The definition of what constitutes a primary source is often the subject of scholarly debate and interpretation. Although primary sources come from a wide spectrum of resources, they are united by the fact that they individually provide insight into the historical milieu (context and environment) during which they were produced. Primary sources include materials such as newspaper articles, press dispatches, autobiographies, essays, letters, diaries, speeches, song lyrics, posters, works of art—and in the twenty-first century, web logs—that offer direct, first-hand insight or witness to events of their day.

Categories of primary sources include:

• Documents containing firsthand accounts of historic events by witnesses and participants. This category includes diary or journal entries, letters, email, newspaper articles, interviews, memoirs, and testimony in legal proceedings.
• Documents or works representing the official views of both government leaders and leaders of terrorist organizations. These include primary sources such as policy statements, speeches, interviews, press releases, government reports, and legislation.
• Works of art, including (but certainly not limited to) photographs, poems, and songs, including advertisements and reviews of those works that help establish an understanding of the cultural milieu (the cultural environment with regard to attitudes and perceptions of events).
• Secondary sources. In some cases, secondary sources or tertiary sources may be treated as primary sources. For example, the 9/11 Commission report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States contains a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Many historians argue that the document should rightly be considered a primary source because it is a government report. However, the report also clearly contains retrospective analysis (analysis of past events) and comments on events far removed from the time of the subject event. In many cases, such material by itself would not be considered as primary source material. However, if such work contains first hand accounts of events—or material written or created near the time of the underlying event—most historians would agree that such material can be considered as primary source material.

ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY SOURCES

The material collected in this volume is not intended to provide a comprehensive overview of a topic or event. Rather, the primary sources are intended to generate interest and lay a foundation for further inquiry and study.

In order to properly analyze a primary source, readers should remain skeptical and develop probing questions about the source. As in reading a chemistry or algebra textbook, historical documents require readers to analyze them carefully and extract specific information. However, readers must also read "beyond the text" to garner larger clues about the social impact of the primary source.

In addition to providing information about their topics, primary sources may also supply a wealth of insight into their creator's viewpoint. For example, when reading a news article on a terrorist attack, consider whether the reporter's words also indicate something about his or her origin, bias (an irrational disposition in favor of someone or something), prejudices (an irrational disposition against someone or something), or intended audience.

Students should remember that primary sources often contain information later proven to be false, or contain viewpoints and terms unacceptable to future generations. It is important to view the primary source within the historical and social context existing at its creation. If for example, a newspaper article is written within hours or days of an event, later developments may reveal some assertions in the original article as false or misleading.

For example, in the newspaper article about the 2004 terrorist bombing of trains in Madrid, Spain—included herein and titled, "Investigators See ETA, not al-Qaeda (spelled al-Qaida in the primary source), behind Madrid Blasts"—the following assertions and quotes were made soon after the attack:

• " . . . Spanish officials remained adamant Friday that they believe that the Basque separatist group ETA, not the al-Qaeda terrorist network, was behind the morning rush-hour train bombings that rocked this capital city Thursday."
• " . . . the dynamite chemically matched 1,100 pounds of explosives seized in February from an ETA van heading toward Madrid, and that the satchel and cell phone setup matched that found on two ETA members when they were arrested at a northern Madrid commuter rail station on Christmas Eve."
• "This explosion had a very similar modus operandi used by the terrorist group ETA ..."
• "Interior Minister Acebes was adamant that the evidence pointed to ETA. He noted that ETA has a history of creating havoc in the days before a national election."
• "He (Acebes) also said the explosives used—Goma II Eco—were made in Spain and that ETA had used the same brand in previous attacks."
• " . . . American intelligence agencies had detected no spike in 'chatter' among al-Qaeda-related groups before the attacks."
• "Other U.S. officials stressed that the group that claimed responsibility for the bombings, the Abu Hafs al Masri Brigades, is thought to exist in name only and has made implausible claims of responsibility before."

Despite the fact that ETA spokesmen denied involvement, the article clearly lays out strong evidence that suggests ETA responsibility. The issue was important because if al-Qaeda (also spelled al-Qaida) was responsible instead of ETA, it was argued that the more conservative Spanish political politicians who supported Spain's involvement as a coalition partner in the U.S. led war in Iraq would receive a boost in upcoming elections. The article even casts evidence against ETA involvement in this context:

• "Listen, ETA has never done a bombing like this without calling and warning the government beforehand," said Olga Gonzalez, a 32-year-old secretary. "Ninety percent of Spaniards were against the war in Iraq. If al-Qaida is involved and not ETA, this changes everything for the elections."

However, despite the Spanish Interior Minister Acebes being "adamant that the evidence pointed to ETA and his quote that "at this point there is mounting evidence that this was not the work of al-Qaida", evidence in the form of documents and tapes found soon thereafter made it clear that a group called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, part of the al-Qaeda network, was responsible for the blasts.

The analytical reader will ask, "Why was the article wrong? Did it present best evidence known at the time, or were the errors a result of "slant" or motive to blame the incident on ETA instead of al-Qaeda? What was at stake? Who could have benefited from such deception?

TEST NEW CONCLUSIONS AND IDEAS

Whatever opinion or working hypothesis the reader forms, it is critical that they then test that hypothesis against other facts and sources related to the incident. For example, it might be wrong to conclude that factual mistakes are deliberate unless evidence can be produced of a pattern and practice of such mistakes with an intent to promote a false idea.

The difference between sound reasoning and preposterous conspiracy theories (or the birth of urban legends) lies in the willingness to test new ideas against other sources, rather than rest on one piece of evidence such as a single primary source that may contain errors. Sound reasoning requires that arguments and assertions guard against argument fallacies that utilize the following:

• false dilemmas (only two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options)
• arguments from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam; because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false)
• possibilist fallacies (a favorite among conspiracy theorists who attempt to demonstrate that a factual statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of its truth or falsity. An argument where "it could be" is usually followed by an unearned "therefore, it is.")
• slippery slope arguments or fallacies (a series of increasingly dramatic consequences is drawn from an initial fact or idea)
• begging the question (the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises)
• straw man arguments (the arguer mischaracterizes an argument or theory and then attacks the merits of their own false representations)
• appeals to pity or force (the argument attempts to persuade people to agree by sympathy or force)
• prejudicial language (values or moral goodness good and bad are attached to certain arguments or facts)
• personal attacks (ad hominem; an attack on a person's character or circumstances);
• anecdotal or testimonial evidence (stories that are unsupported by impartial or unreproducable data)
• post hoc (after the fact) fallacies (because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• the fallacy of the appeal to authority (the argument rests upon the credentials of a person, not the evidence).

Despite the fact that primary sources can contain false information or lead readers to false conclusions based on the "facts" presented, they remain an invaluable resource regarding past events. Primary sources allow readers and researchers to come as close as possible to understanding the perceptions and context of events and thus, to more fully appreciate how and why misconceptions occur.