Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (novel analysis made by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

secret hamas conspiracy theory i.e. 1993 Philadelphia meeting

More eyes needed. I placed it on afd. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 09:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lorenzo_Vidino_and_Europe User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 09:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've placed an NPOV tag on the article, which is drawn almost entirely from biased sources without any mention of their bias in the article text. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This article does need more attention, it has a serious WP:BIAS problem, trading in conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood. It relies primarily two sources, one promoter of conspiracy theories, and another that has been widely criticized and called "sub-journalistic" by a subject matter expert. There are no other sources in the article to offer balance, and the opinions of these two sources are rarely appropriated attributed. Finding sources that offer balance is so far difficult, perhaps because this is a fringe subject. There have been discussions at AfD and the RS noticeboard, but those discussions did not bring up significant criticisms of the authors that are available.

Simply attributing the claims of the sources is an inadequate NPOV remedy given the serious criticisms of them by scholars: Vidino's book presenting "conspiracy theories as reasonable and substantiated facts" and Levitt's book as "sub-journalistic" and "more often than not based on assumption, extrapolation and generalization".—BrechtBro (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Source removals and BESTSOURCES, update

The article has changed substantially since this thread was opened, in a way that raises a different concern from the one above.

Lorenzo Vidino's The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West (Columbia University Press, 2010) has now been removed entirely from the body of the article. It survives only in the "Analysis" section, where it is immediately followed by a characterization discrediting the author. The book was already discussed at WP:RSN, and that discussion did not identify a problem with the source or conclude it should be excluded.

Matthew Levitt's Hamas (Yale University Press, 2006) remains, but is now introduced with inline framing casting doubt on the author.

Meanwhile, Miko Peled's Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five (Just World Books, 2018) has become the article's most-used source, with no equivalent framing, although Peled is an activist rather than an academic.

My concern isn't that Peled is cited, WP:BIASED permits partisan sources with attribution. It's that the article is drifting away from WP:BESTSOURCES: two peer-reviewed university-press monographs have been removed or undercut, while the bulk of the article now rests on an advocacy publisher. Policy asks us to base articles on the best available sources, and here they're the ones being pushed out.Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

In light of the thorough disucissions about the problems with Levitt and Vidino in multiple venues, this is POV-pushing. The RSN discussion on Vidino lacks key context and states, at best, he is reliable for facts. They are not reliable sources for analysis and their opinions should be fairly weighted. Vidino's closely paraphrased and unattributed analysis was cited throughout the article and removed. The remaining citations to Levitt are for facts. Peled is also cited for facts, except in one case, which has in-text attribution--and if you find that attribution inadequate, you are welcome to improve it.

The key problem with this article has been, and remains, that it is a POVFORK from Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (which itself has significant NPOV and sourcing issues), that one side of the issue (Levitt, Vidino, Emerson) treat as a standalone event on which they hang conspiracies and allegations about Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, while other sources contextualize it entirely within the context of the Holy Land Foundation, on which there exists an additional body of literature. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

On Peled: the "one case" isn't isolated. "Discussions were held in Arabic" and "though Hamas was not an illegal organization at the time" carry no attribution, and both come from defense counsel's opening statements as reported in Peled's book (Hollander, Moreno), not from Peled's own analysis or from established fact.

On Vidino: "reliable for facts" is not a weak outcome: it's what's actually being used. No one has proposed citing his interpretive framework in Wikivoice; the content at issue is attendee lists, dates, and the committee's structure, attributed in-text. And once again, this compares a peer-reviewed academic work published by a major university press with the work of an activist published by a small advocacy press.

On the POV fork question: that was argued and rejected in the AfD that closed as keep on August 14, the second AfD in under a month. Plus, a subsequent deletion review of that close was opened and then withdrawn by the nominator on August 16 (closed without prejudice, not a decision on the merits). Three separate deletion-related processes in under a month, none resulting in deletion or merge. I don't think relitigating notability here is the right use of this thread, which is about sourcing and attribution. Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Those two citations to Peled are simple statements of fact, easily verifiable in other sources, and do not require attribution. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

"Discussions were held in Arabic": agreed, that doesn't need attribution.

"Though Hamas was not an illegal organization at the time" is different: it's not just a fact, it's the specific framing defense counsel used at trial to answer the "coded language suggests concealment" reading. Hollander's "who knew which organizations were going to be illegal?" Presenting it as a bare aside imports that argument without attributing it. Something like "though the defense noted Hamas was not an illegal organization at the time" would fix it without disputing the underlying fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

That the defense used it is does not change that it was a fact. The only potential problem I see is "though" and if you want to re-word it more neutrally, go ahead. I don't see the point in litigating such a simple point. This is is more evidence that the article is there to rehash content from the HLF article. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Boutboul, are you referring to these removals or to smth else ? Alaexis_¿question? 16:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Stepping back to the bigger picture: this article was originally sourced primarily to two peer-reviewed university-press monographs (Levitt, Yale UP; Vidino, Columbia UP). It is now sourced primarily to a partisan account (Miko Peled, Just World Books), which naturally pushes the article toward one side rather than a neutral treatment of the topic.

For example, the diff showing the source removing:

Vidino's book had already been discussed at WP:RSN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_520#Lorenzo_Vidino_and_Europe), where it was assessed as meeting RS for facts, that discussion didn't conclude it should be excluded. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The RSN discussion did not conclude with a clear consensus. Vidino and Levitt are themselves entirely partisan accounts, which were previously presented in Wikivoice. Article still needs work but it is at least approaching NPOV now. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Separately: the article describes Peled as an "Israeli-American peace activist." That's not a neutral characterization. Peled has publicly described the October 7, 2023 attacks as "acts of heroism" rather than terrorism, at an Oxford Union debate in November 2024, which prompted a UK counter-terrorism police inquiry (reported by The Telegraph, GB News, and others). "Peace activist" doesn't reflect that record.

The sentence this label is attached to illustrates the broader attribution problem already raised above: "According to Israeli-American peace activist Miko Peled, Baker was making a joke when he had asked that 'sister Samah' be used." "Baker was making a joke" is defense counsel's characterization of Baker's intent at trial, presented here as if it were almost an established fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You trust GB News? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair question. No, GB News is generally unreliable (WP:GBNEWS), and I withdraw it from my examples. However, the statement does not depend on GB News. It was reported by The Telegraph, which is GREL (WP:TELEGRAPH).

