Talk:William Hersey Hopkins

Primary sourcing

In this revert of {{primary}} it was said:

Overreliance on primary sources means the CONTENT is dependent on synthesis of primary sources; if you compare the prose in the article to the SECONDARY source provided, you'll see that the former is largely derivative of the latter

The article has a single secondary source which is:

• Harris, William T. (January 1, 1892). "Report of the Commissioner of Education made to the Secretary of the Interior for the year ... with accompanying papers. 1889-1890 v.2 pt.2-3". HathiTrust. p. 746. Retrieved 2018-09-02. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

The citation gives page 746 but I don't see anything there that would verify what this articles says. Goucher is mentioned on page 744 but there is nothing there about William Hersey Hopkins. I'm honestly having trouble finding what this sources is being used for in this article. Can you help? -- GreenC 21:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation #1, which you’ll find next to most lines in the article, is to a book, which is secondary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how The History of Goucher College, published by Goucher College, is anything but a primary source on topics related to the history of Goucher College, such as the Goucher College President. WP:PRIMARY says these sources provide an "insiders view" that is "close to an event" and "a period of history". The book is written by Anna Heubeck Knipp graduating class of 1892, the same period William Hersey Hopkins was President of the college (1886–1890). It's hard to imagine much else closer to the event, the period in history, or providing an insiders point of view. -- GreenC 23:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a historical catalog of events, some of which the author may have been "close to," some of which they were not. For biographical details about the subject's life, it's a secondary source. Are you done? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a credible assertion, she was a student at the time he was President and had no choice but be close to the subject and events. -- GreenC 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No. A primary source would be Hopkins's autobiography. A biography, or a book/even chapter being used as a biography, is a secondary source, no matter what kind of tangential connection you want to draw between the subject and the author. Closeness" is a factor for certain types of sources like newspapers, especially if it was a historical event and the newspaper being examined was published the day after; but that's not the case here. The possibility that the may have known the subject because they were at the same institution around the same time does not make a biography primary. If it included an interview with Hopkins, that interview would be a primary source for details about Hopkins life. I could go on drawing distinctions here, but I think I've made my point. To say this book is a primary source for biographical details is incorrect. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why you think the use of these sources is problematic either. If the article included a statement like "Hopkins was one of the most noted academics of his time" and then linked to a bunch of his works instead of to a secondary source making that statement, that would be a problem and a misuse of primary sources. If a factual assertion here and there in the article is supported with a primary source like a report or historical record, this is not a big deal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A primary source can be many things. Look the author of the book Anna Heubeck Knipp was in the first graduating class, composed of five people. It is not credible she was not close to the President. She was an important figure at the school, there is a building named after her, she founded the Alumnae Association, etc.. she had lifetime of continued professional association with the school, she was on the Board of Directors of all things. This is an insiders insider of all things Goucher College, she even wrote the book on it. -- GreenC 00:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

She's not offering an insider's view of his life generally, and "knowing" him, if that was indeed the case, still does not make a biography secondary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The author's writing is also very, very likely based on extensive research and not their own experience, as it's highly unlikely that she would have been privy to the political inner workings of the administration as a student, such as fundraising and faculty recruitment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, with regards to the notability tag you applied, subject verifiably meets #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello friends. To add to this puzzle about primary sources, the "Early Life and Education" section of this article makes false claims about St. John's College. It claims, paraphrasing The History of Goucher College (page 22) that Hopkins began attending King William's School in 1852, which was reorganized at St. John's College in 1866. This would be impossible, since St. John's College was chartered in 1784, and King William's School was absorbed in 1785. The broad strokes of the story might be correct; while St. John's did have a preparatory school during this period, it was not King William's School.[1] I would say that while The History of Goucher College probably constitutes a secondary source, it is not a particularly reliable one. Just my 2 cents. 3000YearOldGrasshopper (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)