Important Note Before Using This Guide
In this archive, many notes (every note to be more specific) include a section called PRIMARY SOURCES or PS. This section name is part of the archive’s working format. It does not guarantee that every source listed there is fully primary for each of the approximately 275+ claim notes.
(The Author - Dvir) has invested significant effort into finding, checking, and filtering the sources used in this archive. Most sources (like 92.4%) were chosen carefully and verified before being added. However, the Author does not guarantee that every source in every PS section is fully primary in every context.
Readers should always verify the sources themselves. Do not treat the PS label as automatic proof. A source may be strong, useful, official, or well-chosen while still being secondary or partially secondary for a specific claim.
The better question is not only: “Is this source in the PS section?”
The better question is: “Does this source directly prove the specific point being discussed in this note?”
Why This Matters
Source labels can mislead when used too casually. A source can be excellent but still be the wrong type of source for a specific argument. It can also be primary for one claim and secondary for another.
Debates often fall into false authority: someone sees a long source list and assumes the claim is proven. That is poor method. Sources must be judged by what they actually prove.
The Practical Rule
Do not ask only: “Is this primary or secondary?”
Ask: “What purpose is this source serving?”
A source may be used to prove a direct fact, show what an institution said, explain a legal standard, provide historical context, summarize another source, offer expert interpretation, or supply background information. The source must fit the purpose.
Primary Source
A primary source is direct evidence for the topic being discussed. It comes from the law, event, institution, person, dataset, ruling, document, or time period being analyzed.
Examples include treaty text, law text, court judgments, official transcripts, speeches, interviews, poll data, datasets, military documents, UN resolution text, archived historical documents, photos or videos from the event, firsthand testimony, archaeological inscriptions, and original government documents.
Still, do not be careless. An official source is not automatically primary for every claim. A UN report is primary evidence for what the UN said, but it may not be primary evidence for what happened on the ground if it summarizes witnesses, NGOs, media reports, or other secondary material. A court judgment is primary evidence for the court’s ruling, but it may summarize facts from other evidence. A newspaper article is primary evidence for what the newspaper published, but usually not for the event itself.
Secondary Source
A secondary source explains, interprets, analyzes, or summarizes other evidence. Examples include academic articles, history books, legal commentary, think tank reports, NGO analysis, news articles, encyclopedia entries, documentaries, policy reports, and fact-checks.
Secondary does not mean weak. A serious legal analysis can explain a treaty better than someone randomly quoting one sentence from it. A peer-reviewed historical study can be stronger than a poorly interpreted ancient text.
The issue is not “primary good, secondary bad.” The issue is whether the source supports the exact claim being made.
Common Archive Mistake To Avoid
Do not use the PS section as decoration. A source should not be listed just because it looks authoritative, exists as a PDF, or comes from a respected institution. A source belongs there only if it helps prove, clarify, or directly support the note.
The Best Standard
For each source, check three things:
- What does this source directly show?
- Which sentence or claim in the note does it support?
- Is it being used as direct evidence, legal context, expert analysis, or background?
If the source does not clearly answer those questions, it should be moved, replaced, or explained better.
Strong Source Use Example
Weak use: “This report proves genocide.”
Better use: “This report helps document allegations, statements, and humanitarian conditions. It does not by itself legally prove genocide unless it also establishes the required legal elements, especially specific intent.”
Weak use: “This court case proves the current case.”
Better use: “This court case explains the legal standard. It helps define what must be proven, but the current facts still need separate evidence.”
Weak use: “This article says it, so it is true.”
Better use: “This article reports the claim. Check whether it relies on direct evidence, named sources, documents, data, or anonymous claims.”
Reader Warning
Readers should not assume every PS section is perfect. This archive is built with serious effort, but it is still a human research archive.
Some sources may be primary for one part of the note, secondary for another part, useful but not decisive, strong but not perfectly categorized, in need of better page references, or worth checking against the original document.
That does not make the archive weak. It means the archive should be used properly. The point is not blind trust. The point is source-based verification.
Final Rule
Do not worship the label.
Check the source. Check the quote. Check the page. Check whether the evidence actually proves the claim.