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

Sathya Sai Baba

I came across this article because someone posted it on a noticeboard a few moths ago. Sathya Sai Baba is an article about an influential Indian Guru. But it strikes me as largely written from a devotational point of view, with lots of redflag claims presented credulously throughout. It also seems like the sources are not always accurately represented, or presented with due weight. (E.g., I did this, which may not even go far enough per WP:FRINGE). Entire paragraphs read like a travel brochure. On the other side of the balance, some editors have added critical material, but which seems to go too far in the other direction, rather than just dialing back the hagiography and sticking to verifiable biographical detail. The result is a hot-mess of an article, not neutral in both hagiographic and critical content. The article is also a target for a couple of single-purpose accounts. It would benefit from someone's input, but just looking at all of the issues makes me despair that it would take too much cleanup for me. At a minimum the sources need to be closely checked against what they allegedly support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree that source verification is required and can get started on this. The neutrality problem seems to stem from it being a coatrack article about the person, his following, and the institution as a whole. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yea the article is a mixture of promotional puffery and accumulated allegations, with little consideration for due proportion. NicoR8 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree The article reads un-encyclopedically flowery, a few criticisms peppered throughout just to be debunked in the best way favoring the subject of the page. There is no ambiguity regarding the article's meeting of WP:GNG but it could use some balance._signed, Kvinnen (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How to describe language that seems overly negative for Wikivoice? (non-BLP)

I was reading Charles II of Navarre and came across this paragraph:

Charles of Navarre's remarkably slippery and devious political career was at an end. He retained his crown and his country but he was effectively a humiliated client of his enemies. He had lost his French territories, and his Pyrenean realm was devastated and impoverished by war. Though he continued to scheme and even still to consider himself the rightful King of France, he was essentially neutralized and impotent for the years that remained until his gruesome death.

While the sources may back up speaking entirely negatively about him, I'm not used to anyone being described this poorly in a paragraph with no attribution or citation. It almost feels like the negative version of peacock words. Not knowing anything about 14-th century France, I want to tag it for people who do, but how do I even describe this? (I just put cn, which may not be appropriate, but it is an unsourced paragraph...) Sesquilinear (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The article looks to contain some unnecessary WP:PEACOCK descriptions and puffery. This is fine with attribution or when referring to quotes. Perhaps a template for WP:WEASEL or WP:POV might be appropriate, to attract attention from the community. DN (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see this edit. I removed the obvious WP:CONTLABEL violations. The rest still needs citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few like that on articles about this war: just before finding that, I found this sentence which was so obviously POV that I felt comfortable editing it out on the spot. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yea spot on. Citation alone may not resolve this. Even if each term is sourced, combining several strongly negative descriptions can create an imbalance, the negative counterpart of promotional puffery. NicoR8 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• I suppose that when someone's epithet is the Bad some degree of negative coverage is expected, but the real problem is that we aren't using sources for most of this at all. Curiously, John II of France, known as the Good, had the opposite problem and was written in an unduly positive manner. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Intellectual Diversity: The Sequel -- Now in 3D and Smell-O-Vision!

At Talk:Intellectual diversity there is a discussion about NPOV of that article that may interest readers of this noticeboard.

Yes, Smell-O-Vision actually happened... (smile)

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Closing without action Fence127 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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)

Austrian school sources

I was tralling through the Austrian school of economics sources and their related articles and their sources and most or all violate the verify policy (especially anarcho-capitalism) and I don’t want trall through every article to put cleanup templates. So I came here. – KaijuEditor (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

What would you have us do here? Drew Stanley (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Elite overproduction

Elite overproduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this article today and I winced a bit. The article looks like a college essay based mostly on opinion perhaps suffering from WP:SYNTH, and original research but mostly suffering from an opinion that almost every social phenomenon ever is the result of elite overproduction which is a POV that at least needs attribution and careful weighting. A succession of right-wing theorists is quoted but essentially no acknowledgement of most other political theories/philosophies which explain a lot of these points in other ways. There is a consistent assertion of opinions as facts, at least by implication, that I see going on. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who disagree with this framing, and I note on the talkpage that the tagging of the article was resisted by the main author, User:Nerd271 back in March.