But do you also consider that someone who described what happened on October 7 as "acts of heroism" should be described in Wikipedia's voice as a "peace activist"? Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The attribution isn't adequate? That's easily fixed by checking what a couple reliable sources refer to him and editing it. As an example, "rather than terrorism" is also not a neutral, whether you agree with the label or not. "[...]presented here as if it were almost an established fact" No, it's presented as Peled's opinion, which it is. I have no idea if it was an argument used by the defense or not, which is irrelevant to it being Peled's opinion. WP:NPOV requires the presentation of all signifcant views fairly, proportionally, and without editorial bias. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The removal of RS like The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West written by a subject-matter expert and published by Columbia University Press are quite concerning. Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The source was being used inappropriately in Wikivoice without attribution, and was closely paraphrased. The WP:RSCONTEXT issues are discussed in-depth on the article talk page. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing could be fixed by rewording, not by removing the sources.

On attribution: most of the sentences removed across these edits were explicitly attributed in text. That's easily checked in the diffs I provided. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

"The source was being used inappropriately in Wikivoice without attribution, and was closely paraphrased. The WP:RSCONTEXT issues are discussed in-depth on the article talk page."

Can you point me to the relevant section at the talk page? Neither of these two problems seems like a good reason for removal. Attribution can be easily added and paraphrasing is not hard to fix either. Alaexis_¿question? 22:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Philadelphia meeting of the Holy Land Foundation and Islamic Association of Palestine#NPOV as well as Talk:Philadelphia meeting of the Holy Land Foundation and Islamic Association of Palestine#Background section, sentence by sentence, speaking to some of the additional problems with the article. What I removed, per my editnotes, was for DUE problems that made the article into a COATRACK. The use of Wikivoice highlighted the POV problems, while my efforts at verification revealed other issues (paraphrasing, synthesis). —BrechtBro (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Following up: content sourced to three academic monographs (Frampton, Harvard UP; Levitt, Yale UP; Vidino, Columbia UP) has now been removed from the lead as UNDUE, while the account sourced to Peled (Just World Books) remains.

The material removed was not interpretive analysis. Levitt reproduces a list of five goals from an FBI report; Frampton quotes a phrase from the record. Both were attributed in text. The one authorial characterization included, Vidino's "Hamas support network," was flagged as his own phrasing.

This is the pattern I raised at the start of this thread, now applied to the lead. I'd welcome outside views on whether removing three university-press sources while retaining an advocacy-press account is consistent with WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:NPOV.Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I still vehemently object to referring to Vidino as a bestsource. I think you should consider the feedback you have gotten at the page regarding WP:Due. Simonm223 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. WP:SOURCETYPES notes, scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available —BrechtBro (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair principle, but which source of comparable quality says something different about this meeting? Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This edit to the lead is on its face unbalanced, and was reverted in whole contra the account here. It gives the opinions of three people by name, two of whom are contested sources without any WP:BIASED attribution, one of which airs the "secret Hamas conspiracy theory" of which this heading is under, while the third is cited for a nested quotation (source obscured here, but it's from an FBI memo), while summarizing those who disagree with them as "participants and their defenders." MOS:LEAD specifically says, Do not violate the neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. The current lead, while brief, is neutral, and summarizes the most important points about the article. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The two sides here aren't the same kind of source doing the same thing. Levitt, Vidino, and Frampton analyse the meeting in academic monographs. Elashi and Baker are participants and defendants describing their own conduct at their own trial, and Hollander was their counsel. Peled is an activist.

That's not a disagreement between two analyses of comparable standing. It's the difference between scholarly treatment and interested testimony. Both belong in the article, but presenting them as symmetrical accounts misrepresents what each one is. This not how Wikipedia works. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If anything, Vidino, Levitt, et al, who do little more than parrot the FBI, deserve less weight than the other side. The body of secondary literature about the HLF prosecution and trial which, among other things, criticizes the FBI analysis has to be considered. The issues with the Vidino and Levitt books have been discussed, those issues do not stop existing simply because the books came from academic presses. It is a gross mischaracterization to describe Levitt, a former FBI analyist, and Vidino, who has been part of a scandal regarding his work on the Muslim Brotherhood, as disinterested. This is a case where the lack of discussion of the event in secondary literature by respected scholars of Hamas, Arab and Islamic culture, history, and politics, etc, suggests that the event is not considered important, which mirrors the reception of Vidino and Levitt's books.

Even if those issues didn't exist, the edit is still NPOV for the other reasons stated, as well as the unneccessary legitimating statement, "in academic monographs." —BrechtBro (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If respected Hamas scholars other than Vidino, Levitt and Frampton haven't written about this meeting, it's because few have studied Hamas's US networks at all. Roy works on Gaza's political economy, Hroub on Hamas's political thought, Milton-Edwards on Palestinian Islamic politics. Their silence reflects their research focus, not a verdict on the event's importance. (And "respected scholars" quietly assumes Frampton, Levitt and Vidino aren't, which is the question at issue, not a given.)

On "parrot the FBI": that's a characterization, not an established fact. Levitt cites an FBI report but also works from the transcripts; Vidino works from the trial record. And nobody described either author as "disinterested", that word isn't in the edit. They are interested as anyone in this field but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules.

WP:SOURCETYPES explicitly states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

This does not make every claim in a university-press monograph automatically correct or due, since context and scholarly reception still matter. However, it clearly establishes a general preference for such sources over an activist account published by a non-academic advocacy press, particularly for contested historical analysis.

On "in academic monographs": fair, that can go. The references show the publishers. Michael Boutboul (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: The article creator, Boutboul, has been blocked for repeated AI use, including in generating this article, and that the user's comments here and in all the relevant discussions appear to be WP:AITALK.—BrechtBro (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's not great... User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Two-tier policing conspiracy theory could need some more eyes

I dont actually understand how the article isnt a coatrack, and it seems to argue that the claim that police treat ethnic groups differently is a conspiracy theory? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the sourcing seems to argue actually that white nationalists in uk think the police treat white folk more unfairly compared to other ethnic groups? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this just repackaged Reverse racism and political correctness narratives? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there was some political neologism “two tier kier” this was all about. There is a rm convo happening, my vote was for artivle to be renamed that. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t see the issue here. This is a widely circulating term, repeated by mainstream politicians in the UK and by international influencers like Musk, that transmits a fake narrative. Cf Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or Great Replacement conspiracy theory for example. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Though the issue here might be with the way the lede doesn’t distinguish between the “anti-white” conspiracy and actually existing and documented anti-minority police discrimination. Yr Enw (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Aggreed, it seems to imply that allegations of police racism (towards minorities) fall into this, which they do not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this would be very improved by making the lead more specific. Simonm223 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we need a distinguisher at the top clarifying this is not to be confused with Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police in the UK context or the wider concept of Police brutality. Yr Enw (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should be clear the conspiracy theory is that police engage in "reverse racism" against white protesters and / or discriminate against far-right people and not that police in the UK have issues with institutional racism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have opened a section on the talk page to discuss the lead. There have been a lot of questionable changes without discussion so it would be good to get a solid consensus. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs to be clearer. Making the lead clearly distinguish the "two-tier policing" narrative from documented institutional racism keeps the two pots from getting mixed together. NicoR8 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This problem could be solved if we were to just stop editorializing and labeling in article titles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean ignoring WP:COMMONNAME? Cheers. DN (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems some of the people here have misled you into thinking that "Two-tier policing conspiracy theory" is the common name. It isn't, they're just engaging in WP:CPUSH. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, if you can come up with an alternative title that makes it clear what the article is about (i.e. the claims of bias against right wingers/whites that have been dismissed as a conspiracy theory in multiple reliable sources, rather than allegations of police bias in general), you should propose a page move on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Im still partial to “Two Tier Kier” (include the quotes) as the political insult that had notability User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Doesnt that become too time limiting to Starmer’s Premiership? Yr Enw (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there real evidence this grievance started before kier? Not evidence thats been twisted to meet the epithet, but this grievances currency in the news media peaked in current political cycle. It was exacerbated during his premiership and describes a specific political moment.

