I'm trying to cite the following lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltDZWQKNrCA
There's a name for the lecturer, but not a name for the lecture. Not even a location (except somewhere in the Miami, FL area) What should I do?
-
Contact the lecturer and ask for details.– user5645May 1, 2015 at 6:20
-
@what He might be dead, deaf, or have Alzheimers, or something - he was a detective in the 60's, which is when the lecture was filmed, and he was probably in his 30's or 40's.– moonman239May 17, 2015 at 3:30
-
1How about you ask the person who put the video on YouTube where they got it from? The problem with Jay's answer is this: Imagine you where citing from Melville's Moby Dick, but you didn't know that, because the excerpt you found was published in a blog without source. So how do you cite that? The correct answer is: You don't! Because that is not a citeable source. That YouTube video is not the original publication. That lecture was filmed for the footage to be released somehow, or it is residing in some archive. That first public viewing or archive is the source you must cite.– user5645May 17, 2015 at 6:52
-
Locating the correct source is your job as a researcher. If you cannot bring yourself to make that effort, then you must not cite this indirect source.– user5645May 17, 2015 at 6:54
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
If your source of information was the YouTube video, then you cite the YouTube video.
If you're using some specific style guide -- MLA or APA or whatever -- follow their format for citing a web site. If not, make up something consistent with what you're using for paper sources.
-
Jay, see my comment above. YouTube is not a citeable source, unless the video was made to be released on YouTube, which this video wasn't.– user5645May 17, 2015 at 6:57
-
Well, it's an overstatement to say that "YouTube is not a citable source". I made my post above without watching the video -- I was thinking the OP meant that this was a video taken of a contemporary lecture and posted on YouTube, in which case citing YouTube would be fine. If I used a quote from a speech that I found in the New York Times, I would cite the New York Times as the source. If I was quoting from a speech that I saw on CNN, I would cite CNN. The speech here presumably pre-dates YouTube and there is no indication where the footage came from. (Unless I missed something.) Etc. ...– JayMay 18, 2015 at 13:24
-
... In a case like this, a serious researcher would try to find the original source. It's always better to get the original source when possible, because this let's you verify that the quote is not fabricated or taken out of context. (Easier, of course, to alter or fake a printed quote than a video, but a video clip can certainly be out of context, or altered or completely staged.) But if you can't do that -- maybe because the original source no longer exists, or you are unable to track it down -- it is certainly acceptable in scholarly circles to say "as quoted in". Also, a paper by a ...– JayMay 18, 2015 at 13:28
-
... PhD for publication in a scholarly journal must meet more rigorous standards than a paper by a high school student.– JayMay 18, 2015 at 13:28