Talk:Stevia

Image

Moved from personal TP:

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Stevia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Your image 1) advertises a product, WP:PROMO, which is not allowed, 2) shows a non-English label (NL, FR) useless for readers of the English encyclopedia, 3) does not show what extract preparation is in the package - pure extract? powder manufactured with a maltodextrin? liquid? 4) no one can know whether you are affiliated with the manufacturer - a skeptical reader may suggest you have a conflict of interest, WP:COI.

If you could pour out some powder onto a neutral black surface, then take that picture uploaded to Commons, that would be helpful, as there is not a good picture in Commons of just the powder in a pleasing presentation. Zefr (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. While being an image of a product, it is certainly not promotion. No logo or producer name is recognizable and the word stevia is recognizable for all English speakers. A picture of a powder does not make any sense. Do you also have a problem with Coca-Cola? Wickey (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Filed a Third opinion request.--Wickey (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

A third opinion was requested. Third Opinions require the issue be thoroughly discussed on the article talk page before listed at 3O. That has not yet occured. Feel free to relist if you are unable to resolve the discussion amongst yourselves first. 14:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC) meamemg (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

A thorough discussion needs someone who is prepared to discuss. Wickey (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:DISCUSSFAIL for next steps. meamemg (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The Stevia article has 338 page watchers, with only 30 visiting the talk page in the past 30 days. There hasn't been enough talk page discussion among editors to justify this issue needing 3-0 or an admin's attention.

More specifically, Wickey has not responded to any of the 4 challenges above: advertising, non-English label, undefined package contents, and conflict of interest. Zefr (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Not true. In my view, this picture is not advertising; no one will by this product because they saw this picture on WP. The word 'Stevia' is universally recognizable and the picture is clearly not referring to the plant, but to the powder instead. Only a picture of the plant is misleading. Moreover, a picture in non-English is better than no picture. 'Undefined package contents' is a non-argument. Finally, the suggestion of self-interest is offensive, unfair and based on nothing.--Wickey (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's conspicuous that the challenges from above were not answered satisfactorily.

1) advertising - any brand name (among dozens worldwide) shown in an image may be misinterpreted by Wikipedia users as an endorsement of the brand;

2) the non-English label is useless for the English encyclopedia;

3) unknown package contents: pure extract? multi-ingredient blend? powder? liquid? loose leaves? No one not having opened the package purchased in the Netherlands would know;

4) user Wickey persists in wanting to use an image of this brand of stevia. The "why" is typically answered by dismissing a possible WP:COI - are you affiliated in any way with the manufacturer, retailer, or employee of a business that stimulates your persistent intent to display specifically this brand with such a low-quality image? If so, you must declare a COI here on the talk page.

Wickey's Special:Diff/1364229111 was reverted. Please observe WP:BURDEN and do not edit war, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)