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.
If a picture is copied directly from the original source, it is still considered a primary source. However, if the picture undergoes alteration or manipulation, it may no longer be considered a primary source.
A picture is not a secondary source it is a primary source only if it was drawn at the time or year it happened in . Lets say obama is elected president and i took a picture of him and send it to 10 people. As long as none of them messed with the picture this is still a primary source.
A picture is not a secondary source it is a primary source only if it was drawn at the time or year it happened in . Lets say obama is elected president and i took a picture of him and send it to 10 people. As long as none of them messed with the picture this is still a primary source.
Our primary source is still coal, and that is not renewable
No, a primary source is a contemporary account. To write it now creates a secondary source.
Of course, that is what they are made of. Elephant tusks were the primary source of ivory for many centuries. It is still the primary source and that is why poachers hunt them.
still looking for answers i dont know..
A contemporary scholar's discussion of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would not be considered a primary source, but a secondary source. It may still be a valid source of information, however.
A primary source on Cleopatra simply needs to come from the ancient world. Plutarch wrote about her in a few biographies. Even though he wrote these about 150 years after her death, they are still considered as primary sources.
General Grant's Journal is a primary source. A primary source is an eye witness. It is what the person who was there actually saw. Such accounts are extremely important because they give a feel for the era. A secondary source would be what you would hear if one of your parents told you what they heard about World War 2. They would be passing on a story. Also, Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, also wrote his memoirs. If someone took Grant's Journal and Davis' Memoirs and made a book, that would be a secondary source. Still, it might give a better overall picture of the war. So a primary source is one written by someone who saw what was going on.
The Sun isn't our primary source of energy. The world still relies on burning fossil fuels as a main source of energy. Solar power only provides one percent of the world's electricity production.
A paraphrase of a source involves restating its ideas or information in your own words, while still maintaining the original meaning and concept. It should not include direct quotes or copied sentences from the original source.
It depends, the format of the source is not what makes it primary or secondary, it is the nature of the source itself. Whether is is in a book, on a respectable website, in a magazine, in a journal, or on a bit of paper has no bearing. What matters is who wrote it and when. Regardless of location, the Declaration of Independence is a primary source, as are many diarys. If you read the Magna Carta online, it is still a primary source. But always take extreme caution with internet souces, because you have much less assurance that they have not altered the original document.