Are there editors able to see the problems I'm seeing and help? I'm not quite sure what to do here. I have notified the person being discussed and the article talkpage of this discussion.

jps (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Please note the related Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#"Elite_overproduction"_article_appears_to_have_a_lot_of_original_research_by_one_editor. jps (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Commenting to affirm the core of jps's assessment as well as others' in the NOR Noticeboard discussion cited above. I'll comment further there. Aaron (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I know I already nominated it for deletion but the more I look at this the more alarming the WP:OR is. For instance, the claim I removed with this edit that Chinese people don't like manual labour because of Confucianism is not present in the Economist article it's cited to. It is, however something that would make Edward Said die a little inside. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Refer now to Peter Turchin#Elite overproduction to further improve this content per the afd/merge Drew Stanley (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa § He declared himself president

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa § He declared himself president. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Gaza war Lede image change

It's proposed we change Gaza war lede image to represent images from war ( from both sides ) Please participate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_war#Lede_image Cinaroot (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

What could possibly happen if we just added that in? Both significance and available sourcing are crystal clear on the central context of that war. The appropriate approach is to be bold and include the material and continue improving it over time. The first step doesn't need to be perfect but without taking a concrete first step, it is just difficult to take any steps at all. The broader Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been around since 19th century and yet editors are too shy to add any pics. I suggest to just do it and then adjust it per feedback. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Superpower lede and content

It appears that the situation on Superpower is a bit out of control. Recently, a DRN for it failed, and since then discussion has only spiraled further. The issue is around trying to define which countries qualify as superpowers, specifically focused on China. The difficulty is there are reliable sources stating a wide range of possible classifications. I've proposed a lede that I believe abides by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by balancing the different views, but the conversation is ongoing and I don't believe likely to resolve without some uninvolved editors stepping in. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I couldn't care less about which sources portray the US as still a superpower, but I know that the US's superpower status has been challenged. Still, the US is still a superpower. Nevertheless, as I acknowledged, how a source portrays the US as a superpower and how reliable the source is have still mattered.

Actually, I care more about how every potential candidate, like India... and China, has been portrayed, especially by every type of sources. Also, I fear how China has been portrayed in the "superpower" article would affect other articles covering China, like the Second Cold War one... and the China one too. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am still monitoring this dispute, despite leaving. I want to leave a comment, because this response by @George Ho has multiple misconceptions which I have to point out (with respect):

• " I couldn't care less about which sources portray the US as still a superpower, but I know that the US's superpower status has been challenged. Still, the US is still a superpower." Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It summarizes what sources say. When you say "couldn't care less" that some sources dispute the US's status, but it is "still a superpower", this is just your opinion. This breaks Wikipedia guidelines and you cannot make the claim where "US is challenged" yet jump to the conclusion that "US is still a superpower". This is just a personal argument.
• "Actually, I care more about how every potential candidate, like India... and China, has been portrayed, especially by every type of sources. Also, I fear how China has been portrayed in the "superpower" article would affect other articles covering China, like the Second Cold War one... and the China one too." If so, China must be disputed, and whether it fits an Option A or Option B more.
• I have read through @GeogSage's lead. it handles the US's superpower status quite well. However, if I were to write it, I would also include some debate about China's status, not just the US's, otherwise it would be undue. There is also another observation, and it is that I have never heard of the term "hyperpower" before. I am not an expert in this realm though, and I may stand corrected.

In my opinion, resuming the back-and-forth in the dedicated article talk space section would be better than holding a back-and-forth here, as this would help neutral editors follow the conversation better.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

this is just your opinion.

Why linking the WP:NOTBLOG, which says that Wikipedia ≠ blog? Why not WP:NOTFREESPEECH for the piping text "your opinion"? Furthermore, I haven't intended to insert my own personal opinions into article content (just by violating the WP:OPINION policy), and I will not have intended to either. Well, WP:personal redirects to WP:no personal attacks. Furthermore, the WP:academic use essay deems encyclopedias like Wikipedia as starting point[s], right? George Ho (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: On the China in the lede issue, I can see adding it but expected to do further elaboration in the body for each example mentioned in the literature, detailing the various positions in reliable sources regarding each entity named as a superpower. I mentioned the U.S. being the most commonly accepted one, while still disputed, to illustrate the literature is divided on everything. If it is an issue of being undue, that U.S. part could be dropped to the body as well, as mentioning China means mentioning Russia et. al., and I can see that exploding the length of the lede. The hyperpower bit is not particularly common, but hyperpower shows up on Polarity_(international_relations)#American_primacy and there are sources in that article we can pilfer. In terms of complexity, it shows that some people say the U.S. is a superpower, some people say it isn't anymore because it is in decline, while others have claimed the term superpower is inadequate due to the relative power after the collapse of the USSR. Kinda a mess to sort, and highlighting that it is a mess is the fun part that is actually useful to people using Wikipedia as a starting point to deep dive the topic. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S. correction:

"If so, China must be disputed, and not whether it fits an Option A or Option B more." 16dvnk (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

We are here at the neutral point of view noticeboard because:

• 1. There is disagreement about the lede section of the article.
• 2. A previous RFC was closed as No Consensus, and so did not resolve any issues.
• 3. Further discussion at Talk:Superpower did not resolve any issues, because some of the editors kept on restating their positions, so that no progress was made toward compromise or any other sort of agreement.
• 4. A case was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. There was extended back-and-forth discussion in which some of the editors kept on restating their positions.
• 5. I attempted, at DRN, to switch to moderated format where the moderator asks the questions and the participants reply. However, some of the editors continued restating their positions.
• 6. I failed the DRN because there was continued discussion and continued restatements.
• 7. User:GeogSage opened this NPOVN thread, and said that the conversation is ongoing and I don't believe likely to resolve without some uninvolved editors stepping in..

Can the previously involved editors wait to allow time for some uninvolved editors at this noticeboard to comment and maybe help?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Can a neutral or uninvolved editor please take a look at this article and offer comments or advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I would favor if someone comments here instead of the sprawling talk discussion (where there is lots of activity from new faces). In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Nazi whitewashing

Andriy Melnyk (officer) is no longer an antisemite. He has been rehabilitated by @Joko2468: and @My very best wishes:. Diffs: Apologies to Joko2468, that was too hasty on my part 14:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 and Tamzin: I would really like to hear your opinions on this. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I added back the Jews section in my edit and amended some of the wording per a WP:V issue that had been raised. I'd hope you could see from the discussion that the decision to remove the section on the Holocaust was made due to WP:SYNTH and a dearth of directly relevant sources-- to describe this as "Nazi whitewashing" (also seemingly implying that Melnyk was a Nazi) seems to me unreasonable. Joko2468 (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully @TurboSuperA+, and in relation to this (Nazis are bad, m'kay?), are you not in the best headspace to engage? I had engaged with you on this prior to this filing and had left the matter open for two weeks after pinging you before I made these changes. Joko2468 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not. Because this is an ongoing problem. My very best wishes just removed the "Nazi collaborator" label from the Andriy Melnyk disambiguation page. This editor has been on a years-long (decades-long) campaign to whitewash Nazis on Wikipedia. They had been blocked before by ArbCom for genocide denial. That's why this is very frustrating. This editor isn't going to stop, they'll just keep doing this. And if I'm the only Wikiepdia editor who seems to mind, then Wikipedia isn't for me. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that but I've never even looked at this page before-- does it matter? People will read the article to learn about him, which covers his collaboration extensively. If you feel you're able to engage on this, then please answer the question I posed to you in the talk page. I have no intention of whitewashing Melnyk (I wrote that content in the first place) and I genuinely made that edit because I was unable to find an appropriate source. Your comment prior reads to me as WP:TRUTH or WP:NOTLEAD but if you have something then please share it. Joko2468 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also encourage you to remove your post on Wikipediocracy-- I don't think this is appropriate and you're already toeing the line on canvassing. Joko2468 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

When I reported the WPO thread and reddit thread about me to ArbCom, where people were actually directly calling for my ban, the arbs said no rules were broken and that it didn't count as canvassing. Me saying there's whitewashing going on (and not calling for any particular action) shouldn't count as canvassing either.

This is WP:NPOV/N, not ANI or AE. What exactly am I canvassing for? What is it that I am asking editors to do? Nothing. I'm simply stating a fact: removing content about Andriy Melnyk's antisemitism and collaboration with Nazis is textbook definition of whitewashing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you'd just engage with the sources instead of handwringing... Joko2468 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, well, sometimes we have to call a spade a spade. I think if one is a known Nazi collaborator, whose organisation participated in the Holocaust, we'd need WP:RS to say he wasn't an antisemite. It's not like he couldn't have known what the Nazis were. He never condemned the actions of his organisation.

I'm sorry if I wrongly accused you. Dozens of my family members died in concentration/death camps at the hands of Nazi collaborators. So when I see editors trying to remove this kind of stuff from articles, alarm bells go off. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that and I appreciate this is incredibly sensitive history. Respectfully, this doesn't square with WP:V. Joko2468 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, can I ask why you've pinged two uninvolved editors? This looks like potential WP:CANVASSING. Joko2468 (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a concerning lack of AGF from OP here. It's quite significant to accuse two editors of Nazi whitewashing and rehabilitating antisemitism. You've also not actually stated what your POV concern is here; in fact you've linked to two edits which either have reasonable concerns around sourcing or link to a lengthy talk page discussion which discusses sources in more detail. Also, yes, why did you ping two uninvolved editors? — Czello ^(music) 09:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment while I do find these edits somewhat problematic I also feel like my hands are a little tied here by the appearance of canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please feel free to comment on the edit I made in the talk page, I'm certainly not going to turn down discussion on this. Joko2468 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  (pinging @Simonm223) Joko2468 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Let's take things down a notch here. Not much discussion has been had on those two edits; there was a previous discussion that didn't go anywhere, with the concerns about sourcing still being present in the article. Then My very best wishes, who was not involved in the previous discussion, came by and removed a section because of the sourcing issues. Sure, that's an overcorrection, but it should be responded to with more editing, which Joko attempted to do. That's not a deadlocked situation, and I don't see why editors can't just make more edits building on Joko's one. Certainly no need to take to talk page contests just yet folks. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 This seems eminently reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Apart from one YouTube video (Is that even RS?) is there any source that accused him of antisemitism? Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yad Vashem and there are several sources posted in: Talk:Andriy Melnyk (officer)#Role in the Holocaust. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you quote where Vad Yashem describes him as an antisemite? I don't see it in this post. Joko2468 (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

1) He collaborated with Nazis.

2) Members of the organisation he founded participated in the Holocaust.

3) His organisation published anti-semitic materials.

4) He never condemned the actions of his organisations. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The accusation of antisemitism was attributed per WP:NPOVN. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So just add that, and not guilt by association (and what that YouTube video an RS?). Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a roundtable of reputable historians (Karel C. Berkhoff, Yuri Radchenko, Andrii Usach, and Marek Wojnar) specifically on the topic of Melnyk and his organisation. Radchenko (the historian cited) is to my reading the most prolific publisher on the OUN(m). Joko2468 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I was concerned that adding the complicity of his organisation without the source mentioning him was indefensible; do you think this would be okay? Joko2468 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am still concerned that this is only "guilt by association", and that it still does not actually say he was antisemitic, just that he (may) have turned a blind eye to it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much yes, though there's this interview Radchenko did with David Fishman (Melnyk... did not start out as an antisemite but embraced antisemitism later on in his career)-- it's regrettably WP:BLOG (or is it?). Joko2468 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That is more like it, this you can use to say he became anti-semitic. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay great, I'll add this to that section (retaining the roundtable material also). Joko2468 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• According to the first phrase of our page about him, Melnyk "was a Ukrainian military and political leader best known for leading the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists from 1938 onwards and later the Melnykites (OUN-M) following a split with the more radical Banderite faction (OUN-B) in 1940". OK. Then, on the redirect page, an appropriate description should be that phrase, or the beginning of it, for example "a Ukrainian military and political leader who led the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists" or even shorter. This is per WP:NPOV. That is what I did. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  But you removed this part also: member of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Why? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Individual_entries. It says: "Keep the description associated with a link very concise, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." This is exactly what I did. This is just about finding proper link on the disambig. page, it has nothing to do with politics. And again, I am simply using first phrase from the page because it defines what this person is primarily known for, and this phrase reflects the current consensus. I always did it on many disambig. pages, and no one ever objected. You are the first. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

best known for leading the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists Why remove what he is best known for? You also removed "Nazi collaborator". So you removing the first and third label that link him to Nazis and fascists, while leaving the second label that calls him "military and political leader" is a coincidence? You're happy to call him a "leader" but then deny he had anything to do with the antisemitic actions of his organisation? So what did he lead exactly? Your explanation would be more believable if you hadn't been blocked by ArbCom for genocide denial and if you hadn't removed the "far-right" label from Stepan fucking Bandera. There's a clear pattern to your editing I'm not sure how long you can keep getting away with it. You feigning innocence and pretending as if you don't know what you're doing insults my and every Wikipedian's intelligence. Do you really think you're not obvious? Everyone can see what you're doing and frankly I'm shocked and appalled you haven't been CBANed yet.

Every time you respond to me or write on my talk page I get literal heebie jeebies. I shiver at the thought of reading your posts. Reading the words you write makes me sick to my stomach. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No. I simply followed WP guidelines and rules, as explained above. You should do the same and respect WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:Forumshop. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

And once again, according to the first phrase of our page about him, Melnyk "was a Ukrainian military and political leader best known for leading the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists from 1938 onwards and later the Melnykites (OUN-M) following a split with the more radical Banderite faction (OUN-B) in 1940". I simply used the beginning of the phrase on the disambig. page. This phrase does not say anything about "Nazi". I did not remove any "labels". None of that was a "label". You distorted/misinterpreted what I did. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Turbo this language is not acceptable on this board. If you have conduct complaints make them at the appropriate place. Personal comments about other editors, especially intense ones like these, do not belong here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

In addition, I think that in this subject area, the sourcing to self-published sources and single YouTube records is unacceptable. Hence my another edit. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

They would be unacceptable if they were unreliable. They're surely reliable sources for that historian's opinion I should think. Joko2468 (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I would definitely avoid anything self-published in the areas of WWII and Holocaust. Arbcom have issued specific sourcing restrictions for this subject area, but I do not know if they are still active. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 21 July 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)

dozens of edits about sexual abuse in the catholic church

user @CranberrySt has done dozens of edits about sexual abuse in the catholic church, many of which include removing significant details about the abuse and/or rewording information to seem less severe. they are consistently labeled as copyediting or similar uncontroversial seeming summaries. there has been a few warnings but they did not seem to go anywhere. some edits do seem neutral, but i feel like this should be discussed, as this is a very very large amount of information over several months. examples i believe demonstrate clear pov include

removal of well sourced details on sexual abuse cases

rewording that could be seen as distancing the church from the incidents, as well as rewording with less "harsh" words

notable patterns include replacing children with minors, erasure of the word "boy", removal of mentions that churches did nothing to stop abuse, etc.

again, there are. dozens of these. this is just a few. normally, i would just go back and undo the edits, but there are so many over so long that i feel the need to alert someone Jackjd0 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

On reviewing their edits, I see a mix of justified and unjustified changes, but I agree that there is a need for clearer edit summaries, especially in such a controversial topic. I will go through their contributions and revert/modify where appropriate. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 00:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. If edits are unjustified or perceivably violate policy, revert edits that are blatantly contentious and start discussions about the edits on the respective talk page. Could you list the articles that seem to be effected? Cheers. DN (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

tbh the biggest issue here is volume and the fact that many are not the most recent, so reverting them would involve reverting other material- and there is like. easily over 100 of these edits, so i cannot undo all of them myself with the tools i currently have access to, let alone start discussions about any of them that could be contenious. i think the most i could do would be find the most recent edit not affected by this user and just restore that, but in some cases that might be getting rid of months of other edits. i can start trying but its. gonna take some help and i also wanna avoid getting in trouble for like. just. massively undoing hundreds of edits. Jackjd0 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

(i tried making a list but it ended up at like. 50+, very quickly) Jackjd0 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Ugh, that was unpleasant. I went through all of their contributions. Many were constructive, and involved simple copyediting or removal of poorly-sourced content, but many seemed to unhelpfully obscure the details of well-sourced information, so I reverted those. I also left them a talk page notice asking them to use clear edit summaries in the future. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 04:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

oh my god you're. wikipedia's strongest soldier. thats. hours. you have my forever thanks Jackjd0 (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment#Recent updates

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment#Recent updates which may be of interest to this board. Gotitbro (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

HIP 99770 b: repeated POVDELETION in recent lead description edits

The lead of HIP 99770 b has been changed several times to a different description by another editor. While claiming repeated NOR/SYNTH by me, I think the other editor sees biases and follows a classical way of claiming a lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete (in this case e.g. deleting quotes from at least 3 reliable primary or even secondary sources on 21 July 2026, together with deletion of 2 more reliable sources, without edit summary explanation) (WP:POVDELETION).

I might be wrong about this, so I would be glad if you would tell us here (other noticeboard) whether I am wrong, the other editor is wrong or both of us, in case you are interested of course.

The situation is summarized on the other noticeboard from the other editor's perspective and mine. Thank you. Stevinger (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the same dispute that was already under discussion here for repeated WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR changes by the above editor.

Even prior to this filing, the above editor was well aware of the reasons for “deletions” – see here as well as the edit note accompanying the article status here, (which was altered even *after* a WP:NORN filing was initiated). Briefly, I was carrying out an extensive two-phase edit of the article -- saving progress in the middle -- the completion of which would be accompanied by a full summary. The other editor saw the article status mid-way through the second edit phase.

My full edit restored the previously dropped sourced references and gave an overview of the edit explanations: so this filing seems out of date and moot. As I explained, I removed the reference for “brown dwarf” and its citation, because the citation given does not call HIP 99770 b such a label and the reasons given (e.g. as described here and here) misinterpret an article figure and are self contradictory. This particular issue is fundamentally a sourcing one not a neutrality dispute. Neutrality follows from accurately summarizing what the sources state.

If there are other references about HIP 99770 b they should be added to the article through the normal collaborative process. If another editor suggests in good faith that an existing reference be moved around (e.g. if a citation is better matched to a different phrase), that’s also fine. But I do not see the grounds for this particular post. 2632cgn (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Marcelus#2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis

Hello! Unfortunately currently we have an issue with @Marcelus:. His actions at this point require 3rd party involvement. User constantly ignores Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Instead of treating my edits as such made by his fellow editor, his only position is to label my edits exclusively as "whitewashing" and ignores Wikipedia:Be bold that I'm following to address the mistakes to make articles factually correct and neutral.

Currently there're issues with two articles:

1. Article Ukrainian Insurgent Army. In a discussion user ignored my request for sources with explicit examples of UPA collaboration with Nazi Germany and instead simply pointed me to the article about UPA implying all the information about their (not OUN or some of it's members from before joining the force, but explicitly UPA) collaboration is there. After examining it, there was only one mention of such collaboration, which I assumed was what he was referencing to. But after examining the source on the mentioned page 14 there's nothing to support the statement "ultimately entering collaboration with the Germans on common totalitarian ideological grounds by late 1944.". As the source and the quote from it already available in the article had only stated that actions against Germans had remained mostly on paper, that's what I had changed the wording to. Shortly my edit was undone by Marcelus on a sole basis of "whitewashing".

2. Article 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis. Similarly in the discussion. User undid my edit based on the claims that:

a. He had collaborated entire WW2 and information about his arrest for most of the war is "false". I presented multiple sources that support the statement about his house arrest most of the war: 1, 2, 3. He still claims that is false, but couldn't produce a single source to back that claim. Talk:Andriy Melnyk (officer)#Role in the Holocaust and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 519#Andriy Melnyk (officer) found no direct involvement into any of the OUN-M's actions from the point of his arrest to the point of his release. And his involvement into Ukrainian National Committee is described by sources as "pressured by Germans" (page 524).

b. User was not able to provide reasons to include that information in the article to begin with and thus violating Wikipedia:Relevance. In the presented sources in the article he is described from "Ukrainian nationalist" and "divisive military figure" to "Nazi collaborator". So the reasons why explicitly there's a need to describe him explicitly as Nazi collaborator were not presented. As well as his leadership of OUN-M, which I don't mind keeping but mentioning his nominal leadership since no source was presented to support the claim of any involvement into OUN-M's actions during most of the war and specifically 1943-1944 when Volhynia massacre happened. And while it would be understandable in case such description was provided as opinion put into brackets of Polish politicians involved into crisis, there are no such sources with such opionions provided there. Korwinski (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The matter is pretty straightforward. The edits I reverted were aimed at whitewashing Ukrainian history during World War II. Addressing the specific points:

1) The reverted edit removed the mention of collaboration with Germany in late 1944 from the lead, even though this collaboration is well documented in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Relations_with_Germany.

2) The reverted edit removed the description of Melnyk as a Nazi collaborator while emphasizing that he had been "arrested" by the Germans. This may leave readers with the misleading impression that Melnyk was primarily a victim of German repression.

It is difficult to remain indifferent to this kind of editing. Even now, in opening this discussion, @Korwinski uses misleading language that obscures Melnyk's responsibility. For example, he completely ignores the fact that Melnyk was the actual leader of his organisation between 1939 and 1941, and collaborated as hell during that time. Even after the Germans restricted his freedom in 1941, which is described by some sources as a "house arrest", he remained politically active and stayed in contact with his organization. Moreover, for some reason, he brings up the Volhynia massacres, even though nowhere has it been suggested, certainly not by me, that Melnyk or the OUN-M were responsible for them (which of course isn't true because it was orchestreted by the OUN-B). Marcelus (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Statement in the lead does not match the source that it references to. Paragraph 6 and 7 name describe sporadic cooperation as well fight between them two, which was a common back them. For example Armia Krajowa's Adolf Pilch and Józef Świda did the exact same thing. Similarly information could be found about such AK-German cooperation in Hrubieszow and Lithuania. This is not a dispute about actions of AK, I'm just providing the context. But similarly since sources do not explicitly call such cooperation as collaboration I do not see the reason to classify them as such.

2.

a) "even though nowhere has it been suggested, certainly not by me" - this suggests that you actually didn't read the sources provided in the article. As all of them do and Melnyk himself is mentioned in the same paragraph in Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis implying his involvement.

b) "which is described by some sources as a "house arrest" - could you provide us with sources describing his situation as anything else?

c) "he remained politically active and stayed in contact with his organization" - could you provide sources for that? It clearly contradicts what Radchenko wrote: In 1941 (most likely in May–June), he traveled to Kraków several times, after which the Germans prohibited him from leaving the capital of the Reich. Melnyk's disappearance from public life led to the spread of various rumors among members of his own party. For example, it was claimed that "Leader Melnyk had perished" [3], that "Melnyk is a 72-year-old old man," that "Melnyk sold Ukraine to the Germans," that "Melnyk has been arrested," and so forth [4].. source.

d) "because it was orchestreted by the OUN-B" - could you provide sources about? Because clearly we need to update Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia that doesn't mention anything of the sort. Korwinski (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Korwinski

1) It's really not the place to discuss UPA's history. But their collaboration with Germans at the end of 1944 on the commandment level is well-documented, and sufficiently described in the article, and certainly not as "sporadic". As well as the collaboration of their civil headship: OUN-B. I don't know why you bring up the AK, so I won't comment on that.

2. a) 2026 Poland–Ukraine diplomatic crisis in its current state, doesn't imply in any sort of way that Melnyk was responsible for the massacres of Polish people. He is just described as OUN-M leader and Nazi collaborator.

b) I already replied to you about this in a previous discussion;

c) You omitted a previous sentence: As we have seen above, the situation was more complicated, because in 1942 party members came to him to tell him about the situation in occupied Ukraine. I won't comment anymore on the matter of house arrest here; the reverted edit was going into too much detail that wasn't necessary. Description of Melnyk as "OUN-M leader" and "Nazi collaborator" is sufficient, factual and appropriate for the context of the article.

d) Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Banderite faction) is listed as perpetrator in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. UPA was an armed branch of the OUN-B. Marcelus (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

1. In case it's well documented, then there should be no issue finding a source? Like I said current one simply does not have the information about that. The link is right there in the article for you to check and see for yourself.

B. Like I said it is just for the context of things.

2. That's not how I read it. Also I had provided quotes from the sources presented there. You're yet to provide the explanation why out all of them do you insist on that specific description. Again, I would understand in case you had quoted there Polish politicians in brackets to show their opinion on the matter be it "Nazi collaborator" or "antichrist". But presenting him only as that as a fact while much of the sources provided there don't is at very least odd. Similarly saying "nominal leader of the OUN-M" wouldn't deny his leadership of the organisation, but would should the complication of things as he wasn't in charge of it most of the war.

b) You didn't. All sources say that he was under house arrest. Radchenko did put it in brackets, but the only evidence that he was able to present was the fact that he was able to host guests in 1942. His move Vienna there is explained by the bombings and happened only in late 1943. Not as some perks of that kind of arrest.

c) It doesn't? It says nothing about him being "politically active" and one visit does not equal to "stayed in contact with his organization" for majority of the war. Especially given that no orders written or verbal by him are named after that visit.

d) The request for sources was not about perpetrators, but about organisers. You had said "orchestrated by the OUN-B". As far as I'm and that article are aware, it was not orchestrated by OUN-B. OUN-B as an organisation had supported by majority vote and joined what had already been started by OUN-B member Dmytro Klyachkivsky, his soldiers and some of the other UPA commanders. Important note here is that leader of the organisation in Bandera's absence - Mykola Lebed was blatantly against it. So nominally as a head of the organisation he is to blame, but de facto he didn't take part and directly himself cannot be blamed for Volhynia. So is the case with Melnyk regarding which no source was presented or found in previous discussion linking him directly to any of the things done by other members of OUN-M. Korwinski (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Please, don't WP:BLUDGEON. Marcelus (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what kind of an answer is that? You presented your view, but so far couldn't present a single source to confirm it. As well as you couldn't provide reasons to include description of Melnyk and UPA that doesn't match all or most of the presented sources. As well as make various statements about OUN-B, Melnyk and UPA that don't hold up. If anything, thats Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Korwinski (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Violence by UFO believers

Violence by UFO believers

On talk there is a dispute over whether this article is neutral or not. More eyes would be appreciated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Byzantine_Empire#RfC: Should specific ancestries be included in the language section?

There is an RfC at Talk:Byzantine_Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Byzantine_Empire#RfC_for_the_inclusion_of_ancestries_in_the_language_section I would appreciate any contribution BreadAndHumus (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

C. K. Raju

A user is kept on removing sourced contain in ck Raju article and doing NPOV pushing by removing negative contents about the user. The user not only removed sourced contain but removing any information related to him.C K raju is a controversial figure who claims that entire modern calculus was stole from india to europe and he also writes controversial maths description giving conspiracy theories like einstein was wrong or euclid was a egyptian black women and all symbols of modern maths are wrong but when i add these well sourced description a particular user is keep on removing the content. IndianWarriors456 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikivoice on Larry Sanger page

• Larry Sanger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Larry Sanger page says "...who co-founded Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales" in Wikivoice.

Related: History of Wikipedia#Early roles of Wales and Sanger WP:WIKIVOICE

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-08-02/In focus Editor User:Smallbones with research support from User:Bri argues that Sanger doesn't meet any of the three criteria in the standard usage of the term "founder" and provides citations supporting that claim.

"To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap."

-- Larry Sanger, in The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir

Is it NPOV to state that Sanger co-founded Wikipedia in Wikivoice as if it was an established fact? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In that quote, Sanger was referring to Nupedia, not Wikipedia. Honestly, History of Wikipedia has consistently described the two as co-founders of Wikipedia for twenty years, reflecting how they were described in press releases at the time as well as in the 2001 New York Times and MIT Technology Review articles ... also note Jimmy's 2003 self-description as co-founder. I get that Larry's views are way out these days, but would be opposed to efforts to rewrite history now, twenty-five years later. Andreas JN466 16:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the time that Larry was an employee, Wikipedia was part of Nupedia. As Nupedia says, " Nupedia started Wikipedia as a side-project to allow collaboration on articles before entering the peer review process" (As Larry said at the time, "It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia.")

