Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:01, 8 July 2023

Latest revision as of 23:00, 22 August 2025

(34 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Supplement|pages=[[Wikipedia:No original research]]'s [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|Primary, secondary and tertiary sources]] subsection|shortcut=WP:USEPRIMARY|WP:PRIMARYUSE}}

'''Identifying and using primary 2sourcessources''' requires careful thought and some extra knowledge on the part of Wikipedia's editors.

2

In determining the type j2of source, there are three ski rateseparate, basic characteristics to identi287722fyidentify:

* Is this source '''self-published''' or not? (If so, then see [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources]].)

Line 29:

* a proclamation of victory written at the time of the conquest,

* a diary written by someone who lived at the time and talks about it,

* a book written 150 years later, that analyzes the proclamation,

* an academic journal article written two years ago that examines the diary, and

* an encyclopedia entry written last year, based on both the book and the journal.

Both the proclamation and the diary are [[primary source]]s. These primary sources have advantages: they were written at the time, and so are free of the opinions and fictions imposed by later generations. They also have disadvantages: the proclamation mightmay contain [[propaganda]] designed to pacify the conquered country, or omit politically inconvenient facts, or overstate the importance of other facts, or be designed to stroke the new ruler's ego. The diary will reflect the prejudices of its author, and its author might be unaware of relevant facts.

The book and the journal article are [[secondary source]]s. These secondary sources have advantages: The authors were not involved in the event, so they have the emotional distance that allows them to analyze the events dispassionately. They also have disadvantages: In some topic areas the authors are writing about what other people said happened and cannot use their own experience to correct any errors or omissions. The authors may be unable to see clearly through their own cultural lens, and the result may be that they unconsciously emphasize things important to their cultures and times, while overlooking things important to the actual actors.

Line 39:

The encyclopedia article is a [[tertiary source]]. It has advantages: it summarizes information. It also has disadvantages: in relying on the secondary source, the encyclopedia article will repeat, and may accidentally amplify, any distortions or errors in that source. It may also add its own interpretation.

This sort of simple example is what the source classification system was intended to deal with. It has, however, been stretched to cover much more complicated situations.

===Uses in fieldsFields other than history===

[[File:Cover-reduced-journal.pone.0167606.jpg|thumb|alt=Summary page of a scientific paper documenting an experiment in treating bulimia nervosa with electrical stimulation of the brain|The initial publication of data from a scientific experiment, such as a [[clinical trial]], is a primary source.]]

Line 84:

* It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

* It is [[Wikipedia:Published|published]] by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).

* It is "appropriate for the material in question". An appropriate source should be directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing (e.g., ''not'' a book about Shakespeare's sonnets that happens to mention a modern cancer prevalence statistic). If the claim in question is scholarly, then scholarly sources from a relevant or related field are appropriate; if the claim is about business news, then a business news source is appropriate; if the claim is about people, then biographies of them are appropriate. A variety of source types will be appropriate for most articles, and the type of source appropriate in one part of an article may be different from the type of source that is appropriate for a different part of the article.

* It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.

* It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other [[conflict of interest]].

* It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as [[editor]]ial oversight or [[peer review]] processes.

Line 92:

==="Primary" does not mean "bad"===

{{shortcut|WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD}}

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primaryPrimary sources arecan not fullybe independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and/or published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources {{em|can}} be [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable]], and they {{em|can}} be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct [[WP:Manual of Style#Quotations|quotation]]. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used ''for''.

==Primary sources should be used carefully==

{{shortcut|WP:PRIMARYCARE}}

Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles.Wikipedia Howeverarticles, primary sources maybut only bein usedthe onform Wikipediaof [[WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|to make straightforward, descriptive statements]] that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.

;Examples

* '''An article about the conquest of the hypothetical country above:''' The proclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for a simple description of the proclamation, including its size, whether it was written in [[blackletter]] calligraphy, whether it is signed or has an [[official seal]], and what words, dates, or names were on it. Anyone should be able to look at an image of the proclamation and see that it was all written on one page, whether it used that style of calligraphy, and so forth. However, theThe proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors.

* '''An article about a novel:''' The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, the number of chapters, or other contents in the book: Any educated person can read Jane Austen's ''Pride and Prejudice'' and discover that the main character's name is Elizabeth or that there are 61 chapters. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the book's style, themes, foreshadowing, symbolic meaning, values, importance, or other matters of critical analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: No one will find a direct statement of this material in the book.

* '''An article about a film:''' The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation.

* '''Providing an original illustration''' Suppose that a Wikimedia contributor inserts a photograph or other media file to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a person, place, or other topic. Editors who do this routinely assert that the photograph depicts the subject of the article. The Wikimedia community [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assumes good faith]] that the illustration really depicts the thing. For example, it is not necessary to provide other pictures of a person or place as supporting evidence that a photo insertion into Wikipedia is what the content provider claims that it is, except in the case of a dispute. Creating a photo and uploading it for use in Wikimedia projects is an act of creating a primary source without third-party publishing and review by any established authority.

* '''An article about a painting:''' The painting itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. Any educated person with the relevant knowledge and ability can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's ''[[Cow's Skull: Red, White, and Blue]]'', and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: Looking at the painting does not tell anyone why the artist chose these colors, whether she meant to evoke religious or patriotic sentiments, or what motivated the composition.

* '''An article about a person:''' The person's [[autobiography]], own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary{{ref|1|‡}} source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for [[WP:INTEXT|clearly attributed]] controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including [[birth certificate]]s, the [[Social Security Death Index]], and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.

* '''An article about a business:''' The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary{{ref|1|‡}} source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical ___location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").

Line 115 ⟶ 113:

==Secondary sources for notability==

Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. Information about an author from the book jacket copy of the author's own book does not demonstrate notability, for example. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. However topicsTopics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]].

AFDs (articles for deletion) require showing that topics meet [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline's]] requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for [[WP:MILL|run-of-the-mill events]] and [[breaking news]]. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted.

==Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?==

{{shortcut|WP:PRIMARYNEWS|WP:SECONDARYNEWS}}

The term "news-reporting media" is used here in the sense of actual [[newspaper|newspapers]] and other media reporting news in a manner similar to newspapers.

Wikipedia fairly often writes about current events. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.

Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source.{{efn|name=Newspapers|See for example:

Line 133 ⟶ 131:

* "[It is not] always easy to distinguish primary from secondary sources. A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".<ref>{{cite web |title=Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary |publisher=James Cook University |website=libguides.jcu.edu.au |___location=Queensland, Australia |url= https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/scholarly-sources/secondary |access-date=October 22, 2020}}</ref>

* "In the humanities, age is an important factor in determining whether an article is a primary or secondary source. A recently published journal or newspaper article on the ''Brown v. Board of Education'' Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down".<ref>{{cite web |title=Primary and Secondary Sources |date= |publisher=Ithaca College Library |url= https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170618033127/https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary |archive-date=June 18, 2017 |access-date=June 15, 2017}}</ref>

* "Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described [...] In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place".<ref>{{cite web |last=González |first=Luis A. |title=Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources |date=2014 |publisher=Indiana University Libraries |url= https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/primarysources |url-status=live |access-date=March 18, 2021}}</ref>

* "There can be grey areas when determining if an item is a primary source or a secondary source&nbsp;.... Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".<ref>{{cite web |last=Sanford |first=Emily |title=Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview |date=2010 |publisher=Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan |url= http://bentley.umich.edu/refhome/primary/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110922081941/http://bentley.umich.edu/refhome/primary/ |archive-date=22 September 2011}}</ref>