if there is anything real in that article, its that this is a specific political moment similar to the infamous Bowling Green massacre or the Freedom fries, b

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Bumping thread. We need some new, perhaps uninvolved eyes on this because there are now about 7 overlapping content disputes ongoing on this article's Talk page, most involving one specific editor who seems to insist (against the protestations of other editors) that this is done in the name of WP:DUE, but whose edits themselves potentially stray into WP:CPUSH. Yr Enw (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Uh, can I ask what was up with this RM closure? While WP:NOTAVOTE applies, consensus is still supposed to reflect what people in the discussion think; numerically, that was, at a glance, roughly five-to-eleven, and I'm not seeing any reason to totally disregard enough people arguing against the move to push it through, especially since status quo in a no-consensus situation for this would be to not move it. This does look like a WP:SUPERVOTE to me. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

We could start the close challenge process. This is actually the first moment I realized that discussion had ever been closed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to, go ahead. I'm a bit too distracted to follow up on that right now, but it seems fairly open-and-shut to me; that's one wildly lopsided RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I've messaged @BilledMammal on user talk, I argued the first close suggested an obvious consensus against the name change (there may be WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, but there obviously was one bad option that had consensus against 2 to 1).

the second RM complicates this all, though, and I'm not sure how interpreting consensus would occur there.

I'd consider close review of the first, but its been this for more than month.
at this point we'd be better served workshopping some RFC/move proposal if there is still appetite? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I know this sort of thing is pretty common in America amongst Trump followers, what is it called there? NadVolum (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Lists of injuries/accidents in horse-sport competition articles

I am seeking community input on a content dispute question about whether lists of sports injuries, isolated accidents, and rule infractions in competition-level articles for horse sports are appropriate, or if they violate WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. In 2024, an editor added such lists to at least 14 articles—not in the articles for the type of the sporting event (such as Eventing or Show jumping), but in articles for international-level competitions which occur on an annual, biennial, or quadrennial basis.

Specifics (in summary):

1. Calgary Stampede#Casualties: Lists a contextless table of entries for an event that runs for 10 days, annually, for over 100 years. (removed from list)
2. Badminton Horse Trials: This 77-year annual event has an entire section for listing old warnings and sanctions to riders, and sections for falls, injuries to horses, and injuries to riders. The sections comprise a full half of the article content. (In this one article only, I had attempted to add context/summaries to each section, but it's still UNDUEWEIGHT.)
3. European Eventing Championships: Its "Casualties and incidents" section (listing a single accident for this biennial event spanning 72 years) is placed before the "Past winners" section. ("Undue weight can be given [by] prominence of placement")
4. Burghley Horse Trials#Casualties and incidents: This 66-year annual event has a list of several rider rule violations, drug disqualifications, and a parking lot accident involving an unsupervised tractor.
5. British Jumping Derby#Incidents: Lists 4 injuries over a 65-year annual event.
6. World Eventing Championships#Incidents: Lists 3 incidents (one a drug violation) for 15 quadrennial events spanning 57 years.
7. Bramham Horse Trials#Incidents: Lists 6 incidents for this 53-year annual event.
8. Kentucky Three-Day Event#Casualties and incidents: Lists 9 injuries and 2 rider sanctions in 49 years of an annual competition.
9. FEI World Equestrian Games#Incidents: Lists a drug test failure causing a disqualification for this article of 10 quadrennial events spanning 36 years.
10. Blenheim Horse Trials#Casualties and incidents: Lists 5 injuries over a 35-year annual event, and one incident involving a non-participant who attacked spectators.
11. Étoiles de Pau#Casualties and incidents: Lists 2 accidents over a 20-year history of annual events, and gives each accident a separate subheading.
12. Luhmühlen Horse Trials#Incidents: Lists 7 injuries, giving as much content as the list of 20 winners over 20 years of annual competition.
13. FEI World Cup Jumping 2010/2011#Incidents: Lists a disqualification for a rider violating a rule.
14. 2024 FEI World Cup Finals (show jumping and dressage)#Incidents: Lists one casualty, a rider infraction, and someone suspended after a positive human doping test.

The lists were added without any lead-in summary, without regard to significance, whether or not any of these individual injuries/accidents led to changes in safety regulations or practices, or other further-reaching outcomes. Such incident lists include: an accident in a parking lot, disqualifications due to drug test results, rider sanctions for breaking rules, and horses being euthanized days after an event. The lists are of isolated incidents that are not event-defining, and not historically significant. These lists are not comprehensive; they include only a handful of incidents over decades, giving a misleading impression of frequency and significance. The sources cited are from news coverage of individual events in these recurring series. None of the sources broadly cover dangers of the sport in general.

Discussion of safety, risk, and accident patterns belongs in sport-level articles, where it can be covered with context, statistics, and analysis. Though there is a section in the sport-level article Eventing § Safety which discusses the dangers, types of accidents, and what changes the sport has made to reduce accidents, it doesn't include lists of fatalities or other accidents and incidents. The article show jumping doesn't have a similar section probably because although that sport is also risky, as are all horse-involved sports, serious accidents are a part of participating in sports. See also sport injuries, which covers human-athlete injuries, but could equally relate to horse-athletes.

NPOV-policy WP:PROPORTION states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." And per policy WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery."

It's possible that coverage of accidents of a single event might warrant mention in an article (in prose format), but that is if it's a single event. It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article of an ongoing annual, biennial, or quadrennial recurring sporting event.

The inclusion of these sections appears to reflect a POV emphasis on accidents, rather than proportionate coverage of the event, and since this is a two-editor content dispute, neutral community input is desirable to break the deadlock. All these sections were added by the same editor, removed by me, and reinserted by the editor. A discussion in 2024 at Talk:Badminton Horse Trials#horses deaths and injuries did not resolve. The editor's new edit-summary assertions include "This section gives balance to the article" and " It appears editor is trying to scrub equestrian articles of balance". However, NPOV's WP:BALANCE doesn't support that interpretation. The 2024 thread started with "The references to horses deaths and injuries ... is a notable part of this event", then accused me of being a "non-neutral person", and disclosed their WP:SYNTH inference by stating "Its documentation is warranted to showcase the course difficulty and its success rate". However, none of the sources provide secondary analysis showing that these incidents are significant to the history or identity of the event; instead they are routine news reports of isolated occurrences, not lasting or event-defining developments, and therefore fall under WP:NOTNEWS. I documented my reasons for removal of the sections on the WikiProject Equine talk page at Accident sections on event pages, and linked to it in each of my removal edit summaries, but the editor did not discuss, and only reverted.

I would like feedback as to whether or not the community thinks the inclusion of this sort of content violates NPOV/PROPORTION/UNDUE/NOTNEWS, and how to proceed given the multi-article pattern of inclusion/restoring and failure to discuss per WP:BRD.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Would you consider providing a tldr for those not interested in reading a WP:WALLOFTEXT? Katzrockso (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

tldr: two-editor content-dispute over inclusion/exclusion of minor aspects of major sporting events; need wider consensus to break deadlock. @Katzrockso:   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and copyedit Removing the safety-related content looks to me like an attempt at whitewashing; Grand National, not included here, has a multi-subsection section about its accidents. A disagreement between editors is just that, not a deadlock. In solidarity, Miniapolis 13:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not AFD, but NPOVN. I haven't suggested complete removal/deletion of the information, just that its placement and execution fails PROPORTION/DUE for these articles.

The differences between the eventing-venue articles I listed, and the Grand National article, couldn't be more different. The Grand National article includes much discussive/analytical prose content, well sourced, and it breaks out fatalities into a standalone article, List of equine fatalities in the Grand National. It doesn't include listings of rider sanctions, drug-test disqualifiers, and parking lot accidents, like the eventing articles do. The break-out article lists horse-deaths only (1839-2025), not injuries or falls. And there isn't a pattern of listing deaths in other race-venue wiki pages, is there? The Grand National welfare/fatalities are just part of a well-made article, and do not overshadow the other content, giving it correct NPOV balance, unlike in the horse-eventing articles.

As for your "whitewashing" accusation, I've made it clear in my discussions that a separate list-article would be more appropriate for these lists... and would be easy to construct. But unless and until there is more context about "horse welfare", which there isn't, then this particular list-content in these articles fails NPOV. The other editor's only argument, as well as your own, has been that I want to whitewash the information... which even if true isn't grounds (per wikipedia policies) to allow the continuation of these incident lists as they are currently executed.

My issue isn't about whether or not the information exists on Wikipedia, but where it is, and how it is displayed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I could evaluate the issue better if I knew who the editor with whom you're disagreeing is, and on which article talk page(s) this is being discussed. You may need WP:3O. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Sorry, I figured a quick check of any of those article histories would show you the recent removal and restoration/reversion edits. Editor is Nayyn. Discussion between us at Talk:Badminton Horse Trials#horses deaths and injuries did not resolve. The rest of user's words are in edit summaries of reverts.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm primarily a copyeditor with WP:EQUINE on my watchlist, and it looks to me (given the lack of response here) like you and Nayyn need a third opinion. FWIW, I've noticed WP:OWN behavior on your part for some time at WikiProject Equine. In solidarity, Miniapolis 16:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

WikiProjects are largely inactive across Wikipedia; WP:EQUINE is no exception. Activity on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine consists of routine maintenance notices, not control of the topic area. Nothing there resembles the behaviors described at OWN. Complex, multi-article policy questions often receive limited participation on noticeboards, but that does not diminish the underlying policy issues.

My concern here is strictly about content compliance with PROPORTION, UNDUEWEIGHT, and NOTNEWS.

The inclusion of isolated accidents, injuries, and rule infractions in recurring sporting event articles violates multiple core policies: NOTNEWS (routine news coverage does not belong in articles), PROPORTION (isolated events may be verifiable but still disproportionate), UNDUEWEIGHT (prominence of placement and quantity of detail distort significance), NOTEVERYTHING (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of incidents), and SUMMARYSTYLE (minor details should be summarized, not listed).

Per WP:BURDEN, the editor adding these lists must demonstrate lasting encyclopedic significance. Routine accidents in annual or quadrennial events do not meet this threshold. When BURDEN is not met and discussion has been stalled for years, NPOVN is the appropriate venue for wider community input; 3PO cannot function without active participation from all involved editors.

This is not a matter of "whitewashing"; it is a matter of applying core content policies consistently.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No one in this discussion except the initiator appears to even suggest or confirm the accusations about violated Wikipedia policies that the editor who raised this discussion keeps asserting. That's what this forum is for.

As raised by others, these sections are commonplace in events that have dangerous activities in them, especially those where death and injury happen infrequently. These situations are often the only times that these niche activities get wider coverage outside the equestrian world.

The accusations that inclusion of this is "UNDUE" is ridiculous, as these comprise only a small part of the overall article.

I agree with the other editors that removing them is akin to whitewashing. These are dangerous sports with real risks. But they read as winners lists.

The sections that the initiator has objection to include facts that are presented neutrally and with appropriate sources. One could argue these are some of the best sourced parts of these articles. The remainder is often supported by not particularly high quality sources, as horse sports don't tend to get so much coverage by independent sources.

The fact that this discussion has been raised here gives question to the rationale of the editor who has initiated this conversation after deleting large swathes of text without discussion.

Nayyn (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice that none of the replies have engaged with the policy issues raised (PROPORTION, UNDUE, NOTNEWS). The objections offered on this thread are preference-based rather than policy-based. For those who think following core content policies amounts to whitewashing what is unquestionably a dangerous sport, they misunderstand my position entirely. If editors had included content based on reliable sources discussing the dangers of the sport in general and these venues in particular, I would have had no objection.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

If the lists aren't comprehensive then the criteria for which events get put in should be what sources say about their significance. Otherwise it does violate [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Even if the incident is verifiable as having occurred, it requires a source that establishes the weight of it relative to the entire history. Swirlymarigold (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Death of Garry Hoy

Hello, I would appreciate outside input on whether the following wording in the lead of the article on the death of Garry Hoy is consistent with neutral tone:

<blockquote> In an attempt to prove to a group of prospective articling students that the building's glass windows were unbreakable—a stunt he had performed without incident many times before—he threw his body against the glass. True to Hoy's assertion, the window did not break; instead, the entire window yielded whole, popping out of its frame, and Hoy fell to his death. </blockquote>

My concern is specifically the phrase "true to Hoy's assertion." While I think alluding to the irony of Hoy's death is fine, I that it can be done later on in the section or page. The line the utilizes phrasing that I believe is unnecessarily rhetorical, and I do not think it aligns with editorial standards for the site. The fact that the irony is evident from the facts themselves means there is no need for the article's narrator to signal it with "true to Hoy's assertion."

For comparison, I proposed wording along the lines of:

<blockquote> Upon impact, the window did not break; instead, the entire window yielded whole, popping out of its frame, and Hoy fell to his death. </blockquote>

Any input would be appreciated. DnBpowerlistener (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you, and replied to that effect in the talk page. Thanks for bringing attention to this.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree on removing the allusion to irony, but there appears to be an inconsistency between the glass shattering vs popping out of the frame- something to check. Swirlymarigold (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Jackie McClelland

Jackie McClelland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could do with a complete rewrite to get rid of the all the fawning, sadly I'm too busy with various other thing right now. FDW777 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I made a few edits, but yeah it's a lot to work through! Swirlymarigold (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I did several edits, mostly combining duplicate refs and fixing refs. I did remove one whole section as COATRACK or TRIVIA. The "Legacy" section is mostly WP:COATRACK.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I've done a little bit, still plenty to go. I'm not impressed by the number of fawning quotes that remain in the article, but I'm wary of totally gutting it although that might be the best option. FDW777 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces thirst-trap propaganda

I have concerns about the use of the word "propaganda" in the page name, because it seems to me to carry a negative POV that should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution, particularly in the page name. I've been trying to address this at Talk:Israel Defense Forces thirst-trap propaganda#Requested move 31 August 2026, and am somewhat baffled by the pushback. As I said there, I recognize that there are some reliable scholarly sources that discuss this in the context of propaganda, and I have no problem with using the word as a quote attributed to sources, but I don't think it should remain in the title. I'd welcome some input from uninvolved editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The use of "propaganda" is perfectly fine for this article title. It is what it is. Reliable sources use the term as well. Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. -Object404 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

on that page rolling stones can’t be used as a source per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, i’m not sure i see a preponderance of sourcing calling it propaganda? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be propaganda par excellence. But the article seems to have NPOV issues other than one word on the title, but even "thirst-trap" seems like a more questionable choice for naming. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think arguments of the form "it seems to me to carry a negative POV that should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" work for the propaganda label. The label is routinely used in article titles e.g. Canadian propaganda during World War II, Propaganda in the United States and many, many other pages. If readers want to see the label as inherently non-neutral or negative that is up to them. Objective factual descriptions of the activities of the IDF by reliable sources using the English language often carry a negative POV for many people (including many readers and editors) presumably because many people's value systems are not aligned with the IDF's. That is not our problem. This seems like a question that should be decided via source sampling rather than imagining what readers might think when they see a label in a title. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The word propaganda is a straightforward description of, well, propaganda. The 'thirst trap' bit might have been a bit iffy but the sources seem to bear it out and the pictures certainly conform with what the term is used for. So I can't see any problem. NadVolum (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond. I've just posted at the RM discussion that it's obvious to me what everyone else thinks, and I'm going to drop the issue. I agree with the point about Rolling Stone, and I'll focus instead on fixing that sourcing and similar things in the page content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

There remains an ongoing dispute over whether or not the extant sources establish that the IDF is the body doing the thirst traps (rather than the IDF merely tolerating individual soldiers doing it). Additional eyes would probably be wise. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Such images are posted everywhere by the military and civilians of all countries. But is it an official propaganda by the state? If so, then it deserves a page, but I did not see any proof of this after quickly looking at sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about whether suggestive AI generated image of a cartoon nude child should be included in the Generative AI pornography article

There is a discussion at Talk:Generative_AI_pornography#Debated_pic about whether an AI-generated suggestive nude image of a Japanese anime style child (lolicon) should be included in the article and whether its inclusion satisfies the guidance in MOS:OFFENSIVE. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Twelve Tribes communities — "cult" in the lead, attribution question

Disclosing up front: I am a disclosed member of the Twelve Tribes community (WP:COI), the subject of this article. I am not proposing direct edits, but am seeking outside policy guidance on a sourcing and voice-of-Wikipedia question that has stalled on the talk page.

The lead of Twelve Tribes communities currently states in direct voice-of-Wikipedia narrative that the group "is a cult and new religious movement," without attribution. On talk, I raised that this conflicts with MOS:LABEL, which classifies "cult" as a value-laden word and states that wide usage calls for "in-text attribution" rather than direct assertion in Wikipedia's voice.

Checking citation 14 (which carries the unattributed claim), two scholars who've written most extensively about the group take different positions: Susan Palmer consistently uses "new religious movement," and Stuart Wright uses "fundamentalist Christian communal organization" -- neither uses "cult" in the cited text. Other sources in the bundle (Whitsett & Rosow, Lalich & McLaren, SPLC) do use "cult."

I proposed keeping "cult" in the lead alongside "new religious movement," both attributed, and splitting citation 14 so each term points to sources that actually support it. The request was declined twice on talk, without the MOS:LABEL wording itself being addressed directly. Discussion here: Talk:Twelve Tribes communities#Lead says "is a cult," body attributes it — should probably match

Question for NPOVN: Under MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV, when secondary sources vary between academic designations (NRM) and value-laden labels (cult), does policy require in-text attribution for "cult" rather than asserting it as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's voice? Mevaser (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you identify some sourcing with a better description of what this group is? Theres a giant set of 8 or so citations at the end of that cult sentence, im not sure i wanna review them all rn, but if you could find that there is obvious discrepancy in how the group is categorized fhat can hell User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure -- here's what I've found checking through citation 14's bundle so far:

Use "new religious movement" / neutral terms, not "cult," in the cited text:

• Palmer, in Lewis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998), pp. 334–335 -- never uses "cult" in the chapter text; the word appears only in the title of the book series itself.
• Wright (1997), Review of Religious Research — discusses the group at length (already cited elsewhere in the article for his "front-end/back-end disproportionality" media-coverage analysis) but calls it a "fundamentalist Christian communal organization." Where "cult" appears at all, it's in quotes, attributed to media/anticult sources, not his own classification.
• Palmer (2010), Nova Religio 13(3) -- calls the group an "international millenarian organization" / "communal NRM" in her own voice.

