It is a primary source because it was taken at the time.
Most websites would be considered secondary sources but depending on the information the site contains and when it was created it could be a primary source.
There many versions of The Bible. The first part of the answer is which bible are you referring to? The second part of the answer is as a source for what claim? If the claim is 'Christians of a certain time period believed the bible said x' than it could be considered a primary source. If the claim is something about the historical time period of Jesus than at best it's secondary because all the books of the New Testament were written decades after Jesus's supposed death, and were of course written from a religious instead of historical viewpoint.
No, maybe, no, no
Did you mean "I love the picture"? You could say "J'adore le photo" if it is a photograph or
a photograph of an alien spaceship landing on earth TRUE for APEX
yes it is a primary source
A photograph can be considered a primary source because it provides direct visual evidence of a particular moment, person, event, or place at a specific time. It captures the context and details that may not be available in written accounts, allowing researchers to analyze and interpret historical or cultural aspects directly from the image. Additionally, photographs can convey emotions and perspectives that enrich our understanding of the subject matter.
hindi kasi si mark henry hahahaha!
No, a primary source is an original document or an actual witness.
A cartoon story can be considered a secondary source if it is based on information or events that occurred prior to its creation. If the cartoon story directly depicts or records an event as it happens, then it could be considered a primary source.
If it was copied by someone else then given to you it's secondary because the whole point is that with secondary sources it may have been changed. A picture could be shopped if it's secondary source.
Could be considered one. Depends on how much reconstruction/remodeling has been done on it. If you visit a 13th century castle you would see how it is made, laid out, and may get an understanding of how people lived, so it would be a primary source.
Yes, a pamphlet written in 1952 could be considered a primary source for Prohibition if it contains information or perspectives from that time period. Primary sources are original materials that provide direct evidence of a historical event or topic.
A primary source for Joan of Arc could be anything written or painted about her in her time 1412-1431.
A hard source is a primary source that provides direct evidence or firsthand information about a topic. This could include documents, data, or original research findings that are considered reliable and credible for academic or journalistic purposes.
Most websites would be considered secondary sources but depending on the information the site contains and when it was created it could be a primary source.
It would be considered a primary source, as it is a direct artifact from the time period being studied. It could provide valuable insights into the beliefs, culture, and history of that time.