Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 01:15, 18 July 2025 edit PARAKANYAA (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers 67,704 edits m Reverted 1 edit by 2403:6200:8852:9ADE:A73A:FEB:8C99:305F (talk) to last revision by Habst Tags: Twinkle Undo ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:00, 22 August 2025 edit undo WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 128,597 edits Simplify Tag: Visual edit
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
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 primary~~Primary sources ~~are~~can ~~not fully~~be 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.