Use "cult" directly:

• Whitsett & Rosow, in Women's Journey to Empowerment... (Oxford UP, 2019) -- uses "cult" repeatedly, in a chapter focused on a former member's account.
• Lalich & McLaren, Escaping Utopia (Routledge, 2018) -- same, framed around ex-member narratives.
• SPLC (2018) -- uses "cult" directly in its own reporting voice, not attributed to a third party.

So it's not a fringe-vs-mainstream split -- Palmer has done fieldwork with the group since 1986 and is by far the most extensively cited academic source in the article. She doesn't use "cult" in her own analytical voice anywhere I've found. That's what led me to think this needs attribution rather than an unqualified assertion either way.

Haven't yet checked the remaining two (Swantko's papers, and the p.155 cite to Palmer's Children in New Religions) as closely -- happy to if useful. Mevaser (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey Mevaser, I agree that the reliable sources aren't all beating the same drum on how the group is labelled. Palmer's Nova Religio abstract describes it as an "American communal new religious movement" and an Oxford chapter abstract says "Christian-based nontraditional movement". I agree cult is value-laden label and under MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV, it should be attributed. I suggest "The Twelve Tribes is a communal new religious movement; it has also been described as a cult by some scholars and organizations." NicoR8 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That does make sense but a direct attribution would be needed to avoid weasel wording. It should not be that hard finding someone that actually called it a cult MacTheOp (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

based on sources that have been provided above that refer to it as a cult, what about something like "...it has also been described as a cult by some of its former members and the SPLC"? EM (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Mmm I have to say, if its in a book about a subject, it's likely to be part of that subject unless the book says otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

This rewording sounds like an improvement to me. Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all, I appreciate the time you've put into this (@NicoR8, Eucalyptusmint, and Katzrockso:). I agree that "some scholars and organizations" on its own would read as weasel wording.

One factual note so whoever settles the wording has the full picture: besides former members and the SPLC, Whitsett & Rosow (Oxford UP, 2019) and Lalich & McLaren (Routledge, 2018) are scholarly works that also use "cult." I'll leave the final choice of wording to uninvolved editors, and given my COI I'd rather not pick the exact text myself.

Since I shouldn't edit the article directly, would one of you be willing to make the change? Otherwise I'll link to this discussion on the article talk page as an edit request. Thanks again for the guidance. Mevaser (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

As NicoR8 rightly points out, there’s not a uniform characterisation used in scholarship from experts in the relevant topic areas. Specialists in abuse and control of women, and specialists in high-control groups and cults more generally, refer factually to the subject here as a cult. Scholars of religious movements view it as a religious movement. It’s not appropriate to ignore or sideline the scholarship of one group of relevant experts without good reason, while taking another’s view as fact. To maintain a neutral representation of the sources - if seeking to avoid the wikivoice use of the term cult - one solution might be to attribute both terms to the relevant disciplines. (Such an approach has recently been implemented in the article body). Cambial — foliar❧ 01:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

e.g. Scholarship from experts in the sociology of power relations and social control, and others in clinical trauma therapy, characterise the group as a cult. Sociologists of religion characterise the group as a new religious movement. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Cambial yellowing:, that seems fair to me. Attributing both terms to the fields that use them answers the wikivoice concern without sidelining anyone's scholarship. I'll leave the exact wording to you and the other editors here.

Two small details for whoever drafts it -- 1) the "cult" sourcing also includes the SPLC and former members' accounts (per Eucalyptusmint's suggestion above), not only scholars. 2) any discipline labels should track what the cited sources actually are, so nothing reads as an editor's own characterization. also, it makes sense to split the current bundled citation on that sentence so each term points to the sources that use it. Mevaser (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Provo Canyon School has an RfC

Provo Canyon School has an RfC for MOS:LEAD. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Steele dossier

Steele dossier is a complicated topic and an AMPOL CTOP. I would appreciate additional eyes to consider whether it is worthwhile to PRESERVE large parts of the article as we improve it incrementally, replace older sources with better ones, and address any errors or mistakes that are found, or examples of improper usage of BLP information or SYNTH. Mostly, though, it seems that some people think the entire article is bad and should be blown up as an ADVOCACY essay. I don't think so, so I am asking for uninvolved eyes to look at it. Andre🚐 06:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

List of the tallest statues in India

Could any knowledgeable editor see whether the Background text on List of the tallest statues in India represents the source properly and also whether it belongs above the list table entries? The list was organized by height until September 23, when it was split into Pre 1980s and Recent. The Background paragraph now introduces the Recent table and says large statues have been built since the late 1980s "following" Hindu nationalist resurgence and the rise of the BJP, "for political stakes." The source (Jain 2021) gives several reasons, including economic reforms (p. 2), caste based politics (p. 4), vernacular capitalism (pp. 12–13) and others with Hindu nationalism as one of them. The table entries also include statues commissioned by non BJP governments. Daniel Case, the protecting administrator, asked to start talk page discussion and inviting other knowledgeable editors. ~2026-51419-69 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

List of the tallest statues in India link for anyone myself included User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu American Foundation RFC

Ongoing consideration about the hindutva label. Started an rfc User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

European Academy of Engineering, etc.

We have several biographies (see also external links) saying that people have been elected to the "European Academy of Engineering". As this article explains, that is a predatory organisation.

I think we should remove such claims, and review the biographies on which they occur. Based on the evidence in that article, the EAU website is not a reliable source.

The same goes for the "Austrian Academy of Engineering" (no hits found at present) and "National Academy of Artificial Intelligence" (external links), which seem to be part of the same "academy mill". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:03, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

EAE now all done; NAAI to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

See also declared paid editor User:EaconJING whose Draft:National Academy of Artificial Intelligence was declined last month and whose talk page is illuminating; adding "International Institute of Film Science and Arts" (IIFSA; links), and the "International Institute of Literature and Arts" (IILA; no hits). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I think I have now removed the claims, and links, from all affected articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Traditional medicine/ethnobotanical section on plants' articles

Hi, I'd like some clarification on traditional medicine edits I've been making. I've been adding to various plant articles' traditional medicine sections that the plant has been used as traditional medicine in various countries, citing Julia F. Morton, Atlas of Medicinal Plants of Middle America: Bahamas to Yucatan.

