Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

First hand accounts

Just something I feel should be added, but I feel like there should be a section on weither or not first hand accounts should be considered reliable sources. An example would be Misturi Yoshida's Requiem for Battleship Yamato which is his account of her last sortie in 1945. Panzer VI 13:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These would be WP:PRIMARY sources, their uses and limitations are already mentioned through out the guideline. In general secondary sources are preferred over first hand accounts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims clarification

A disagreement at WP:DRN is hinging on debate as to the meaning of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. An editor has provided an example of a claim they believe falls under this: "if someone says, "In my opinion, the Earth is flat", saying they hold that opinion would still be exceptional." This is an analogy with someone saying "this video game is the best". Any input here is appreciated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I was responding to a claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies only to statements of fact, and not statements of opinion. Nothing in the guideline states this (it just says "Any exceptional claim", and includes "Surprising or apparently important claims"), so a clarification is needed. Phediuk (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But "the world is flat" is not an opinion, even if someone calls it an opinion. It's a counterfactual. Opinions are a kind of non-T/F claims. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should really like to note for the record that you did in fact not [respond] to a claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies only to statements of fact, and not statements of opinion. The comment you responded to said that "X is the best" is not a statement of fact but a statement of opinion (but would be exceptional if it were a statement of fact), that "X is considered the best" is a WP:YESPOV statement of opinion, and that "X is considered the best by Y" is standard WP:INTEXT attribution which does not require multiple sources. TompaDompa (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Now on the record ✍️ Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution doesn't mean that other relevant policies can be ignored. "In my opinion Bob is a murderer", is still as problematic as "Bob a murderer". Putting "the Earth is flat" in Earth would still be a problem whether it was attributed or not. Who is so important that their claim of the Earth's flatness was appropriate for that article? If the claim is exceptional then the person making it should be as well, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In the case of attributed claims the source is the person making the statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AD. As I understand it, the relevant claim is "X video game is considered the best by multiple magazines". Maybe @Phediuk can affirm / deny that and rephrase. Do you view such a case as requiring exceptional sourcing? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"X is the best video game" would be an exceptional claims, "Y says that X is the best video game" is no different. If this was the opinion of a video game grandee, Miyamoto / Kojima / Newell / Carmack / etc, then I could see the argument for its inclusion. But if it's some random games journalist then no, it's putting undue weight on that journalist opinion. Also opinions need to be put in context, only including one opinion when other having differing opinions is a WP:NPOV issue.
"X video game is considered the best by multiple magazines" would require a source that says that, it's meant to be directly verifiable[1]. It's not an exceptional claim though, the claim is that multiple magazines have said that X game is the best not that X game is the best. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I generally agree with your breakdown (the context btw is List of video games considered the best), but disagree with "X is the best video game" being an exceptional claim: even with exceptional sourcing we could not put it in wikivoice because it is an opinion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "This video game is considered the best by multiple magazines" is exceptional.
The concept of WP:EXCEPTIONAL comes from Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which mostly starts with things in the range of "I used the natural sciences to prove the existence of a supernatural being" and then gets stretched just a little to include things like "Wonderpam cures every kind of cancer" and "I did cold fusion in my kitchen".
By comparison, there are thousands of magazines in the world, and the fact that "multiple" of them (which could be as few as two) have expressed an opinion on about the "best" video game is ordinary and expected.
I think there is a big difference between "X is the best" and "Y said that X is the best". If there is a source that says something like "Several magazines named this as the best video game of 2025" (i.e., so the claim is verifiable), then the question isn't whether it's extraordinary, but instead whether it's WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who is so important that their claim of the Earth's flatness... I believe the answer to your question is "pretty much every philosopher in Ancient Greece before Pythagoras' generation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like the question at hand is not whether something is exceptional, but whether it is due weight. Why is the particular opinion worth highlighting? Is the opinion itself commented on in another source? CMD (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed for Annapurna fatality rate

I am raising this for sourcing discussion only.

The article includes a statement regarding the fatality rate of climbers on Annapurna that is currently marked with a citation needed tag. I have not found a high-quality secondary source cited directly for this specific figure.

I should note that I have a conflict of interest, as I am associated with the website linked below, so I am not proposing its direct addition as a reference.

That source contains a summary of historical ascent and fatality figures for Annapurna compiled from publicly available mountaineering records. It may be useful for verifying basic, non-controversial factual data if editors feel such information is required, though a higher-quality secondary source (such as an academic publication, alpine journal, or authoritative mountaineering database) would be preferable.

