I understand that most of us are looking for information about events or persons from the past, maybe motivations of their acts, causes or results of what they did.

We also have a "historiography" tag. The historiography is a science about studying the history. We do allow such questions. For example, my question "how do historians treat gossip?" was not closed and was quite well received.

What is wrong with asking for sources? This is also historiography. Some sources are good, some bad and for many people it is hard to distinguish.

(I understand that some questions present lack of own effort, and they should be closed as any other question)

  • 1
    There a number of meta threads where the highest scoring answers (as well as the majority of answers) support 1) primary source/data/reference requests and 2) "canonical/seminal" source requests. But somehow that consensus never seems to stick when it comes to close/downvoting...
    – two sheds
    Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 19:36
  • I looked up by "source" but haven't found anything. Maybe because I use a mobile application now. I will try to search with a computer. Sorry if I have made a duplicate.
    – Voitcus
    Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 19:48
  • 1
    Oh, not calling this a duplicate! Just expressing my support :) -- btw the threads I was thinking of are this and this
    – two sheds
    Commented Jul 29, 2015 at 19:53
  • I think your question is good, but I would prefer to keep all discussion of sources in one question. There are some very good answers on that question.
    – MCW Mod
    Commented Jul 30, 2015 at 8:49

1 Answer 1


The site doesn't like "list" questions. These are hard to answer, and evaluate objectively.

To ask a good source question, you should ask about a particular source, show what it does, and ask about the "value" of the source. A question like that can be answered and evaluated.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .