckygoddess @ Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:01 pm wrote:I scanned Bridget Sullivan's Will - something that would be considered a "primary source" document if doing research on her. If it were published in a newspaper, in it's entiriety, it could still be referred to as primary source of reference. :)

No, it could not be considered a primary source if printed in the paper. If it were printed in the paper it is still not a Primary Source. One would have to view the ACTUAL document to consider it a primary source.

What makes a source Primary is that it is first issue. A newspaper is never first issue. Mistakes are often made in transcription, even in newspapers.

I agree with your last statement Stefani and I think I posted earlier that such a method would not be as credible as using and citing official primary source material.

Just out of curiosity, isn't Lizzie's inquest testimony taken from a newspaper reprint of the original testimony? Should this then be considered a primary source?

A newspaper is never a first issue?

How would explain exclusives, i.e., Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, The New York Post and Deep Throat?

What I mean is, if a newspaper breaks a new story and their are the first - "primary" a derivative of first - to report the story. The newspaper is the record of that primary story. Then later, if someone researching that specific topic that the newspaper broke, as the primary report on the subject, that newspaper would be a primary source of reference in that research effort.

If a scanned document were published in a newspaper, how could their be errors of transcription?

beckygoddess @ Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:18 pm wrote:A newspaper is never a first issue?

How would explain exclusives, i.e., Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, The New York Post and Deep Throat?

What I mean is, if a newspaper breaks a new story and their are the first - "primary" a derivative of first - to report the story. The newspaper is the record of that primary story. Then later, if someone researching that specific topic that the newspaper broke, as the primary report on the subject, that newspaper would be a primary source of reference in that research effort.

Newspaper exclusives are not Primary Sources. They would be considered secondary sources. The primary sources would be the documents the reporters used in creating that story. You are using the word primary in many different contexts--- "Primary report," "primary source," "primary story" ---they are not interchangable, nor are not the same thing.

"Primary sources are directly related to an issue or event. Therefore, it is highly desirable that researchers access as many relevant primary sources as possible. However, keep in mind that every text has potential for bias or some hidden agenda. As a consequence, even a "private" diary or allegedly "factual" account can have misrepresentations of events.
. . .

Examples of primary sources:

private diaries
photographs
direct results of research
laws--(U.S. Constitution)
novels, poems, plays
movies, screenplays
interviews with the person(s) directly involved
contracts
a report written by a witness of an event (composed that day); for example, newspaper
articles describing that day or previous day's events; "contemporary" accounts
musical score
results of an experiment or a poll
documents directly relevant to an event or issue
artifacts--tools, clothing, furniture, buildings, etc.
letters
annual reports of companies
speeches
autobiographies (ripe for misrepresentation, although some are frankly truthful)
When writing a paper about a work of fiction, the novel, play, or poem is your primary source for information; secondary sources (critical studies, etc.) may help explain or interpret the text, but the text itself should be used as the main basis for any proofs and persuasions.

A secondary source is one that describes an event or issue from a distance. Good secondary sources use primary sources to compile their information. Examples of secondary sources are encyclopedias, handbooks, guides, textbooks, and many (if not most) non-fiction books and articles."

http://lib.colostate.edu/howto/primsour.html

Allen @ Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:17 pm wrote:Just out of curiosity, isn't Lizzie's inquest testimony taken from a newspaper reprint of the original testimony? Should this then be considered a primary source?

Great question! Lizzie's Inquest testimony is only available to us from the newspaper reprint and is therefore highly suspect (in terms of accuracy, completeness, and bias). It is a transcription of a transcription, which makes it twice removed from the mouth of Lizzie. It is an attempt at authenticity, but until the actual document is located, the "official" transcript as put out by the courts, it should always be referred to with the caveat that it is a transcription from the newspaper.

Now that was an excellent post - with clarity - defining "primary sources."

Thank you for doing that.

I think our disagreement on this issue derived from my phrase "primary source of reference", in the context of how Nordgren could use them in his bibliography. "primary sources" versus "primary sources of reference"...I tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to make the distinction between the two within the context of how I was illustrating them.

I still think newspapers can be primary sources of references. And certainly they are not "primary sources" as defined in your last post. That is quite obvious and I never was confused about that.

I do think that when a researcher uses an accurately scanned document which appears in a newspaper and they cite that newspaper as the source of the primary document, i.e., the scanned document, it is just as valid as citing the primary source document itself were it acquired from the "ABC Hall of Records" (for example) from which it came. Let me put it another way. Say I'm writing a report on Bridget's life. I don't have a copy of her actual Last Will & Testament, but I have a copy of the newspaper (an actual newspaper) in which her scanned Last Will & Testament was publuished, in its entireity. In my report I write about the contents of that document, their speculative meaning, etc. and I cite the newspaper as the source for that primary source document. The credibilty of the report, with reference to her Last Will & Testament and what I may have written about it, is just as valid and credibile than if I had a copy of the actual document in my hand obtained from the county in which it was recorded. Point is: If you are using a photocopy of the actual document, where that photocopy came from is not necessarily germain to the credibility of validity of the report being written.

When you say a newspaper ''scanned" the will and published it, do you mean literally published a PHOTO of the scan? Or did they transcribe it? See, it makes a difference and if you are quoting the transcription, you have to say that you are quoting a "transcription" of the original document, not the document itself. It may seem like nitpicking, but when we are discussing scholarship, sources, authority, and validity, we must be precise.

Yes, I do mean if the newspaper scanned the document (or a copy thereof obtained from "hall of records"). Then that would be valid. Not a scanned, scanned copy. For example, I have scanned the Last Will & Testament of Bridget. A copy of which I obtained from the County of Deer Lodge, State of Montana, through the postal mail umpteen years ago. I now have a scanned copy of the 5 pages, complete. If I ever figure out how to upload it here and someone later used it in a report citing it as a primary source document, they would be in error. What *I* have, a copy of the original, IS a primary source document, though not the ORIGNAL primary source document, which, of course, resides in Montana.

I also have copies of a number of letters written to and from Lizzie, not found in any books. I have scanned those as well. Letters, diaries, journals, as you indicated, ARE primary source documents. But the same applies as stated above.