Source (for consideration only): [2] Luizwilliams11 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong place, this page is for discussing improvements to Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. You should raise this issue on the articles talk page, talk:Annapurna. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, if no one responds on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

republishing and reliability-washing

If a reliable source republishes and cites material from an explicitly unreliable publisher, should we (a) assume due diligence on the part of the former and allow its use, or should we (b) assume the former otherwise trusts the original source more than (we do/it should) and not use the republished info? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well care is certainly worthwhile! But yes if a reliable source republishes something as fact then the first assumption should be that they have checked it. NadVolum (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only certain answer is "it depends". Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and the world's worst publishers sometimes publish good information. So if Fake News publishes something that accidentally happens to be good, and The Daily Trustworthy re-published it, there is a reasonable chance that it's good. But if All News Aggregator re-publishes it – well, they re-publish a lot of stuff, and there's no reason to think that this was specially selected or checked at all.
One thing I'd suggest is that you look at is the amount of re-publishing that the second publication does, and the types of things they re-publish. There was at least one US newspaper that reprinted huge numbers of press releases. This was actually handy for us (if you want to see whether a supposed news article was effectively written by the PR agency, then you could look up the original), but you had to be careful to make sure that anything on their site was from their actual newspaper or from a reputable wire service, and not an automated post of a press release. If your second publication does a lot of re-publishing, I'd not assume that the second publication spent time checking it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It will depend on how they republish and the exact wording they use. If they're just republishing the exact same report in the way a news aggregator would then the reliability remains with the original source.
If they're repeating the report that was made by another source in their own reporting then the language they use is important. News organisations are very aware of the language they use and use it very specifically "X is Y" and "The Chronicle says X is Y" are very different statements. One is reporting that X is Y, the other is saying that if this isn't true the Chronicle is to blame. The important part is that the language of the second type of statement only supports "The Chronicle claim that X is Y" not that "X is Y". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An "explicitly unreliable" publisher is a rare bird, although some RfCs have declared a publisher "generally unreliable" for certain facts. "Generally" means not specifically or "most of the time". If anothersource.com has endorsed generally.com by quoting it, then generally.com's article is reliable and is the real source. So WP:RS/QUOTE says the cite should be of generally.com if possible, though it's probably best to cite anothersource.com too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Moving forward with Reference Check

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Moving forward with Reference Check. Sdkb‑WMF talk 07:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add WP:HIGHQUALITY to WP:RS: Workshopping

At present, WP:HQRS (High Quality Reliable Sources) redirects to WP:RS with no specific direction as to the distinction. Following a recent discussion at WT:FAC, there is a proposal to upgrade WP:HIGHQUALITY (part of an essay) to a guideline as part of WP:RS. This would be in addition to the currently existing guidelines.

The intent of this guideline would be to consolidate the existing guidance existing in various places about source quality. It would support assessment processes where source quality is measured above the level of WP:RS -- most frequently and obviously WP:FAC, but it may also be of use to processes like A-class review as operated by certain WikiProjects. It would also be of value to editors looking to improve their articles to a higher and more academic standard, whether or not they end up putting them through formal certification processes.

The text as currently written is transcluded below. In the interests of workshopping the proposal, it might be useful to discuss (inter alia) the following:

  • Should there be guidance on what constitutes a "high-quality" reliable source with the status of a guideline?
  • If so, what should that guidance consist of?
  • Does the current framing at WP:HIGHQUALITY constitute a reasonable starting point, and what changes (if any) should be made to it before making it a guideline?

Pinging others involved in that FAC discussion: RoySmith, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, HJ Mitchell, Rollinginhisgrave, Borsoka, Gog the Mild, Jo-Jo Eumerus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At present, WP:HQRS (High Quality Reliable Sources) redirects to WP:RS with no specific direction as to the distinction is not quite true. A few days ago, I went ahead and changed the HQRS shortcut to point to WP:HIGHQUALITY. That solved the immediate problem; now when you click WP:HQRS you at least get to something explaining the difference. I'm fine with elevating that to a guideline and/or moving that text to be in WP:RS, but I don't think it's essential. RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Current framing of WP:HIGHQUALITY

Shortcut

In addition to the usual reliability requirement, the text of Featured Articles (FAs) must be "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Note that while WP:FACR requires high-quality reliable sources, WP:GACR only requires reliable sources. This means that sources which were acceptable in a Good Article will not always pass the higher bar enforced at the FA level. Reviewers with some expertise in the subject of the article will more easily be able to determine whether the sources used meet the required quality standard. The general questions on which all reviewers should try to satisfy themselves are:

  • Do the sources represent the best available for this particular subject?
  • Is the source that supports each point the most appropriate for that point?
  • Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous primary sources, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen.
  • In the case of anything contentious, are primary sources being used in accordance with the secondary literature?
  • Do the sources appear collectively to provide a comprehensive account of the subject, or is there over-reliance on a particular source or group of like-minded sources? Reviewers should be aware that even the highest-quality sources can be used selectively in a way that affects the neutrality of the article.

Making these judgements takes time, and raising them will sometimes invoke the ire of nominators, but if reviewers have any doubts about sources' quality, individually or collectively, they should pursue the matter.

Discussion re Proposal to add WP:HIGHQUALITY to WP:RS

  • My participation in the last discussion was on clarifying what HQRS was intended to mean, so I'll raise my two concerns (really one) here:
    • Some facts that we may really want to include (e.g. when a company was founded) may only be included in a poor or marginal source, such as the company's about us page. Are there any circumstances where following this guideline we are excluding these facts that would generally have acceptable sourcing on a non-FA candidate?
    • If information is not in the best sources, but it is in the non-best sources and the two are not contradicting, can we include information from the non-best sources? HQRS makes claims not just on reliability but also DUE weight, is this what we want? Literature on social phenomenon may be dominated by critical perspectives, and literature on chemical processes dominated by aspects of interest to industry.
  • The broader concern is this being deployed to exclude information that is sufficiently reliably sourced, that readers want and we should want in an encyclopaedia. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that excluding ordinary information would be the net effect, and I therefore think that's not a good idea.
    I think this should be turned into an essay, and that anything we say should (a) be in WP:BESTSOURCES and (b) should be written in a way that is applicable to all articles, not just FA and GA candidates. The "over-reliance" point in particular is a NPOV situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a followup, then: is there anything in WP:HQRS which ought to be incorporated into WP:BESTSOURCES? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something like this?
    Ideally, editors will be able to find and use the best available sources for the particular subject. The best sources will vary by field (e.g., a reference work for technology or a mass-market book for a celebrity), but they should be reasonably up-to-date and collectively provide a comprehensive account of the subject, without over-reliance on a particular source or on a group of like-minded sources. Editors should aspire to having most of the article cited to secondary sources that are independent of the subject..
    I'm open to your suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that pushing this sort of material into WP:RS is WP:CREEPy wishful thinking. Wishful thinking both because so many of our articles use sources that are marginally or not reliable that polishing our language on what perfection would look like is paying attention to the wrong end of the curve, but also because the sort of major-publisher biography or comprehensive reference book that this language asks for only rarely exists for our subjects, unless we want to heavily scale back our ambitions how comprehensive our coverage should be and cover only first-world mainstream-media topics. These sorts of sources are good to use when we can, but I think this belongs in an essay, not in a guideline that could easily become used as a cudgel to eliminate specialized, technical, or non-first-world topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By defining "high-quality" sources as "the best available sources for the subject", the proposed guideline would help encourage the creation of better articles. It would prompt editors and reviewers to show that they have carried out careful source research and have considered source quality, rather than relying only on what is easiest to access. This would also strengthen our projects in comparison to AI-generated articles, which often depend heavily on material that happens to be available online, and therefore often overlook recently published work from leading academic institutions. Finally, the assumption that only first-world media can produce the "best available" sources seems questionable. Source quality should be judged in context and in relation to the subject, not assumed from geographic origin. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This does not merely describe high-quality as "the best available sources for the subject". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if you look at the preceding comments, we're talking about putting this text into WP:BESTSOURCES, which is (a) in WP:NPOV instead of WP:RS and (b) a section that we've talked about re-writing for a couple of years now, because it provides almost no information on what the best sources are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In re "By defining "high-quality" sources as "the best available sources for the subject"":
One thing I have considered for this guideline and/or WP:V is introducing the concept of a "good enough" source. Yes, if you've got plenty of high-quality sources, then use them! But also don't revert a source that meets the minimum reliability standards just because it's not The Best™ Possible Source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- my worry about "what if there aren't any great sources?" would be the other way to that raised by Rollinginhisgrave above -- I've worked on a few biographical articles where there are often-told stories about someone that don't make it into the scholarly literature, or where key details (such as place of birth) are found in popular/non-scholarly sources but not repeated by the academic presses. One possible explanation for this is that the evidence behind those stories/facts isn't great -- so we probably shouldn't repeat "facts"/accounts that are only stated specifically in marginally reliable sources, when plenty of better sources which might be expected to report them don't. Instead, we shouldn't pass a judgement at all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on the idea of the best sources "collectively providing a comprehensive account of the subject"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're writing about a subject with lots of good sources (e.g., World War II), then you should use multiple sources, and basically all of your sources should be high-quality sources (e.g., scholarly books).
In such a scenario, it would be possible but not desirable to write an entire article from a biased set of high-quality sources. For example: all scholarly books, but they're all British. Or all scholarly books, but they all view the war through an economic lens. Or all scholarly books, but they're all about technological advances.
Instead of half a dozen excellent all books about Nazis, we instead want one excellent book about money, one excellent book about Britain, one excellent book about Japan, one excellent book about Italy, one excellent book about politics, one excellent book about anti-Semitism, one excellent book about science and engineering, one excellent book about armies, navies, and air forces, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I see the idea that the best sources are those "collectively providing a comprehensive account of the subject", I think of how more marginal / primary sources are deployed to fill gaps in the secondary/tertiary literature. In that context, would these be considered best sources? Not sure if this is just doing word meaning debate or substantive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any editors will interpret it that way. But I'd start by saying that "the best sources are those" is the first problem. Collectively providing a comprehensive account isn't a definition of "the best sources". It's how you will know whether your collection of sources is incomplete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think one question is what "high quality" means. I would say that a company's About Us page is a high quality source for certain aspects (e.g who the staff is, their stated mission). It would not be a good source for certain other things. OK, I correct myself - "high quality" is relative to the to-be sourced fact, it's not an intrinsic property of a source. Donald Trump's posts are HQRS for his own statements and claims, for instance, barring questions about authenticity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have sometimes used the word authoritative to describe that kind of source. I think this is a statement is about the intrinsic property of the source. It's more like being "generally reliable" than being reliable in context for the particular statement it supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no one size fits all. For example, if a national newspaper raises concerns that a prestigious.edu's professor's website said perpetual motion machine is possible; citing the archive of that website alongside the newspaper article is a very reliable source for the fact that a prestigious.edu's professor's website indeed made such a statement. Graywalls (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think the idea of "high-quality sources" (as well as WP:BESTSOURCES) is addressing the editing process at a different level. It's not about what the best source for a given claim is; it's about what you'd tell someone if they're trying to write a whole article. If Perpetual motion were a red link, you wouldn't start by looking for a webpage at prestigious.edu, or even for newspaper articles. You'd start by looking for a history of the idea, or a physics textbook that addresses its impossibility. Those would be your high-quality sources, and the newspaper tutting about how Prof. Speculator said something on the internet would be quite far down the list – suitable for giving an example of the idea never quite dying off, but not really a high-quality source for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove rottentomatoes and metacritic websites from user generated rule

