Sources, is it or not?

(This is a Secondary source)
I applaud those who voted, thank you! It took a friendly nudge from a friend to stick to my promise: fill you into a historian's job in identifying sources.
So the majority passed, congrats! You are qualified to conduct historical research!
As to those unfortunate to fall for the most tempting option, its okay! I've had to adjust my thoughts on sources as well:) Read on to discover the why behind the vote.

Historians do not just know dates, they know dates because they chronicle the past as they seek to understand how and why events occurred.

Primary sources are "materials produced by people or groups directly involved in the event or topic under consideration, either as participants or as witnesses" (Rampolla 6). Materials produced includes, letters, testimonies, articles, archaeological sites, film, anything the original person or group left behind. So clothes qualify as original sources. The following image would be a primary source, yes photos are (usually) primaries! The image portrays the Constitution's letter of transmittal, signed by George Washington. (Pictures of the Documents)

Secondary sources consist of interpretive items, such as books or scholarly works. They can contain primary sources, such as whole original documents, but provide the author's interpretation. Textbooks merge both primary and secondary, often commenting on an event which is really the historian's perspective.

It gets more clouded though. A secondary source at times becomes a primary. This occurs with film. Film is usually secondary because it presents events through the director's eyes, yet if a historian wants to study how filmmakers interpreted events in a certain time period, the film becomes a primary source. Newspapers are usually secondary since they provide an interpretation, but become primary in the study of the period's perspective or methodology.

When utilizing sources even primary ones, a historian cannot take them at face value. Simply because a person said something in a letter does not mean it really happened. Thus researchers must draw from a collective group in attempting to draw the truth out.
There is so much more to this topic, I strongly recommend A Pocket Guide to Writing in History which discusses the issue in greater detail.

Rampolla, Mary Lynn. A Pocket Guide to Writing in History. 5th Ed.
Pictures of the Documents