Talk:Edmund Bacon (1785–1866)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More content covering Bacon's personal life is needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierson, 1862, not a primary source

To whom it may concern: Pierson's book of 1862 was written long after Jefferson's death, and by someone who was not involved with Jefferson or any of his affairs. The age of a source by itself does not make a source a primary source. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Jefferson, it is about Bacon, who had direct input into Pierson's book. Moreover, sources that are very old are indeed always treated as primary sources, as their interpretation requires extensive knowledge of how, why, by whom, and under which circumstances they were written. As an extreme example, the Gospel of Matthew is handled as a primary source, not a secondary one. It tells us something about what Matthew believed (or wanted the reader to believe). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schulz. On further reflection, I am in partial agreement, only because Bacon spoke directly with Pierson, not simply because of the age of the publication. It's not like we're going back 1000 years, or that the publication is written with language never used. It's understood that some phrases that were common 100 and more years ago are not used today, but this doesn't mean it takes any special training or education to understand them. In any case I will try to see if I can supplement the Pierson citations with others, but remember, primary sources are allowed if used carefully where there is no employment of original research and advancing new positions. On that note, since primary sources are allowed, why is there a tag for using them? Another one of Wikipedia's inconsistencies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon witnessed Mrs. Jefferson's death?

How is it that Edmund Bacon, born in 1785, could have witnessed Martha Jefferson's death in 1782? This is referenced to Annette Gordon-Reed's book, which I haven't read; is this claim made in her book? 71.49.218.196 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this error. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]