Revision as of 20:52, 21 September 2011 edit WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 128,607 edits →All sources are primary for something: How you use the source affects the classification of the source. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:59, 21 September 2011 edit undo WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 128,607 edits →Are newspapers secondary or primary sources?: Correct Next edit →
Line 107: 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 historians considers the newspaper article a primary source. 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~~Some editors—especially those with no training in ~~historiography—call~~historiography—incorrectly call these newspaper articles "secondary sources".

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions