Reasearch/bibliography question...

[ghostsofgiants]

Would a report from a group such as Amnesty International (in this case about Chinese human rights violations) be considered a primary or secondary source? I'm kinda leaning toward primary, but I wanted to be sure.

[ZombieNixon]

1. Did their people actually go to China and do the observations there?

If so, it's a primary source, else a secondary source.

[FuzzySlippers]

2. Yeah. Zombie's right.

Even if he doesn't have a soul.:P

[ZombieNixon]

4. It's 12:45 AM. My soul's a union shop.

They're on break. :P

[ghostsofgiants]

5. That's the problem. I know the distinction between primary and secondary..

I'm just not sure how Amnesty compiles their reports.

[ghostsofgiants]

3. Therein lies the problem.

I'm not sure how they compile their reports.

[ZombieNixon]

6. Ffffff...do they list the contributers to the report at the end

or just the primary authors at the beginning?

[ghostsofgiants]

8. And this is why I shouldn't be doing this shit at 3 AM...

No authors listed, but there are endnotes, some of which cite sources, so I'm gonna go with secondary. Never even thought to look for shit like that. I'm just skimming through this shit right now, just putting together my bibliography before I write the actual paper.


These are the sources, if you were wondering:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa170292003
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa170352003

[ZombieNixon]

9. Go with secondary if it cites other sources,

because that means that at least part of it isn't original work.

Good luck with the paper, I'm going to sleep. :hi: :boring:

[ghostsofgiants]

10. Yeah, that's what I was planning to do upon noticing the notes.

Like I said, I never thought to look for citations.

Thanks though, appreciate the help.

[rockymountaindem]

7. Ask your prof

That's usually the final word, y'know?

I was just compiling a works cited page for a 10 page paper I wrote. 14 sources, including 8 primary sources. I'm very proud of myself.