LET'S STOP WASTING TIME
There is zero support for this proposal, and the account that started it has been blocked for myriad reasons. Star Mississippi 03:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

about WP:USERGENERATED WP:USERG and WP:UGC

The following rule is currently used to protect media products owned by major corporations by excluding information on significant social backlash (or praise, if a product conflicts with corporate assets). The rule states: Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts

Unfortunately, this is interpreted to restrict reception data only to these specific websites and only to the "rating meter" calculated from a poor and biased selection of irrelevant critics. Prohibiting all other sources leads to endless disputes that damage Wikipedia’s reputation and violate the core principles of neutrality and fairness. I propose removing these specific website names from the rule and developing a better method to recognize both critic and audience reception. While these aggregators can provide context, they have become an exclusive barrier; other valid information must be allowed to ensure a complete encyclopedic record. GK0001 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)#Fan reaction not mentioned - only critic.
Is there not a single magazine or news article about this? Maybe https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/tawny-backlash.html or https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/scifi/star-trek-censorship.html (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 416#Giant Freakin' Robot) would support a statement about fan reactions? I found these through the simple expedient of putting "starfleet academy" "fans" into the search bar at Google News. If you spent more than five minutes looking, I bet you could find even better options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
both of those GFR pieces are worth adding to the Response section of Starfleet Academy and indeed some other modern era Star Trek shows. Please go ahead and suggest that on the Talk Page if you haven't already.
GK's point still stands on how Wikipedia should currently treat aggregator sites. There's a discussion to be had indeed. Iamhanuman (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of or interest in the subject. If the sources seem useful, please use them.
We try to avoid WP:CREEP in policies and guidelines, and one sign of instruction creep is proposing a change because there's a dispute that could be easily resolved by having one editor spend a few minutes in a search engine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources seem useful, please use them. this is the main problem of what I'm trying to express here. on purpose or not some editors are using the words about rottentomatoes and metacritic (in the policy) to enforce removal of ANY other source. I think the initial idea of including those websites in the policy was to provide examples of good sources of information. This made sense decades ago when internet was a different place and we didn't had power level media critics with hundred of millions of views monthly. Back in the day we had a more variety of film critics each with its own blog that were aggregated by websites as rottentomatoes. Now we have less direct participation individually, people don't review the media product directly but they prefer to follow influencers and express their opinion by commenting or liking what those people are saying. So looking at those websites now and their rating is not relevant anymore. Let me be clear, from a philosophical point of view I don't like this at all, I prefer having people create content themselves like they did before, and not delegate their opinions by the act of following, viewing or liking someone else, but that is the new reality we live in and an encyclopedia needs to reflect the reality. GK0001 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, when we write something like this:
Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users (including the reported rating averages) are not.
the goal is just to help people who don't know what a review aggregator is to figure out what we're talking about. Nobody is born knowing what a review aggregator is, and some people will encounter that concept for the first time on this page.
Looking at the needlessly antagonistic discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)#Fan reaction not mentioned - only critic, it appears that editors have made progress and re-written that section of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The example you have shown is perfect on what I was saying, on that article there was a lot of unnecessary drama from older wikipedia editors that apparently don't know that the inclusion of those websites is an example, as you said. Instead they kept enforcing the "only those specific websites" imaginary rule till it got so out of hand, even having a major Hollywood producer, Roger Avary, mentioning it on Joe Rogan podcast. GK0001 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem:
  • User reviews at Rotten Tomatoes are user-generated.
  • The rule is against using user-generated sources. This rule is applicable to all user-generated sources, regardless of whether they are mentioned by name in the guideline.
  • If we remove the rule, then nothing actually changes. Using user reviews at Rotten Tomatoes will still be against the rules.
So: Why bother removing it? It will change nothing, except to make it harder for newcomers to discover that this is actually the rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this is what i don't understand. the approved tomatometer is not a representation of film critics out there but is A. people that took the time to ask to be included and from them B. people they actually accepted. So rottentomatoes doesn't make any active effort to find out real world coverage for movie critics. they instead offer a biased view of a careful selected pool of individuals that match the rottentomatoes small management board worldview. In the end is like masquerading a couple of users views on films (the people that manage the tomatoes website) behind these predictable critics that can be added or removed at will from the tomatometer to fit the score they want to give the movie. Is practically user-generated on a scale we can count with the fingers of one hand. I understand the user generated concept you are trying to make, you can't use one website user base as representation of a movie score. But why don't you apply the same correct logic to the tomatometer score? GK0001 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A process of choosing whose views to include/exclude is what we call "editorial control", and it's one of the desirable features for a good source. The parts of that (or any) website that have editorial control are potentially reliable sources. The parts of that (or any) website that don't have editorial control are not generally reliable sources (except for a narrow context, like a social media post being cited for an WP:ABOUTSELF claim from a notable individual).
This means that if Rotten Tomatoes staff picks and chooses a carefully selected pool of individuals, then that's (probably) a reliable source. (Note that we don't call it a "great source" – just [barely] reliable.)
And if random people on the internet post their ratings without the staff choosing which individuals, then that's (almost never) a reliable source. (Note here that we don't call it a "wrong source" – just not reliable for our purposes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to add something about the fan / audience reaction then Rotten tomatoes / Metacritic shouldn't be used. Instead a secondary source that details the fan / audience reaction should be found, the ones highlighted by WhatamIdoing for instance. This shouldn't be changed to allow UGC from those sites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. We should not change this simply because a new editor with 13 edits thinks it’s a good ideal Doug Weller talk 12:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I'm a new editor doesn't mean I can't bring improvements to this websites. I've just proposed a topic of discussion, I've not obligated anyone to do it like me. Instead of attacking me here and posting threats on my user page to ban my account, add your arguments against improvements in this area or bring better alternative proposals. I find it despicable that using wikipedia tools to discuss something triggers threats from people like you. For anyone that participates in this discussion I ask that you visit my profile talk page where this account left multiple threats without arguments what I've did wrong. Instead they use an account to insult you then if you dare replying they ignore their friends provocation and accuse you of breaking wikipedia rules. GK0001 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (involved in edit dispute): This is a proposal born out of a rather needlessly antagonistic edit dispute on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series), wherein multiple editors have been including USERG ratings from Rotten Tomatoes and other sites in the article against the guideline for the past month. The removal of the Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic wording from the guideline won't make user ratings any less USERG (and so will still not be suitable for inclusion in any case), and the current wording helps editors distinguish between ratings from critic reviews which may be considered reliable, and user reviews which are not. Whether or not Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic should be considered reliable in this case or as a whole should be a separate discussion on the article's talk page or the reliable sources noticeboard. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you are correct, this proposal comes from that discussion but I don't think you have presented what happened correctly. This rule had been incorrectly used by people on that show page to hide information that the audience had mostly a negative reaction to the show. It doesn't work as you say it should work, it was abused just a few days ago. GK0001 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making vague WP:ASPERSIONS. If you can demonstrate misbehavior with WP:DIFFs, you can file a report at WP:ANI or another conduct board. Absent evidence of intent to misapply or subvert Wikipedia's purpose (in the form of self-contradiction, double standards, misrepresenting sources etc.) such accusations are considered personal attacks. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead of ASPERSRIONS: "An aspersion is an attack on someone's reputation or character, similar to defamation...Avoid claiming that someone is casting aspersions just because they have a different opinion, have exaggerated a situation, or have overreacted to an everyday event (e.g., if they call your edit "vandalism")."
Expressing your opinion that some unnamed other editors misapplied a rule is not an aspersion. ASPERSIONS is about "participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society" or "being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations".
Note, too, that it quotes an ARBCOM case to say that broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
interesting, thank you, there was a user there that behaved exactly by these rules, I will build a case about this if needed. GK0001 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing Have you seen the two ANI threads discussing this editor with specifics about their personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 08:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I stay away from ANI as a general rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can’t understand the context of Rosguill’s comment. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did the ANI discussion show that the editor was accusing people of crimes? Of being undisclosed paid editors? Or morally reprehensible acts?
Or just of ordinary, everyday disagreements about whether an ordinary, everyday rule was being correctly applied to an article? Because IMO we've got a bad case of "aspersion inflation", and "This rule had been incorrectly used by people" isn't an example of casting aspersions WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did the ANI discussion show that the editor was accusing people of crimes? Of being undisclosed paid editors? Or morally reprehensible acts?
Just so is clear I've never did any of this, calling people of crimes, or being paid editors, or doing reprehensible acts of any kind.
What I've instead did is to open first an ANI requests to look on why I was unmotivated harassed on my user talk page. As you can see in this small talk section instead of posting pro and contra opinions we are talking about some imaginary bad behavior of continuously adding off topic stuff because I need to reply to attacks on my user reputation. GK0001 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The page Wikipedia:Casting aspersions is about accusing other editors (without evidence) of serious real-life crimes, of being undisclosed paid editors, or of engaging in other morally reprehensible acts, for the purpose of character assassination.
But the English Wikipedia has what we call the WP:UPPERCASE problem: someone says something and posts an "WP:UPPERCASE" link as justification, and everyone just assumes that the linked page actually says what the editor claims, because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. Over time, just like the telephone game that children play, the meaning of the page drifts significantly from what the rumor claims.
In the case of ASPERSIONS, the uppercase shortcut gets linked in a lot of discussions in which the speaker's intended meaning is a lot closer to "disagreed about other editors' behavior without including a diff, and it made me feel like they weren't very friendly". If the editors would read the page, they might discover that it's about behavior that is much worse than an ordinary Wikipedia:Civility problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If audiences have had a negative reaction to the show, find a secondary source that's reporting that. User generated primary sources are the worst possible source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - USERG is an important aspect of Wikipedia's sourcing guidance. Removing MC/RT from the guidance will just encourage POV pushing from fan campaigns on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a tool in that sort of thing. (Uninvolved opinion, no connection to this dispute.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the SPA who initiated this discussion has been permanently blocked. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an SPA when you have ~30 edits and have edited for a week... Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of Partisan Voter Guide Websites

