Does the author have any hidden bias
In my personal opinion, it would be a second source,
Why did the author write this
i think that it is a secondary source because it dosen't look like that person who drew it was there
i think that it is a secondary source because it dosen't look like that person who drew it was there
The most important question to consider when using a primary source is: Who created the source and what was their perspective or bias? Understanding the author's background and intentions will help you evaluate the reliability and relevance of the information provided.
i think that it is a secondary source because it dosen't look like that person who drew it was there
Primary source because a primary source is from the past/something from someone whose been in that time but a secondary source is something from us/people who have not been in that time, and its also what we think happened then.
Primary sources (in history) are things such as documents produced at the time. A secondary source is something written later by a historian. Good examples of primary source documents are legal notices, letters, diaries, newspapers, maps, flags, important documents, clothes, and even furniture.
hydrogen
By definition of a historical primary source (by someone with direct knowledge from the time), a original political cartoon is a primary source. By definition of an English primary source (it is printed), it is a primary source. By definition of the final form of primary sources (see definition of primary source on www.answer.com), it is based on someone's interpretation of the time and is thus a secondary source.
The most important question to ask: "How gullible do you think I am?"
I think a secondary wife is called a 'concubine'