Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#This page again

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)

:::::Negative and anti historical. Pendantic wordless factoids. 159.2.155.63 (talk) 18:08, 19 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)

[https://www.melodicmag.com/about/] I can't find the content about advertisement or something. However, I'm still not sure if this magazine is reliable or not.

[https://music.mxdwn.com/2014/09/01/news/paloma-faith-announces-fall-2014-tour-dates/ mxdwn], this website is frequently used on music articles. First of all, this website shows author's name and article's date. And then I checked [https://music.mxdwn.com/about/ About Us] page, and they said:

{{tq|mxdwn.com is an established online entertainment magazine that focuses on news, original reviews, features, photography and interviews. We are a leader and innovator in providing dynamic entertainment content.
Over the past 12 years, mxdwn has established itself as one of the most credible, reliable and forward-thinking entertainment publications in North America. What began as a music magazine founded by Editor in Chief Raymond Flotat has evolved into a valued resource not only for music but also for movies, video games, television and pop culture.
Our readers rely on us to provide timely and relevant entertainment news, thoughtful reviews, up-to-the-minute event coverage, and to accurately report on all that matters in entertainment.}}

For my think it's reliable, but I want to listen others' opinions before citing this source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 04:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you want to use this in a particular article, then you should get a link to the specific Wikipedia article and the specific magazine article, and ask this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you just want to chat about the whole site in general, then you might start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, please read the FAQ at the top of this page, especially the question that says:

::; Are reliable sources required to name the author?

::: No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.

::The fact that "this website shows author's name" doesn't mean anything. Facebook posts show the authors' names, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Nevermind, I think I was confused. I'll open discussion in another page. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::People including me have asked about reliable sources which are related to music genre in this page. Even some users replied to me. I asked on that page of course, but still no one replied. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, sometimes with brand-new editors, it's easier to reply wherever they post, because they don't know how to navigate the site as well as someone with your experience should be able to.

:::I see that you asked at WP:RSN and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1291392075 removed your question] when you didn't get a response by the very next day. You did not, however, follow the directions: "The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently, I'm doing an article for Draft:Grenada District, and I was wondering if the Surface Transportation Board is a good site for sources? https://www.stb.gov/ IC 9612 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@IC 9612, please ask questions about which sources are reliable for a given article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, thank you. IC 9612 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

DMME.net is a well established authoritive site. Can this obituary https://dmme.net/bobby-tench-departed-for-better-world/ be referenced as from a reliable primary source? Lookinin (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Lookinin, please ask questions about which sources are reliable for a given article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP used to say:

• Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule.

It was recently changed to say:

• Dissertations in progress are not reliable sources because they have not been vetted and are not regarded as published.

I don't like either of these. Should we maybe say that until they are officially finished and accepted, they should be treated as WP:PREPRINTS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that it should probably be treated as a pre-print rather than asserted to be unpublished. Ifly6 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:An in-process dissertation hasn't been vetted, but it's not even a preprint, as it's not finished. It would surprise me if anyone publishes their in-process dissertation, and if it's not made available to the public, it doesn't pass WP:V, in which case we don't have to ask whether it's an RS. Even if it were posted to a personal website, it's written by someone who probably wouldn't pass EXPERTSPS. It wouldn't surprise me if a section of the work had been presented at a professional conference with a short paper appearing in the conference proceedings, where the work may at least have been vetted by a reviewer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::The "not regarded as published" bit caught my eye, because unless you're engaging in WP:SELFCITE or have personal access (e.g., it's your friend's dissertation), then it's WP:Published as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

::A lot of PhD candidates, at least in the sciences, have a couple of existing publications, so they probably would pass EXPERTSPS.

::And, as you say, individual sections of the dissertation may have been published somewhere, either at a conference or as a journal article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Where does one even find in-progress dissertations? I have only seen these through private email circulation. Is it common enough to try to use these as references that we even need to specifically warn against doing that? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't remember the last time I saw a dispute about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• The sentence has several problems. "Not regarded as published" suggests we are making an exception to the long-standing-and-long-fought-over wiki-definition of "published", and I think that's a bad idea. The sentence also claims that unreliability follows from non-publication, which is not true. Second, "in progress" is not defined and could have several meanings. It could mean that the student is still busy writing it, or it could mean that the thesis is finished but is still waiting to pass examination. David is correct that few or no theses in progress in the first sense are available to the public. A few in the second category might be available on a student's web page or a preprint server. If we need anything at all, I'd suggest something simple like {{tq2|"A thesis which has not passed examination is not considered reliable."}} Zero^talk 06:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::In my opinion unfinished dissertations are private affairs and should not be cited in Wikipedia. A dissertation that is finished and accepted counts in my opinion as a reliable source--it has been read and approved by experts on the dissertation committee. About half of the approved finished PhD dissertations in history are published by Proquest and if you ask at a library you can get a free downloaded copy. I do that and cite them in Wiki footnotes and Further Reading. Also some universities now put all their finished dissertations online for free downloading by anyone. However, the other half get the title listed by Proquest but their contents are not online. They are locked up--no one can purchase a copy. You have to go to its original campus to read it, and that very rarely happens with Wikipedia editors. Off hand I can't recall seeing a single example in a Wiki article in my years here. Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)