Tim Gratz Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 John, would you be willing to briefly comment on what historians mean when they refer to primary or secondary sources and why the distinction is important. There may be deliberate misinformation in a secondary source or simply mistakes. But when we rely on secondary sources, we can repeat the errors and the constant repetition can sometimes add legitimacy. As an example are the many early books that reported that Desmond Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris on November 22, 1963. It is now clear that Fitzgerald was in DC and it was Cubela's case officer who met with him and delivered the CIA poison pen on November 22nd. I'm not sure how the misimpression was first generated, but it may very well be that other writers simply repeated the error of the first writer because they failed to check the primary source. Many Forum members may be familiar with the terminolgy and its importance but it might be helpful for you to comment. (If you want, I'll give it a try and you can correct me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now