Moved to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of Partisan Voter Guide Websites
 – Sorry I should have been clearer, RSN is the right place for a discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on improving verification during review

I am requesting input on where the community stands on the idea of GA and FA reviewers asking for page numbers in journal articles (by this I mean the relevant pages within the page rage of the journal article, i.e., {{sfn|Smith|1990|pp=90-91}}), similar to books to improve the verification process during the course of a review even if it is only for 5-10% of the sources in question. While it is easier to pin point the relevant pages in history and political science topics, which is effectively a standard in these WP articles, in natural sciences and math articles follow the academic tradition of not providing such information. The reaction to this idea was surprising hostile in another discussion, despite IMO the obvious benefits coming from this. Nevertheless, the arguments presented in a previous discussion were:

  1. It is good for the reader/reviewer to read all the pages of the journal paper, even if there are 50+ such sources in the WP article
  2. Citation points to the whole journal article and so it is pointless to provide page numbers

Both these arguments are problematic as they run afoul to the WP policies.

  1. WP is not an academic journal (thus we should not use the reference style of academia, i.e., not providing pages) and it is not here to promote any of the sources used in verification WP:PROMO
  2. If the relevant information is not found within the journal article, i.e., no specific page(s), one has to draw the conclusion from the whole paper then there is the danger of WP:SYTH and WP:OR
  3. More important than most is that easing the review process the reviewer will have more time to evaluate more of the presented sources and perhaps provide better recommendations for the improvement of the article.

While these concerns will be pushed aside, because who care what I say. However, things have changed in academia as it produces fake papers in record numbers:

You can shrug by saying this does not affects us, right? Wrong! Many of these bad papers end up on WP pages even after being retracted and there is already a study of how bad we are doing:

  • The Persistence of Retracted Papers on Wikipedia
    • Our findings highlight how the Wikipedia community supports collaborative maintenance but leaves gaps in citation-level repair. ... Our findings reveal that while some citations are corrected promptly, many persist uncorrected for extended periods, with a median time to correction of 3.68 years (1,344 days). ... Conversely, a high academic citation count is associated with a slower correction time, which may reflect the difficulty of challenging sources perceived as highly authoritative. ... These findings highlight a fundamental disconnect between the public availability of retraction data and the community’s collaborative workflows, which often fail to translate this information into the reader-facing edits required for a complete repair. (emphasis added)

