Revision as of 18:46, 14 August 2024 edit WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 128,604 edits →"Secondary" does not mean "good": Expanding on "appropriate" sources Tag: 2017 wikitext editor ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:07, 14 February 2025 edit undo Traumnovelle (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 11,815 edits →"Primary" does not mean "bad": This incorrectly states that primary sources are better off used than secondary sources. Which contradicts DUE and OR which recommends to use secondary sources. Tag: Reverted Next edit →
Line 94: "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not 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 {{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. ==Primary sources should be used carefully==

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions