Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:45, 10 July 2011

Latest revision as of 23:00, 22 August 2025

(335 intermediate revisions by more than 100 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}}

A lot of people have trouble figuring out what we mean when we say that we want a "secondary source".

'''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:

==Source classification in the real world==

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

The concept of [[primary source|primary]], [[secondary source|secondary]], and [[tertiary source]]s originated with the academic discipline of [[historiography]]. The point was to give historians a handy way to indicate how close the source of a piece of information was to the actual events.

* 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.

Importantly, the concept developed to deal with "events", rather than ideas or abstract concepts. A primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. So while a dictionary is a classic example of a tertiary source for the meanings of words, an ancient dictionary is actually a primary source—for the meanings of words in the ancient world.

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

There are no quaternary sources: Either the source is primary, or it describes, comments on, or analyzes primary sources (in which case, it is secondary), or it relies heavily or entirely on secondary sources (in which case, it is tertiary). The first published source for any given fact is '''always''' considered a primary source.

==Background information==

The historians' concept has been extended into other fields, with partial success.

The concept of [[primary source|primary]], [[secondary source|secondary]], and [[tertiary source]]s originated with the academic discipline of [[historiography]]. The point was to give historians a handy way to indicate how close the source of a piece of information was to the actual events.{{efn|name=Yale|According to Yale University: "Primary sources provide firsthand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic or question under investigation. They are usually created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later".<ref>{{cite web |title=Primary Sources at Yale |url= http://primarysources.yale.edu/ |publisher=Yale University}}</ref>}}

==Wikipedia is not the real world==

Importantly, the concept developed to deal with "events", rather than ideas or abstract concepts. A primary source was a source that was created at about the same time as the event, regardless of the source's contents. So while a dictionary is an example of a tertiary source, an ancient dictionary is actually a primary source—for the meanings of words in the ancient world.

Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them. There are at least two major definitions of ''secondary source'' in use on Wikipedia. This page deals primarily with the classification of reliable sources in terms of article content. The classification used specifically for notability is addressed [[#Secondary sources for notability|in a separate section at the end]].

There are no quaternary sources: Either the source is primary, or it describes, comments on, or analyzes primary sources (in which case, it is secondary), or it relies heavily or entirely on secondary or tertiary sources (in which case, it is tertiary). The first published source for any given fact is '''always''' considered a primary source.

The historians' concept has been extended into other fields, with partial success.

Wikipedia, like many institutions, has its own [[lexicon]]. Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them. There are at least two ways in which the term ''secondary source'' is used on Wikipedia. This page deals primarily with the classification of reliable sources in terms of article content. The classification used specifically for notability is addressed [[#Secondary sources for notability|in a separate section at the end]].

==How to classify a source==

[[File:Instructions and Travel Diary that Governor Francisco Joze de Lacerda e Almeida Wrote about His Travel to the Center of Africa, Going to the River of Sena, in the Year of 1798 WDL234.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A [[travel diary]], like this handwritten manuscript from 1798, is a [[primary source]].]]

Imagine that an army conquered a small country 200 years ago, and you have the following sources:

Imagine that an army conquered a small country 200 years ago, and as a Wikipedia editor you have the following sources:

* 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, that is 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 a [[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: TheIn 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 emphasizesemphasize things important to their cultures and times, while overlooking things important to the actual actors.

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.]]

In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. [[Narrative review]]s, [[systematic review]]s and [[meta-analyses]] are considered secondary sources, because they are based on ''and analyze or interpret'' (rather than merely citing) these original experimental reports.

In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the [[primary literature]] to differentiate them from unpublished sources. [[Narrative review]]s, [[systematic review]]s and [[meta-analyses]] are considered secondary sources, because they are based on ''and analyze or interpret'' (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports.

In the fine arts, a work of art is always a primary source. This means that novels, plays, paintings, sculptures, and such are always primary sources. Statements made by or works written by the artists about their artwork might be primary or secondary. Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece. As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material.

Among genealogists, a primary source comes from a direct witness, a secondary source comes from second-hand information or [[hearsay]] told to others by witnesses, and tertiary sources can represent ''either'' a further link in the chain ''or'' an analysis, summary, or distillation of primary and/or secondary sources. In this system, an elderly woman's description of her wedding day from many decades before is a primary source; her granddaughter's plain repetition of that information to her schoolteacher is considered secondary by genealogists, and if the schoolteacher goes home that evening and writes down what the granddaughter said, then the schoolteacher is producing a tertiary source. In other systems, all of these sources are primary. Genealogists also differentiate between ''original'' documents, accurate ''copies'' (photographs, photocopies or unaltered digital scans) of the original documents, and ''derivatives'' (handwritten or re-typed transcripts, digitally enhanced copies, or other methods of copying that might introduce changes or errors). Copies and derivatives retain the same status as the original in the primary-secondary-tertiary classification, unless the derivative is so different as to represent a transformative summary, in which case it becomes a tertiary source.

