Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Nazi and Soviet sources

About two years ago, the WP user Sovkhozniki made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1144929614 failed attempt] to modify the WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline. The guideline normally states, {{tq|Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.}} Sovkhozniki added the qualifier, {{tq|except in cases where it promotes fringe theories.}} The Wikipedia community [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&oldid=1145570672#Reliable_yet_profringe rejected this change], and Sovkhozniki later was blocked as a parody account. This account was part of a trolling project which originated [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive71#Group_of_long-term_trolls_.28likely_EmilOWK_ban_evasion.29 in 2018 at RationalWiki], which has tried to hoodwink other users into supporting violations of content policies, and then publicized the violations on social media and external sites.

Although the community rejected this proposal, in several topics recently there's been a widespread trend to classify such sources as non-RS, as Sovkhozniki had argued to do. This has happened most commonly on articles covered by the race and intelligence arbitration case, although it isn't confined to that topic. It is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eyferth_study&diff=prev&oldid=1144550898 argued] that {{tq|the consistent consensus of editors has been that such sources are not RS}}. More recently, classifying such sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heritability_of_IQ&diff=prev&oldid=1248216213 as non-RS] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeritability_of_IQ&diff=1253949773&oldid=1253920042 described] as a {{tq|longstanding, topic-wide practice.}}

Some of the sources removed, such as New York Times articles about recent human evolution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recent_human_evolution&diff=next&oldid=1078534258] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recent_human_evolution&diff=next&oldid=1078534384] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recent_human_evolution&diff=next&oldid=1078535050] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recent_human_evolution&diff=next&oldid=1078535573] do not directly present any fringe ideas, and are classified as non-RS because of views expressed in unrelated publications from the publisher or author. This basis for classifying sources as non-RS also was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence_and_How_to_Get_It&oldid=1219761585 explained] with respect to the journal [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/personality-and-individual-differences Personality and Individual Differences]. Aside from journals and newspapers, this practice also applies to certain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence_quotient&diff=prev&oldid=1251089904 academic books] (that comment is referring to three books from Cambridge University Press: [https://books.google.com/books?id=qtZsDQAAQBAJ] [https://books.google.com/books?id=UMhJDwAAQBAJ] [https://books.google.com/books?id=0UoEEAAAQBAJ]). If necessary I can provide further diffs of sources removed for these reasons, but for now it's best to stay focused on the overall principle instead of individual examples.

The argument being made is not only that these sources are fringe; it's that they fail the requirements defined by Wikipedia:RS, and thus can't be included in evaluations of what balance of views is required by NPOV policy. The assertion that such sources are inherently non-RS has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=next&oldid=1058959337 used to reject] proposals to review the source literature in depth for such an evaluation. (When all sources taking a certain position are non-RS by definition, then the question of what's NPOV is answered a priori.)

There is a contradiction between the community's rejection of Sovkhozniki's change to this guideline, and the local consensus in some topics that when Wikipedia editors decide a particular view is fringe, reputably published sources supporting it become non-RS. In the near future, I plan to open a request for comment to resolve the contradiction. I've discussed this proposal with a member of Arbcom, and they suggested that before opening the RFC, I should initiate a discussion about how it should be formulated. I have two questions:

1. The assumption that such sources are innately non-RS is being applied across several dozen articles, so any such RFC would have to occur in a centralized place, not on an individual article's talk page. Would this talk page be an acceptable location, or is there a more appropriate venue?
2. Three options that I suggest should be voted on in the RFC are as follows: to change the guideline in the way Sovkhozniki proposed; to keep the guideline in its current form (and make it clear this community consensus supersedes any local consensus to use Sovkhozniki's version of it); or to modify the guideline to say that reputably published academic sources are RSes in most topics, but that some topic areas are exceptions. Are there any other choices that should be included?

Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:# Yes, if you want to make a WP:PROPOSAL to change this guideline, then the discussion(s) should happen on this page. Please read about the process for a formal proposal.

:# It sounds like you are trying to narrow the space in which editors can use their judgment. Is that what you really want to accomplish?

:The situation you describe above doesn't surprise me. Personally, I usually see this in Wikipedia:Contentious topics. An author (or organization) will write something that an editor morally disagrees with (e.g., J. K. Rowling opposes something about trans rights, so she is anathema with one group of editors; the Freedom From Religion Foundation supports something about trans rights, so they are anathema with another group of editors), and now it is urgent to de-platform them completely, even for content that is unrelated to whatever the editor is disturbed by.

:But:

:* There's a long tradition in academia of people being excellent at one thing and bad at another. Nobel disease has a good list if you'd like to read some stories, or think about how widely scientists accepted and supported eugenics from the beginning of modern science until the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent. The world is not divisible into people who are always perfect and people who are always wrong. You need to use a holistic evaluation. You need to let humans be complicated.

:* Similarly, even "the best" academic publishers and journals will publish bad content. Sometimes it seems to just be a mistake; sometimes it seems to be intentional, as part of a plan to provoke discussion in a field or to provide a balanced set of sources (e.g., one from a conservative, one from a progressive, one from a libertarian, etc.). But publishing a small percentage of bad things doesn't make everything they publish bad.

:WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Tagging @Generalrelative to this discussion, as their input seems relevant here given their previous involvement in some of the cited incidents. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::I’m not sure I have anything to add that hasn't been stated before, except that I'm surprised to see Ferahgo reappear to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#RFC_on_sourcing_in_relation_to_race_and_intelligence flog] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_120#Amendment_request:_Fringe_science_(November_2021) this] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=1054350875#Requesting_feedback_from_Arbitrators dead] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Proposed_addition:_Relationship_of_WP:FRINGE_to_other_policies_and_guidelines horse] once again. The last time she weighed in on the race & intelligence topic area, an area from which she'd previously been t-banned, she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1147314255 immediately self-reverted], stating "it was a mistake for me to get involved in this issue again." I was impressed, at the time, by the personal growth that showed. Yes consensus can change, but this exact same issue has been relitigated again and again and again. At some point you're just wasting the community's time. Generalrelative (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have suggested before that this guideline would benefit from a definition of reliable source. My current working definition is that a reliable source is any source that experienced editors will accept as being sufficient to support a given piece of content.

:::It has not been popular (surely the definition needs to say something about independence and secondary sources and peer review?!), but it appears to be true (e.g., {{tl|cite tweet}} is none of those things, and is used in 42K articles). And I wonder if it would solve this sort of problem, because instead of a tis/tisn't argument over whether a source is "really" fringe, we could focus on what really matters, which is consensus. Either we agree that it's acceptable for the given use, or we don't. We will hopefully have good reasons for our acceptance/non-acceptance, but in the end: it's reliable if we accept it, and unreliable if we reject it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} I think the amount of leeway editors currently have to declare sources non-RS, based only on the positions those sources take - even when the publisher is a clearly reputable one such as Cambridge University Press or The New York Times - is obstructing the ability to follow NPOV policy. WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH directly mentions this as a practice to be avoided: {{tq|The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.}} I don't view the prospective RFC as {{tq|trying to narrow the space in which editors can use their judgment}}, so much as trying to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the RS guideline.

I also think it's a problem for WP:SCHOLARSHIP to say one thing about whether reputably published academic sources are RS, while local consensus in certain topics says something else entirely. There ought to be consistency between what the guideline says and how articles are edited, even if it might potentially mean turning Sovkhozniki's change into an actual part of the guideline. (I hope that won't be the outcome, but it's still an option the community should vote on.)

The WP:PROPOSAL page that you linked to suggests workshopping a proposal before starting an actual RFC, so here's an idea about the options to be voted on.

• {{tq|Option 1: Modify WP:SCHOLARSHIP the way Sovkhozniki proposed, to say that books and papers "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" are not reliable sources if they present fringe views.}}
• {{tq|Option 2: Modify WP:SCHOLARSHIP to say this part of the guideline has exceptions for certain topic areas. One exception would be articles covered by the race and intelligence arbitration case.}}
• {{tq|Option 3: Don't modify the guideline, and decide that its current form is supported by community consensus, which supersedes any local consensus to use Sovkhozniki's version of it.}}

Lest I be misunderstood: if the community decides to uphold what WP:SCHOLARSHIP currently says about the reliability of reputably published academic sources, it would not mean that any given such source must necessarily be cited. All of the standard sourcing restrictions such as WP:PRIMARY would still apply. Suggestions about wording are welcome. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not convinced that the problem you're seeking a fix for actually exists. Fringe views (which in this case would seem to be racist pseudoscience) are omitted for a number of reasons, and sometimes because the sources are unreliable. And that isn't purely down to the publisher, we're supposed to consider the author as well, among other factors. One of these 'clearly reputable' Cambridge University Press books you mention was written by a person who is also notable for attendance at white supremacist conferences and writes for The Unz Review. Any change to the sourcing policy that would require editors to ignore factors like that would not be for the good of the encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::If you think I'm seeking to change the guideline, you've misunderstood my argument. Currently, the part of the guideline we're discussing states: {{tq|Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.}} My preferred outcome of the RFC would be for the community to support this guideline in its current form. You seem to be suggesting sources by authors such as Rindermann should be an exception to this part of the guideline. In its current form it doesn't include any such exception, but if you think that exception should exist, modifying the guideline to include such an exception is the first of the three options I've listed above. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not suggesting that, no. I am suggesting that you are misreading the current guideline. The omissions of these sources and views are entirely supported by the present policy. My preferred outcome would be that you stop wasting community time on this periodically (we have had several RFCs already) and simply accept that consensus is against your views. I imagine if you keep this up at some point somebody will file the required wikipaperwork to get your topic ban reinstated if you don't stop voluntarily. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Something to remember… per WP:VNOT… Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Even if the source is 100% reliable, if there is a consensus to not mention something, we don’t mention it. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• The guideline as it stands now looks good to me. The problem here seems to be local instances where the guideline was not adhered to. That the passage "...human populations living on different parts of the globe have been evolving on divergent trajectories reflects the different conditions of their habitats" cited to a 2013 NY Times science article was removed under the argument that the source was not reliable, is rather egregious, although I'm not surprised that this happened. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|Jweiss11}}, please clear this up for me: Are you saying that if the New York Times publishes something, we should ignore the fact that the author was shortly afterward the subject of a truly massive rebuke by subject-matter experts –– perhaps the most resounding refutation in the history of science journalism –– on precisely the same topic? Or were you just assuming that the removal was "egregious" without looking into the matter? Generalrelative (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::The passage I cited here is clearly true. It's a non-controversial statement about the basics of biological evolution. Is human evolution not subject to environmental conditions? I think it clearly is, e.g. High-altitude adaptation in humans, [https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation], etc. If Nicholas Wade shot the president the next day after this article was published, it wouldn't make it false. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::If a claim is non-controversial, we should be able to find a non-controversial source to back it up. If you read that talk page discussion, you'll see that I made this point in my first comment. You are free to go back and re-add the claim with a solid reference right now. Unless you think the passage is so "clearly true" that WP:BLUE applies, in which case no reference would be needed. But Nicholas Wade didn't get in trouble for shooting anyone; he got in trouble for flagrantly misrepresenting the scope of recent human evolution –– precisely the topic for which we decided he is unreliable. Ferahgo appears to believe that editors shouldn't be trusted to make this sort of determination through consensus, but she is wrong. We do it all the time and it's one of the foundational reasons this project works. Generalrelative (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::: It's my editorial judgement that Nicholas Wade making this straightforward claim about evolution in the NY Times is indeed reliable irrespective of the other controversy with Wade. I also have doubts that Wade "flagrantly misrepresented" anything. Surely many people in academia thought this was so, but I suspect this was case in large part because of politically-motivated reasoning. This project works very well for many topics, but in the case of sensitive political ones, like this one, it tends to import massive political bias both from scholars in academia and the interpreters of sources here on Wikipedia. This episode right here with Wade looks a textbook case of such a failure. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::This isn't just 'many people in academia', it is many of the people whose work Wade cited. Surely if anyone is qualified to state that research is misrepresented, it is the people who did the research in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::+1 to this. That said, Jweiss11 appears to understand that they're in the minority here, and that ultimately editorial judgement, through the consensus process, needs to prevail. To that extent, we all agree. If they feel that one journalist is somehow more reliable (because less politically motivated?) than 139 senior faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology –– when it comes to matters of population genetics and evolutionary biology no less –– they are fully entitled to their opinion. But they will fail to establish consensus for such a view among any reasonable group of editors, which is as it should be. Again, this is not a bug, it's a feature. Generalrelative (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Now that the various entrenched sides in this dispute have explained their positions, could uninvolved editors such as {{U|WhatamIdoing}} please weigh in?

The main thing I'd like to know from uninvolved users is whether they feel the current wording of the guideline, {{tq|Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses}} is consistent with current editing practices and with the local consensus that Generalrelative explained above, which classifies such sources as non-RS in some cases. And if the current wording of that part of the guideline is not consistent with this local consensus, what do uninvolved editors think should be done to address the inconsistency? Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ferahgo: I understand that you'd like to hear less from me but you're blatantly misrepresenting the guideline. Directly above the line you keep quoting it states: {{tq2|However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.}} In the case of race & intelligence, there is a strong scholarly consensus, which is why we try to cite that consensus wherever appropriate, and consider those who try to build a career in opposition to that consensus generally unreliable on the topic –– just as we would consider the work of someone who builds a career arguing that vaccines cause autism unreliable when it comes to the topic of vaccine safety. This attempt to revive the stunt of a long-term abuser is beyond misguided. The appropriate response to such abuse is to deny recognition. Generalrelative (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::The part of the guideline that you're quoting, which includes the instruction {{tq|Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available}}, is discussing how editors should decide what sources to cite in articles, or how to choose which sources take priority. There are many reasons sources that satisfy the criteria of WP:RS sometimes don't get cited, and that's one. But the issue I'm trying to discuss here is about what sources satisfy WP:RS at all, which is a separate question.

::This isn't just a nit pick or a semantic point. Sources that fail the requirements of WP:RS not only can't be cited; they also can't be used in examinations of the balance of views that exists in the source literature. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eyferth_study&diff=prev&oldid=1144550898 local consensus] that all hereditarian sources are inherently non-RS, regardless of where they're published, was one of the main reasons for rejecting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_23#To_RfC_or_not_to_RfC Sesquivalent's proposal] to review the source literature in depth for such an examination. Defining what's a reliable source in this way also means that if the scholarly consensus about a topic ever shifts so that a view is no longer fringe, Wikipedia would nonetheless be required to continue treating it as a fringe view, because evaluations on Wikipedia of what is or isn't fringe can only be based on views that exist in reliable sources, and sources that support the view are regarded as non-RS by definition.

::You probably still think I'm misunderstanding the guideline, but we aren't accomplishing anything by continuing to repeat the same argument that I (and Jweiss11, Stonkaments, etc.) have been having with you for the past four years. Can we please wait to get feedback from uninvolved editors? Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That's nonsense. If the scholarly consensus truly changes, you will have no trouble convincing a noticeboard that the scholarly consensus has changed. You will show folks the new sources and they will be persuaded by the evidence. Then you can add sources consistent with the new consensus to article space. There is nothing I could do to stop this from happening, if the science was on your side. You and that handful of other editors doggedly pushing racial hereditarianism (most of them indeffed by now) have failed to persuade the community because your arguments have been unpersuasive. And now that I've said my piece, yes I'll be happy to leave it to uninvolved editors to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ferahgo, I don't think you'll be happy with my answer, but here it is:

:::* To echo what Blueboar said above, it is possible for a source to be reliable but unusable for reasons such as WP:UNDUE or WP:PRIMARY.

:::* To echo what a couple of editors said above, if an idea is actually accepted as a majority or minority POV, rather than a fringe idea, then you will normally be able to find unrelated reputable sources saying the same thing. For example: If Prof. I.M. Portant says that he achieved cold fusion, then we want people to say things like "I replicated his results, and it worked for me, too". We don't want sources that just believe him, or say that they've always believed it was possible, or that his assertion proves my idea is correct, too. We want more than WP:LINKSINACHAIN.

:::* If Prof. Portant publishes something – even in a gold-plated "ideal" scholarly source – and a large section of the field smacks him for getting it wrong, then Prof. Portant's source stops being reliable "for" whatever he claims and becomes only reliable "for" narrow claims that he said it. This is WP:RSCONTEXT, which is equally a part of this guideline.

:::People often say "it's unreliable" when they actually mean "it's unreliable for the specific extraordinary statement (but not all possible statements)" or "this source, even if it has various qualities that we associate with reliability, isn't strong enough to demonstrate that this content is DUE".

:::Which brings me back to the basic definition: A reliable source is one that editors accept for a particular use. Consensus is ultimately required. A "bad" source can be reliable, and a "good" source can be unreliable. You cannot look at a source and say "It's WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so it's absolutely guaranteed to be reliable no matter what". I think you will find that deciding whether to use a given source can be much more complicated than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I see no reason to change the current policy. If a reliable source suports a fringe view then what we should really be doing if we really think there is something wrong with it is find other sources. The suggestion sounded to me more like applying ones own feelings to try an bias Wikipedia rather than using the sources. NadVolum (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Nature article on how reputable journals get bought and changed to poor quality works

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01198-6]

Nothing we need to act on, but should be aware that a reputable journal from the past may change over time. Masem (t) 16:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Exclusion of a person's name following consensus. Some1 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

On Definition of published

I noticed it said this

:

{{font color | green | Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form.}}

:

I must ask about this because I have stumbled upon sources at many libraries.

These sources aren't accessible anywhere online, you can't buy them anywhere, and you can't check these books out. However, anyone can enter these libraries and anyone can freely read these books. I was even allowed to scan these books by hand for free.

:

Would these sources be considered published by wikipedia standards?CycoMa2 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, very safely so. Remsense ‥ 论 18:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Okay thank you. CycoMa2 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To me, the key elements are the present guarantee of verifiability by the public, and additionally the institution (a library, generally having the imperfect expectation of operation on compatible terms through the coming years and decades) that suggests future verifiability also. Whatever other hurdles there are toward reliability are a separate matter. Remsense ‥ 论 18:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, anything that is accessible to the general public is 'published'. As an example of a limit, a source that is only available to the employees of a business, or to members of a religion or a club, is not 'published' for Wikipedia's purposes, even if several Wikipedia editors happen to have access. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the current admin will be pushing OAN content through it [https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/nx-s1-5389453/kari-lake-says-oans-far-right-coverage-will-fuel-voice-of-america]

, so we may need to update this to RSP, assuming this is what actually happens (eg for content before a given date to be considered OK, afterwards very questionable) Masem (t) 13:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we have past-experience with this via the Cuban armature of VoA or something like that where they just started spreading obvious lies rather than the usual propagandistic cherry-picking of mainline VoA. I'd have to go through the RS/N records for the exact details because it's been a minute. Regardless, yes, I think reexamining all American state media products is probably wise, all things considered. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Found what I was thinking of. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#h-Office_of_Cuba_Broadcasting_of_the_United_States_Government-20240326003700] This seems very broadly similar. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Does any staff member have any idea of YouTube is reliable 173.235.255.87 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are no staff members to answer your question, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service.

:The answer is: It depends on which channel. Obviously, a random person uploading a video of their kids playing is not a reliable source. At the other end of the spectrum, a lot of television news shows put copies of their news on YouTube, and it would be silly to say that the news show is reliable if you watch it on TV but not reliable if you watch the same thing from the same news channel on YouTube. In between those two things, you have to use your best judgment. For example, if a musician makes a video saying why they wrote a particular song, or that they're 25 years old, then that's reliable as an WP:ABOUTSELF statement. But you wouldn't want to use a musician's video saying things about a political candidate or the price of eggs or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ah yes, the [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zVSIXNGcCdg price of eggs] ... it's all a beautiful thing. (Note: not a musician) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::YouTube isn’t a source itself but a platform the actual source would be the uploader of any of the videos. Also one other thing to be careful of is the possibility of copyright violations since some people do upload content they don’t own the rights to.--65.92.245.71 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::A source like this[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yknLUNgMqOI] is definitely an RS because: (1) it is produced by the museum housing the ship in question (2) it is presented by the Director of Research of that museum (3) the presenter has edited, contributed to and written three books which are an RS for the relevant article (4) the presenter is a noted expert in their field, with numerous research papers which are cited by others. I don't think you need me to give examples at the other end of the spectrum. There might be some difficulty in assessing the value of videos in the "shades of grey" area in-between these extremes. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. What to do with archival documents that can only be obtained as copies or scans (accordingly, can only be provided in digital format or as photos), for example, if we are talking about World War 2, inventories of divisions or personal files of officers stored in TsAMO RF (Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defence)? Are such inventories and personal files reliable in this form and can they be used in Wikipedia as a whole? I hope for a detailed answer. Thank you in advance and I apologize if Google translated something incorrectly. 109.252.100.240 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Such primary documents are reliable in a certain way, see WP:PRIMARY for details. Images of them should be fine as long as the source is reliable, if they are just hosted on a random website the concern is whether the images are real or not, but if a library or archive posts images they would definitely be reliable.

:Outside of the question of reliability is whether the content you wish to inlcude is WP:DUE for inclusion. Just because it can be reliably verified doesn't mean it must be included. For instance listing every person in a division would likely undue.

:If you have questions about specific documents and content you can always ask for advice on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://ourculturemag.com/2025/05/15/laufey-announces-new-album-a-matter-of-time-shares-new-single/] Here's what I found. In that article, there's both author's name and date. But I think it's too fast to determine that the source is reliable just because it includes both author's name and date, so I wanted to ask about it here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Camilasdandelions, please take your question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They will want to know what material (e.g., sentence or paragraph) the source is meant to support. That's because sources need to be reliable "for" something, not just in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)