Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard
To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Questions

Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?: At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?: No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
Do sources have to be in English?: No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:Translators available.
I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it?: No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough.
I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it?: Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material.
Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?: No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.
Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?: No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
What if the source is biased?: Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view.
Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?: No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.
Are sources required in all articles?: Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024.
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.
Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?: No. Wikipedia editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Wikipedia article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography.
Does anyone read the sources?: Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Samuel Breslow (2022-09-29). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine).

RfC regarding names in sources' titles and URLs

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)[reply]

Question about Definition of published

On Definition of published I noticed it said this

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Heads up on Voice of America

Looks like the current admin will be pushing OAN content through it [1] , 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Found what I was thinking of. [2] This seems very broadly similar. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Youtube a Reliable Source

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

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)[reply]

Ah yes, the price of eggs ... it's all a beautiful thing. (Note: not a musician) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A source like this[3] 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)[reply]

Negative and anti historical. Pendantic wordless factoids. 159.2.155.63 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archival documents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Our Culture Mag

[4] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Melodic Magazine and mxdwn

[5] I can't find the content about advertisement or something. However, I'm still not sure if this magazine is reliable or not.

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 About Us page, and they said:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

Surface Transportation Board

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Reliable primary source

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]