In some disciplines, notably law, the concept of tertiary sources is not used. In this two-part system, what would typically be classified as a tertiary source by other disciplines is lumped in with secondary sources.

===Not a matter of counting the number of links in the chain===

{{shortcut|WP:NOTLINKSINCHAIN|WP:LINKSINACHAIN}}

Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source?

Consider the simple example above: the original proclamation is a primary source. Is the book necessarily a secondary source?

The answer is: not always. If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the [[official seal]] on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source. The text and images of the proclamation always remain primary sources.

It's not a matter of counting up the number of sources in a chain. The first published source is always a primary source, but it is possible to have dozens of sources, without having any secondary or tertiary sources. If Alice writes down an idea, and Bob simply quotes her work, and Chris refers to Bob's quotation, and Daisy cites Chris, and so forth, you very likely have a string of primary sources, rather than one primary, one secondary, one tertiary, and all subsequent sources with made-up classification names.

===Characteristics of a secondary source===

* A secondary source is basedbuilt onfrom primary sources. Secondary sources are not required to provide you with a bibliography, but you should have some reason to believe that the materialsource inis building on the sourcefoundation isof notprior entirelysources rather than starting with all-new material. For example, century-old love letters on display at a museum are primary sources; a secondary source might analyze the contents of these letters. The fact that the analysis is based on these letters would be evident from the description in the source, even if the paper contained no footnotes.

* A secondary source is significantly separated from these primary sources. A reporter's notebook is an (unpublished) primary source, and the news story published by the reporter based on those notes is also a primary source. This is because the sole purpose of the notes in the notebook is to produce the news storyreport. If a journalist later reads dozens of these primary-source news storiesreports and uses those articles to write a book about a major event, then this resulting work is a secondary source. This separation is not defined by the length of time that elapses or geographical distance.

* A secondary source ''usually'' provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia.

* AReputable secondary sourcesources isare ''usually'' based on more than one primary source. High-quality secondary sources often synthesize together multiple primary sources, in due proportion to the expert-determined quality of the primary sources. This helps us present the material in due proportion to the sources' actual importance (in other words, assign appropriate [[WP:WEIGHT]]), rather than in due proportion due to the size of the sources' publicity budgets.

===All sources are primary for something===

{{shortcut|WP:ALLPRIMARY|WP:PRIMARYINPART}}

Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the [[copyright page]] inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication.

Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the [[copyright page]] inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source.

More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material. A textbook might include commentary on the proclamation (which is secondary material) as well as the full text of the proclamation (which is primary material). A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published workworks to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material). An author might write a book about an event that is mostly a synthesis of primary-source news stories (which is secondary material), but hethey might add occasional information about personal experiences or new material from recent interviews (which is primary material). The book about love letters might analyze the letters (which is secondary material) and provide a transcription of the letters in an appendix (which is primary material). The work based on previously published sources is [[#Not a matter of counting the number of links in the chain|probably]] a secondary source; the new information is a primary source.

How you use the source affects the classification of the source.

=="Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"==

=="Secondary" does not mean "good"==

{{shortcut|WP:NOTGOODSOURCE|WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD}}

{{See|Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent}}

"Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary '''does not''' mean that the source is [[WP:INDY|independent]], authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, [[conflict of interest|self-serving]] and [[wikt:self-publishing|self-published]].

According to our [[:Category:Wikipedia content guidelines|content guideline]] on [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|identifying reliable sources]], a reliable sourcesources have most, if not all, hasof the following characteristics:

* 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.

A primary source can have all of these qualities, and a secondary source may have none of them. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".

==="Primary" isdoes not another way to spellmean "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 primary sources are less likely to be fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources ''can'' be reliable, and they ''can'' be used. However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used ''for''.

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". Primary sources can be independent, 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.

==You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully==

==Primary sources should be used carefully==

Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles.

{{shortcut|WP:PRIMARYCARE}}

PrimaryMaterial sourcesbased mayon onlyprimary sources can be usedvaluable onand Wikipediaappropriate additions to makeWikipedia straightforwardarticles, but only in the form of [[WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|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™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 we'rethe sayingarticle says it does.

;Examples

* '''An article about athe novelconquest of the hypothetical country above:''' The novelproclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for informationa aboutsimple thedescription plot,of the namesproclamation, ofincluding theits characterssize, orwhether otherit contentswas written in the[[blackletter]] book:calligraphy, whether Anyit educatedis personsigned canor readhas Janean Austen's[[official ''Prideseal]], and Prejudice''what andwords, discoverdates, thator thenames mainwere character'son nameit. is Elizabeth.Anyone Itshould isbe notable to look at an acceptableimage sourceof forthe claimsproclamation aboutand book'ssee style,that themes,it foreshadowing,was symbolicall meaning,written values,on one importancepage, orwhether otherit mattersused ofthat criticalstyle analysis,of interpretationcalligraphy, orand evaluation:so forth. No oneThe willproclamation's findauthenticity, ameaning, directrelevance, statementimportance, oftypicality, thisinfluences, materialand inso forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors.

* '''An article about a paintingnovel:''' The paintingnovel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colorsplot, shapesthe names of the characters, andthe figuresnumber of chapters, or other contents in the painting.book: Any educated person can lookread atJane Georgia O'KeeffeAusten's ''Cow Skull: Red, White,Pride and BluePrejudice'', and seediscover that itthe ismain a painting of a cowcharacter's skullname onis aElizabeth backgroundor ofthat red,there white,are and61 bluechapters. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artistbook's motivationstyle, allusions or relationships to otherthemes, worksforeshadowing, thesymbolic meaning, ofvalues, the figures in the paintingimportance, or any other matters of critical analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: LookingNo atone thewill paintingfind doesa notdirect tellstatement anyoneof whythis thematerial artist chose these colors, whether she meant to evoke religious or patriotic sentiments, or what motivatedin the compositionbook.

* '''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 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").

{{refbegin}}

:‡ {{note|1}} A person's or an organization's website could contain some secondary material about itself, although this is not very common. Such material would still be [[WP:SPS|self-published]] as well as first-party/affiliated/non-independent material, and thus would still be subject to restrictions in how you can use it.{{refend}}

==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. Topics 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 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:

*{{cite web |last=Knowlton |first=Steven |title=Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction |publisher=Princeton University Library |url= http://libguides.princeton.edu/history/primarysources}}

*{{cite web |last=Lee |first=Corliss |title=Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started |publisher=UC Berkeley Libraries |url= http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/subject-guide/163-Finding-Historical-Primary-Sources}}

*{{cite web |last=Bell |first=Emily |title=Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source? |publisher=Harvard University Library |url= http://guides.library.harvard.edu/HistSciInfo/primary}}

}} [[Yale University]]'s guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an ''interpretation'' of primary source material.<ref>{{cite web |last=Gilman |first=Todd |title=Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources |date= |publisher=Yale University Library |url= http://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=295913&p=1975839 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170206192321/http://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=295913&p=1975839 |archive-date=February 6, 2017 |access-date=February 10, 2017}}</ref> Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:

* "[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 |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>

Similar definitions of primary sources are cited by the [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs|policy on original research]]. While most news stories are considered primary sources, some can be secondary sources, as explained below.

===Examples of news reports as primary sources===

;Eyewitness news: The television [[news presenter]] stands in front of a burning house and describes the fire. The newspaper journalist describes the scene of a major car wreck that their editor sent them to.

;Breaking news: The wire service announces that a prominent politician has been taken to the hospital. The weather service says that a tornado has touched down.

;Reports on events: The newspaper journalist describes the discussions from a meeting of the local school agency. The radio announcer reports the arrest of an alleged criminal.

;Human interest stories: The magazine publishes a touching story about a child with a congenital heart defect. The society column in the newspaper reports the birthday of a prominent local citizen.

;Interviews and reports of interviews: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. (Defined as a primary source [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs|by policy]].)

;Investigative reports: The journalist goes undercover and reports their experiences. The journalist meets with people and reads documents to uncover corruption. (Defined as a primary source [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs|by policy]].)

;Editorials, opinions, and [[op-ed]]s: The newspaper editorial staff announces its support for a proposed law. The syndicated columnist explains their idea for fixing the economy. (Defined as a primary source [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs|by policy]].)

===Examples of news reports as secondary sources===

;Historical reports: A special television program is broadcast to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of [[World War II]]. A newspaper column lists the events reported in that newspaper on the same date from 25, 50, 75, and 100 years before and comments on their relevance to modern times.

;Analytical reports: The newspaper publishes a week-long series of articles on health care systems in the nation. This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information.

;Book reviews: Book reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information ''beyond'' a basic description of the book's contents. Book reviews are often a mix of primary and secondary material: e.g., an analysis of some aspect of the book (secondary) plus the reviewer's rating or opinion about the book (primary). Simple plot summaries, synopses, other basic descriptions of a work's contents are generally primary sources.

Again, [[#"Primary" does not mean "bad"|"Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"]]. Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources.

==See also==

* [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]] (guideline)

* [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources]] (essay)

* [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources]] (essay)

* [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using style guides]] (essay)

* [[Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy]] (essay)

* [[Wikipedia:Primary and secondary source paradoxes in law-related articles]] (essay)

==Notes==

One rough rule of thumb for identifying primary sources is this: if the source is noticeably closer to the event than you are, then it's a primary source. For example, if an event occurred on January 1, 1800, and a newspaper article appeared about it the next day, then Wikipedia (and all historians) considers the newspaper article a primary source.

{{notelist}}

==References==

However, 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", by which they mean "please don't delete this article" sources.

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikipedia essays about reliable sources]]

Typically, very recent newspaper articles are mis-labeled as a "secondary source" during AFDs, by way of trying to finesse [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline's]] requirement that secondary sources exist, when no true secondary sources actually exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find true secondary sources for [[WP:MILL|run-of-the-mill events]]. Typically, editors are willing to overlook this error for recent events. However, once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted.