Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:12, 18 July 2025

Latest revision as of 23:00, 22 August 2025

(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 11:

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

kASIKORNTHAIBANK

swift coad KASITHBK

coad 004

0758120112

Khunanon Wongouan

kardnumthong phrae

thailand

54000

0960497841

==Background information==

Line 101 ⟶ 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.