Larry collected his paycheck from his boss, Jimmy Wales, for editing both. When Jimmy stopped paying him, Larry stopped participating in either.

What Nupedia was not was (in Larry's words above) "open to contribution by ordinary people". Nupedia was only open to contributions by subject-matter experts. see How to be an editor or peer reviewer for Nupedia: "We wish editors to be true experts in their fields and (with very few exceptions) possess Ph.D.'s.". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the Slashdot piece the above quote is taken from, you will see that Sanger says, a few paragraphs prior:

• Wikipedia's predecessor, which I was also employed to organize, was Nupedia. Nupedia was to be a highly reliable, peer-reviewed resource that fully appreciated and employed the efforts of subject area experts, as well as the general public.

(See references to the role of the general public in the Nupedia assignment policy.)

If you read the paragraph that immediately precedes the quote, it is quite clear that Sanger is talking about Nupedia:

• In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia. ...

We are in 1999. The paragraph that follows the quote starts:

• So I arrived in San Diego in early February, 2000, to get to work.

Wikipedia was not even thought of then. So, I'm sorry, the quote is not about Wikipedia, but Nupedia. Andreas JN466 17:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources contesting the claim that Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia? ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, at any rate there was the Associated Press opining in 2007 that describing Sanger as a co-founder isn't a controversial claim:

• Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial — Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. Sanger has assembled many links at his Web site that appear to put the matter to rest. Among the citations are early news stories and press releases that say Wikipedia was founded by Wales and Sanger. It was an offshoot of Nupedia, an encyclopedia project for which Wales hired Sanger to be editor-in-chief, and there is evidence that it was Sanger who proposed augmenting Nupedia with flexible, open Wiki software.

This was after Jimmy had edited his own article "to tone down credit for Sanger" and all the rest of it. Can we please not go down that road again. (Then again, it will sell popcorn ...) Andreas JN466 17:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The original question feels like a RGW given the recent issues with Sanger. I tried to see if I could find any sources that don't directly associate Sanger with founding Wikipedia, and maybe if you go down the road of the specific timing of details between Nupedia and Wikipedia, it could be technically justified, but here's where nearly all reliable sources simplify it to him being a co-founder, no one expressing anything different. Clearly in the body of the relevant articles, we have the room to express the timing and other details, but not in the lede. Masem (t) 17:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should the lead say something like "generally recognized as" instead of stating it as a fact on Wikivoice? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I'll answer here, rather than at The Signpost page (I wrote the article). "I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap." Is a quote directly from Larry Sanger, in The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir. That's about as directly as he could say I was the hired help, not the founder. And the Memoir is about Nupedia and Wikipedia. I'm not sure there's a direct quote in the article from Jimmy Wales saying that Sanger was not the co-founder, but those quotes certainly exist - maybe a half dozen of them direct from Jimbo. There's something that should be considered here, almost all of us have at least a minor COI (as Wikipedians) and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So are statements made on the early back pages of Wikipedia by an employee or even by Wales quotable in an article? Ultimately, I think there's some rule that statements by interested parties can be quoted (by the COI editors?!) as long as they are not unduly self serving. But I'll warn everybody. The statements I've seen from Sanger are unduly self-serving. And then there's at least one "official" Wikipedia press release that's pretty clearly written (sole authored) by Sanger. It's a mess in other words. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the memoir is about Nupedia and Wikipedia. And in that paragraph Sanger is talking about his beginning work in early 2000 on Nupedia (where ordinary people were also intended to contribute, as copyeditors and reviewers). Nobody had even thought of Wikipedia in February 2000.

The quotes from Jimbo about Sanger not being a co-founder came years later, after Wikipedia had really taken off. Until then, Jimbo was happy (if not eager) for Wikipedia to be described in press releases and the mainstream media as something he and Sanger had founded together. Sanger provided the idea and some academic credibility, Jimbo provided the funds and carried all the financial risk.

The September 2001 MIT Technology Review article contains an interesting detail. It says (my emphasis),

• "Technically, Wikipedia is owned by Bomis, but Wales and Sanger plan to set up a nonprofit to run the Web-based encyclopedia."

They never did set up such a nonprofit together, but it shows that even then, the Wikipedia project had taken on a life of its own and begun to outgrow its Bomis beginnings. Andreas JN466 06:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO, per Talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_7#WP:LEAD_disagreement, I think co-founder in wikivoice is good enough for the WP:LEAD, the article can expand some, but not necessarily in a separate section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does verifiability not truth. Another outlet needs to make the argument not us, and multiple high quality sources have to state hes not a cofounder to argue Against nytimes, etc. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)