Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:09, 20 July 2024

Latest revision as of 23:00, 22 August 2025

(15 intermediate revisions by 12 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|WP:USEPRIMARY|WP:PRIMARYUSE}}

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

In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article. Identifying these characteristics will help you determine how you can use these sources.:

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

* Is this source '''independent or third-party''', or is it closely affiliated with the subject? (For this question, see [[Wikipedia:Independent sources]].)

* Is this source '''primary''' or not?

Every possible combination of these three traits has been seen in sources on Wikipedia. Any combination of these three traits can produce a source that is usable for some purpose in a Wikipedia article. Identifying these characteristics will help you determine how you can use these sources.

This page deals primarily with the last question: Identifying and correctly using primary sources.

Line 78 ⟶ 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 86 ⟶ 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.

Line 112 ⟶ 118:

==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.