Irrespective of your opinion on the subject matter, the key issue is that it has been recognized as a problem in the "community's collaborative workflows" and I do not think inaction is an option. My opinion is based that if we more easily verify then we have more time to evaluate more sources and better appreciate which of the sources are good and which are not. Maybe my opinion was wrong, so I want to hear from the community how this could be addressed. PS: keep it WP:CIVIL Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 04:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the relevance of fake papers and retractions to your desire for more page numbers? I would agree that fake papers and retractions are both problematic, but I don't see how having specific page numbers or not would possibly address that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If an article under review has (as an example) 50 journal articles with on average of 20 pages, then the number of pages a reviewer has to go through is 1000 pages. This is a bit excessive, but what it means is that the reviewer will spend way to much time just reading these 1000 pages in order to spot how the citations of these journal articles support the relevant statements in the article. I mean we are human and we can volunteer only so much time so the reviewer's time is valuable. As a result the number of journal articles that will be evaluated will be small. If on the other hand, we ease the review process even by a bit, then the reviewer will have more time to evaluate more of these journal articles and perhaps being in a better position to spot one of these problematic papers. It is like the joke "If you have one watch you know the time, but if you have two you do not", except here to spot the watch that is broken one needs to have more watches. As I said I might be wrong (and let's assume that I am). So I really want to hear others on how to approach this issue. Do we have alternative ideas? A.Cython(talk) 05:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the accepted practice for Wikipedia:Good articles is to spot-check 10% of the sources, which means that 50 articles × 20 pages × 10% = 100 pages.
Also, 6–10 pages is more likely, [3][4] so it's really 30–50 pages.
And you don't usually have to read the whole thing to determine that the source supports the claim, so the math is frequently closer to 10% of 50 articles @ average of 2 pages each = 10 pages total. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point! As the manuscript claims, we end up with errors! So either your math has the problem (no offense) or something else needs to change. If within the journal it is only two pages that are of interest why do I need to waste time to find them in the as you say 10 page paper? Would it not more useful to have a little help to narrow down the search so that a reviewer can read more than 10% and perhaps being able to spot the bad ones? A.Cython(talk) 06:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On what percentage of (~scientific) articles are you finding that you actually need more than a couple of minutes to check the source? Perles configuration is about advanced mathematics, so that's going to be difficult for a lot of reviewers, but thinking generally about articles in the hard sciences, do you find that you're basically at sea in all the sources, or do you often find yourself thinking "It says 39.2% of foo, so ⌘F – and there it is: 39.2% of foo is confirmed"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot give you a percentage, but articles in natural sciences and maths tend to have much more sources from academic journals without page numbers or other locator to narrow down than any other field, e.g., history and political science (I do not include in the discussion Video Games, Music, etc). This is natural since most people who add information in these articles are coming from an academic background and thus they do what they have been trained to do (i.e., no page numbers in citations). This is not against any WP policy, but the question that I raise is how do we organize this information in order to be more efficient later on. Should we treat research articles as WP:PRIMARY sources, but academic reviews as WP: SECONDARY? Should we add page numbers to ease verification? I do not know, which is why I would appreciate to hear potential solutions rather than hearing how wrong I am.
  • Strangely enough, the arguments raised in previous discussion (listed above) could have easily raised/applied in history and political science articles, but my understanding this is not the case. I suspect that the editors/reviewers need to find the information more quickly to properly evaluate them, since these topics sometimes can be contentious. Having time to evaluate this is critical for a good review.
