No, an encyclopedia is a secondary source.
No, an encyclopedia is a secondary source.
No, Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a primary source. It is a secondary source that compiles information from various primary sources.
I believe that a encyclopedia is a secondary source, because the person who wrote it most likely didn't witness every single event in it. __--FROM GENIUS--__
Generally no. A primary source is firsthand experience. As in, someone who was there, saw what happened, etc. Encyclopedias are secondary sources.
C. A recording of a speech
A primary source is a piece of evidence from the time of the event/person/etc you're researching, right? So unless the encyclopedia was written at the time of the event/person/etc, it will be a secondary source. In fact, some encyclopedias are more like tertiary sources, in that they try to provide a potted version of major secondary works.
an example of a secondary source is a history/textbookbook, websites, reviews, encyclopedia, dictionary.annotations or commentaries on primary sources such as cases or legislators.
encyclopedia
It is generally not recommended to cite an encyclopedia in academic papers, as they are considered secondary sources containing general knowledge. It is better to cite primary sources or scholarly articles for more authoritative and in-depth information. If you must use an encyclopedia for background information, try to verify the information with other more credible sources.
an example of a secondary source is a history/textbookbook, websites, reviews, encyclopedia, dictionary.annotations or commentaries on primary sources such as cases or legislators.
Some popular encyclopedia sets include Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, and Encyclopædia Universalis.
Encyclopedia Britannica.