Zefr has raised concerns about this User talk:Eduardo7z#Traditional medicine edits. My understanding is that I'm not adding medical claims; I'm adding the ethnobotanical/historical fact that these plants were used as traditional medicines. Is this kind of historical ethnobotanical content considered relevant enough for plant articles or does it fall under WP:UNDUE or some "not relevant" policy? I'd appreciate some opinions. Eduardo7z (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that the history of traditional medical uses of plants is relevant for two reasons. First, beliefs about the medicinal properties of plants are a significant part of the cultures of many prescientific societies. Second, a few of the traditional herbal remedies have been studied by scientists and served as a basis for important modern pharmaceuticals. An obvious example is the discovery of artemisinin by Tu Youyou, which resulted from her study of hundreds of traditional Chinese medicines. She won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; according to the Nobel Prize website, “Drugs based on artemisinin have led to the survival and improved health of millions of people.” NightHeron (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it can be added based on coverage in WP:RS (another example in addition to the one provided by NightHeron is Willow#History_of_use_in_folk_medicine). This info could also be incorporated into the "Use" section as well, where relevant, per the plants template if a separate section isn't DUE. There's an important distinction between documenting traditional uses by particular cultures which can be encyclopedic vs endorsing the claimed efficacy of those uses. EM (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It all depends on the details of the wording. There's a big difference between saying something generally was used in folk medicine, and saying substance X was "used to treat" some specific medical condition, which takes us into the realm of WP:BMI. It's debatable how due this content is, since it seems pretty much every plant has been tried for something. If a plant is significant as (say) one of the plant sources of anti-cancer agents there will be way more sourcing than an entry in an atlas. Bon courage (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I see, my follow up question would be on wording, initially I mentioned the places, preparation and what it was used for as per Morton and Zefr trimmed it down based on conciseness/MEDDATE and around concerns of reading as endorsing the uses (e.g. Special:Diff/1374956166, Special:Diff/1375085419, Special:Diff/1375087152), I then went on to only mention the countries, not the uses; since it was the Traditional Medicine section I assumed it was fine to include the uses because they were in the appropriate section (so the reader would know those are Traditional/Folk practises, not scientific knowledge), though I can see why one would worry about how to present this kind of information and am fine with omitting the uses and leaving just the countries/regions like I did here: Special:Diff/1375792463, Special:Diff/1375790391, Special:Diff/1375786528 Eduardo7z (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Reasonable people may disagree. If silverweed was used as a traditional medicine in Leicestershire is that encylopedic knowledge or a factoid that falls afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING? In the pre-scientific era many plants were used for many applications, often fruitlessly. Should we also be putting in the mouse article that fried mice were a folk medicine used for whooping cough? Same issue. Bon courage (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The trimmed versions read extremely vague to me to be adding something substantial. I think it's a case by case for each about considering due weight for inclusion. For the ones covered by multiple reliable sources, I don't see a problem with noting it with the location and time period specific facts, which indicates an ethnographic description rather than a medical claim Swirlymarigold (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't plan to include every single entry just for the sake of it since some only had a single or two uses recorded either by Morton herself or a single source, but not adding when it was a whole page of citations felt odd; lets take Lantana camara entry for example here: https://archive.org/details/atlasofmedicinal0002mort/page/738/mode/2up, she cites 16 sources and usage across various countries (the Bibliography section starts at page 1297), it doesn't read to me like a random factoid like the mouse and silverweed example Bon courage gave, should I include something like that in the article? If so, how? Right now it looks like the article has that phrasing many dislike: "L. camara has also been used in traditional herbal medicines for treating a variety of ailments, including cancer, skin itches, leprosy, chicken pox, measles, asthma and ulcers."; should I add a topic on the talk page mentioning the need to revise the section and include Morton's reference or just add the reference and leave for someone else to revise? Eduardo7z (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That article has some real problems with its WP:BMI sourcing. Lantana camara is a toxic plant sold in supplement form as a quack cure for a load of conditions. I am beginning to think this folk medicine stuff is best omitted unless we have some good WP:SECONDARY sourcing to provide commentary (like doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03837-1_7). Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Perspectives on the Morton source:

1. a respected botanist observed herbalism practices some 60+ years ago, publishing her atlas in 1981
2. there seems to be no evidence that these practices remain in the 21st century or have been reviewed in a subsequent rigorous secondary source within the past 5 years
3. her research regions in the 1960s-70s were Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean countries
4. as shown in the respective individual Wikipedia articles, all or most of these countries have modern medicine resources, with herbalism not discussed as a significant current practice (failing WP:WEIGHT)
5. discussion of herbalism observations from the mid-20th century misleads encyclopedia users to regard plants as having medicinal effects believed only by shamans using them
6. if there was a recent review of Morton's observations or existing herbalism practices for a plant, then that source should be cited; otherwise, MOS:TRIVIA and NOTEVERYTHING apply. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Even with adding specificity to the wording in the article, it doesn't convey all the nuance of how particular the context of the source is. Otherwise it sounds like this plant was generally in use and still is in use commonly, which the source doesn't indicate. For L. camara, at least, I think it'd be better to leave that out Swirlymarigold (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If a plant is significant as (say) one of the plant sources of anti-cancer agents. I think that's one of the key things here. We need to be really careful about WP:FRINGE (this discussion actually probably would have been better suited for WP:FTN) by even insinuating a plant may be a valid treatment because it was traditionally used for something. Oftentimes if it is a source for a compound that has therapeutic value, just ingesting the plant isn't necessarily going to be effective or give a consistent dose, but that's something that quacks will often gloss over and appeal to traditional use instead. That's instead what I'd be focusing on for any mention of a plant being used for a treatment first.

Basically, if there isn't MEDRS sourcing saying a plant has compound X along with discussion of if/how it actually works or not for a treatment, I'd be vary wary about mentioning anything at all. We can't circumvent MEDRS because there was traditional use, but that's functionally what can happen if we aren't careful about grounding any mention in MEDRS on this subject. KoA (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether something is due for inclusion in an article is always relative to what other information there is available. To run with @Bon courage's example: information on silverweed in the book you have is likely acceptable to include in that article, but the same is not true for mouse.

If we're talking about plants that there is rather little to be said about in the first place, I think that reliably sourced information about historical use or beliefs about the plant is almost always going to be due.

For cases similar to the L.camara example I would simply avoid listing all the ailments, both because it's unnecessary detail ("various ailments" or a list of ailments with no context and seemingly no rhyme or reason to the belief conveys the same information to me) and because it makes it less of a concern from a biomedical information perspective (it is way less likely some impressionable reader tries to cure an ailment with a poison if we do not say what ailments the poison was once thought to help against). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Speaking on such edits , this content is a mixture of medical and non-medical claims. I think the human health-related content was removed correctly because the source falls short of WP:MEDRS. But non-medical claims could be probably sourced to this book. I would not remove everything. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was coming to this from a purely ethnobotanical/historical perspective, but I recognize the problem on including this kind of information as a inattentive reader may see that and inadvertently think this means it may work or be effective, this could be fixed by having some sort of disclaimer in the traditional medicine section of articles stating that these are merely historical facts and do not represent efficacy, but no article contains that in these sections because it isn't a wikipedia rule/policy, so for now its simpler to just omit the information to avoid the problem altogether, specially on toxic plants; It seems like this issue should be raised to some higher level administrative discussion on how to deal with traditional medicine section in plant articles because they are riddled with material infringing WP:MEDRS and also have that intrinsic problem of gesturing towards medicinal uses when ethnobotanical information is presented without disclaimers Eduardo7z (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But WP:NODISCLAIMERS. I think the solution is to not use poor sources (like this Atlas of plants) and find high-quality on-point discussion in high-quality secondary sources, where it exists. If it doesn't exist, that's an indication the material is undue. Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But it isn't a poor source though, for ethnobotany its a gold mine, the issue is precisely if that information should be presented, and if so, how; the Lantana camara is a very good example of the issue, the book has a plethora of sources, but the plant is toxic, so should the medicinal ethnobotanical information be omitted (inattentive/suggestible readers see that as endorsement) or should it be included (there's a lot of literature on this, it was used by several groups of people on many countries), Datura is another notable example of this (highly toxic, full of traditional medicinal uses around the world). Eduardo7z (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not see the text removed as particularly misleading or problematic because it has a title "Traditional medicine". Still, one should say it was (rather than is) given as a "cure" with such an old/outdated source, and it must be made clear this is not an actual (proven) cure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is a very poor source for encyclopedic content (though for researchers in the field it would be golden), because it is essentially a WP:PRIMARY compendium of past human folly about herbal medicine, relayed without analysis especially wrt its medical claims. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The book was reliably published in 1981 by Julia Morton. The source is definitely "secondary" since it cites 500+ references. It is a valid RS in the field of Botany, but not in the field of human health. Hence, I think that using it on pages about individual plants is OK, although yes, the more RS the better. And yes, plants have a lot of effects on human health, positive or negative (e.g. toxins). We just need to clearly separate the "traditional medicine" (a legitimate subject described in the book) from the actual modern medicine. That is any claim the plant/drug is an actual cure should follow WP:MEDRS, as oppose to a claim that something was used by shamans, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Citing other sources does not make a source secondary if it just relaying information without the analysis and commentary that characterises truly WP:SECONDARY sources. It just makes it one of the WP:LINKSINACHAIN. For medical uses this "Atlas" is just a compendium of factoids, and if it did try to provide analysis of medical usage it would be unreliable in that as it is not WP:MEDRS. I think the problem is the OP has this source, thinks it's great for Wikipedia, and wants to use it everywhere. But while in the world at large it may be a great and esteemed tome, for the particular niche purpose of writing encyclopedic content about traditional medicine it is of limited use on its own. As noted above, for any particular plant there can be in-depth content that is more useful. Bon courage (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate for WP:RSNB, but no, this is not an indiscriminate compendium of factoids, but a reference work by a notable biologist. According to her page, she was elected a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London in 1974 and well known as a lecturer on toxic, edible, and otherwise useful plants, she wrote 10 books and 94 scientific papers on the subject. This is only in her field of course, i.e. Botany.My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't doubt the achievement of scholarship in pulling together such a lot of source material, or the "reliability" of its content, but it's not a good source for encyclopedic content. In contrast, a source like doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03837-1_7 is. Bon courage (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

International propagation of the Salafi movement and Wahhabism

I just came across the above article and it looks like it is an article needing very heavy editing to achieve NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Will try working on it MacTheOp (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Reads like an essay for sure User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

AfD opened. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Lateness of Four Noble Truths in Buddhism

I would like to politely request input from other editors regarding a neutrality and due weight dispute related to scholarly interpretations of the lateness of the Four Noble Truths in the article on that topic. Specifically, this article heavily favors positions put forward by Anderson (1999) while relegating or removing substantive counterarguments from subsequent peer-reviewed academic publications.

I have tried to compile a fair summary of prior but unsuccessful attempts at consensus building, in the hope that this can serve as a convenient starting point for further discussions and input by other editors. This summary can be found on the article’s talk page under the title “Concerns Regarding Content Neutrality.”  Since a central issue appears to be a need for help from other editors to arrive at a constructive procedure aligned with WP:NPOV and WP:CON policies, offering an input would not require specialist knowledge of Buddhist doctrine. Buddhist Peter (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You're giving quite a lot of weight to a single author with a conservative, apologetic point of view, while mainstream scholarship since the 19th century has questioned the centrality of the four truths in early Buddhism. Nevertheless, your points are there, with the addition of proper context and intro's, which you hadn't provided. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and for implicitly confirming that these points belong in the article. The core issue that brought this to the noticeboard is procedural: Additions were explicitly proposed on the talk page with a clear 24–48 hour notification window, during which no objections were raised. Per WP:CON, bypassing an established consensus window to unilaterally revert implemented edits undermines the collaborative process. If there are concerns with context or phrasing, the proper path is collaborative refinement on the talk page, not unannounced reverts after a silent deadline. Let's establish a reliable procedure moving forward. Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Buddhist Peter please have a look at WP:NODEADLINE. There's no process whereby if someone is too slow responding that means your single personal opinion then constitutes a consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@ Simonm223 Thank you very much for stepping in and trying to help us move forward. To be clear, I do not claim that a personal opinion constitutes consensus. However, when a proposal is explicitly posted with an open notification window and receives no objections, that silence establishes a working consensus for that timeframe. If you review the timeline given on the talk page, you will see this was not a matter of rushing anyone. Bypassing an established window to unilaterally revert implemented edits—rather than engaging in discussion—is the procedural issue under WP:CON. Collaborative engagement on the talk page is what is needed, rather than dismissing an open process after the fact. Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

These replies read very much like AI or AI touched up. The unnecessary combativeness is notnhelpful either User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 And there was no "established window". @Buddhist Peter requested a deadline. That means literally nothing with regard to consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I realize that the approach I took was a mistake. Allow me to clarify only that my contributions are my own thoughts and reflect my concerns about neutrality; accusations of AI generation are misplaced. Buddhist Peter (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Lolicon has an RfC

Lolicon has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal and the section on Criminal conviction for anti-union activity in Hong Kong

This is an area that could use a few more eyes. The section of the WSJ article covering a conviction in Hong Kong seems overly long too me. It seems most of this information is added by SPAs or anonymous editors. The section has a lot of play by play material that I think most agree should be trimmed. What I'm having more trouble with is establishing what parts are the most important. I suspect this is a topic that was covered in regional/non-English language sources. I've hoped some of the IP editors could help to offer a more insight into the most important parts of the story but so far that hasn't happened. I think input from experienced editors would help here. Springee (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)