Part A. Identification and Evaluation of Sources Ca. 500 words, marked on a scale out of 6 Worth 25 points

Choose 2 Sources One primary, one secondary Are historically significant Primary - A major speech, memo, original publication Secondary - A well respected, pivotal historical work from a single historian Must be RELEVANT to answering your Research question – the mark bands demand this

To start… About 100 words About 400 words (200 per source) Must begin by writing – This investigation seeks to answer “Your research question” Include a brief explanation of the nature of the two sources you have selected for detailed analysis, including the explanation of their RELEVANCE to your investigation (“this source I have selected for detailed analysis is [ describe what it is, who produced it, when, where and why]. “This source is particular relevant to the investigation because… [explain] About 400 words (200 per source) Analyze the values and limitations of the two sources in relation to the investigation, with reference to their origins, purpose and content This time, you are explaining why /how it is a value or limitation to YOUR investigation, not to a historian Also, topic studied is your question

OPCVL (For the IA) Start by identifying the source Example Who created it? When? Who is the publisher? Is it an extract or chapter or an entire work? Whatever might be necessary to understand where the source is coming from needs to be included (this does take from your word count so only include what is necessary, but everything that is necessary) Example  Extract from Twelve years with Hitler, the memoirs of Otto Dietrich, Hitler’s press chief, published in 1955.  Additional reference material can be cited

For each source – ORIGIN (focus on author, year, publication) Briefly describe the Origin of the document Who created it? Where was it created? Then address the value of the origin Why might historians care that it is this person that created it? Was this person there? Did they decide policy? Did they undergo a meaningful experience? Were they in a position of government? Secondary Sources – what is their background? Their merits? Credentials? Are they a leader in a particular area of study or school of thought? Do they come from a particular perspective (background or country of origin that might be germane to the RQ) And how could historians (you) value this? Then address the limitations of the origin Consider the date of publication in relation to the events Consider the author the limitations of their perspective? Were they feed propaganda? Did their age/background/educational level/role in government limit their views? Is the author from a different time period that experienced a different zeitgeist (spirit of the time) that might limit their views? Does it lack hindsight? Lacking relevance, or the absence of some information is NOT a limitation Explicitly explain why all of this is relevant to the investigation.

For each source (PURPOSE – focus on audience, type of source, WHY) Briefly explain the value of the purpose of the document Explain why it was created, what it was meant to achieve Is it meant to persuade a particular audience? Why might this be of value to the historian? Think about relevance to your RQ Was it a secret document?, a private correspondence? A public announcement? Why might historians want to know this? Maybe it shows that was an intention to deceive, or maybe it could be candid and frank, maybe it shows what a governments position is on a matter. Is it meant to validate a particular argument? Why might this be of value? Secondary Sources that are meant to INFORM ONLY are not relevant! Explain the limitations of the purpose of the document If it is meant to persuade, what should historians (you) be careful to be aware of about this document when they use it for evidence? Is this person trying to be deceptive? Does their position (education, government role) limit their viewpoints? If it is secondary – is there weaknesses in its methodology (the way the analysis was conducted?) When was this historian writing? (again consider zeitgeist). Do modern historians have differing views? Is there something that was unknown during the time period that may have caused the author to be of a different persuasion?

For each source You may also consider the value or limitations of the content is the language exaggerated? Consider the tone – is it worried, angry, excited, defeatist, etc. A value or limitation of the content is NOT that it does or does not include something. I understand this is much to ask in 500 words. You want to be as concise(brief) and exacting with your choice of words as possible. As you edit, think “is there a shorter way for me to do this?” Is any of my use of language unnecessary”?