  • In my limited experience (and take this with a grain of salt) new editors (probably more familiar with WP in their life) are more willing to adopt the inclusion of page numbers than more experienced editors. So time is the solution?
  • advanced mathematics, so that's going to be difficult for a lot of reviewers No, the issue was not that the topic is difficult, but the response to the reviewer. In another turbulent review, we had to go through conspiratorial accusations (I am tanking the review for GA Backlog review points), lecturing, etc, to eventually work it out for a handful inclusions. Given that the similar attitude is expressed by other editors, i.e., the reviewer is extremely lazy or deluded, it appears to be a people-problem and not content-problem. Moreover, the refusal to even contemplate change only amplifies in my mind and potentially others the fundamental disconnect ... the community's collaborative workflows, i.e., if editors interpret the current policy as a way to reject reviewer's recommendations then what is the point of the reviewer in the first place? As I said, let's assume that I am wrong, then what is a potential solution?
It is clear that we will stay in status quo and wait the next academic paper saying how bad we are doing. Happy editing! A.Cython(talk) 17:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this logic works, in terms of the retractions/false papers piece. If we assume that reviewers are reading the entire article when not provided with specific page numbers, that would make them more likely to spot problems with the piece as a whole, not less. If we assume they are only spotchecking, it shouldn't make any difference.
In terms of alternative ideas... suggest people install PubPeer or a similar tool? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tool, but to be used efficiently the reviewer needs to have time. Page numbers at least in my mind helps to reduce the time spend in one task and redistribute this valuable commodity on other aspects of the review such as evaluating the quality of the sources or perhaps evaluating more than 10% of the sources. Staying at 10%, as the manuscript mentioned above demonstrated, is insufficient. A.Cython(talk) 17:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that there is a set time per review and that reducing the time spent on one aspect will necessarily result in additional time being spent on what you consider more valuable. I don't think either of those are safe assumptions. If (as WAID suggests) the practice is 10%, then the practice is 10%, and that's the practice you'd want to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this insightful comment. A.Cython(talk) 02:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#References in a GAN article. Maybe we should just have one discussion per the WP:SEETALK guideline, to avoid a WP:TALKFORK? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to bring the discussion here. Given that the previous discussion started with the wrong foot, I felt prudent to write a better intro by summarizing the various constructive comments before insults like the reviewer is extremely lazy etc start flying around so that we reach to a useful outcome. A.Cython(talk) 06:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Info about usurped URLs and sources

These two subpages seem to use "usurped" to mean two distinct things, which is a bit confusing to me:

  • Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations (WP:USURPURL) says "Usurped domains are used by spammers, squatters, malware, SEO, phishing or other fraudulent activity. Typically they are legitimate domains that expired and were hijacked."
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Usurped sources (WP:USURPSOURCE) says "Usurped sources are websites (NYT, Guardian, etc.) whose content has been copied to another website, without attribution or faking who wrote it."

I think of "usurped" as having the first meaning because of the url-status=usurped attribute in templates like Template:Cite web and Template:Usurped. The second page is helpful but could be renamed something like "Plagiarized sources"? Also, both subpages would benefit from hatnotes indicating whether they are essays, information pages, etc.

Courtesy ping to @GreenC, who seems to have been the primary author for both. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "usurped" has multiple uses on Wikipedia none have priority. WP:USURP dab page. The concept of USURPSOURCE was not invented by me, but the name did come about through mutual discussion with at least User:Grayfell maybe others. Plagiarism doesn't adequately convey the scale and bad faith element, these are mass thefts often for purposes like disinformation and malware, it is more akin to usurping entire websites vs. the lighter ethical concern of not giving an author due credit. -- GreenC 05:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources