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)

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)

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)

From what I understand, a general issue is whether attribution alone satisfies NPOV. Per WP:YESPOV, even with attribution it is necessary to note the relative prominence of views. So listing US, China, EU, India, Russia in one sentence (I'm looking at the current version of the lead) gives a false sense that they are all equally seen as superpowers. The wording "Commonly cited" is making it sound like there is something close to a scholarly consensus, so do the cited sources for each country actually say "commonly cited" themselves? If not, it would be against WP:RS/AC. Swirlymarigold (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(Moved comment on behalf of Swirlymarigold. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC))

The current lede does go on to highlight China, no?

I haven't been keeping up with what's been happening in that jungle tangle of a discussion, but the versions we were debating were more about whether sources allow us to describe China as a superpower, a prospective superpower, or leave it out. The current lede seems like a surprisingly good compromise. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The sources themselves do not say "commonly cited" within themselves but instead mention "this country is a superpower or a potential superpower."

@GeogSage's edits say all five listed nations are considered potential extant superpowers and believes these edits make the most sense when considering NPOV and WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. I disagree and believe that these edits conflict with our duty to weigh viewpoints by reliable sources. A majority of current contemporary research tends to skew toward China and the United States being the two superpowers such as stated by Harvard professor Jennifer Lind (2024) and University of California Professor David A. Lake (2025). Both of these figures are incredibly authoritative in the field of international relations, not a biased pro Chinese or anti American researcher. While @GeogSage does have sources, many are from news media, public polling, or from older sources. We need to apply weight to the contemporary scholarly consensus against what may be found in older material, journalistic opinion, and public polling and it tends to skew toward China and the US are superpowers while the other three are potential superpowers. PaulRKil (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

All the sources in the sentence mentioned are academic sources from the past five years, except for one two out of three for China and one out of two for EU. That seems rigorous to me. The paragraph also does go on to highlight and only highlight China's claim to the title so that should satisfy DueWeight, no? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The foreign policy article is not equivalent in weight compared to peer reviewed journals nor is the Atlantic article. I don't think it justifies putting them all into the same category as possible extant superpowers. There is not nearly as large a body of research that suggests the EU, India, and Russia are superpowers compared to the US and China, but there are plenty that suggest they are potential superpowers. I'd need to get access to the Mar De Vos book on the EU before I offer a judgement. PaulRKil (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused. The Foreign Policy and Atlantic article only support the China part. Is your argument that China's position is weaker than what the article portrays? China is the only part of that sentence supported by non–peer-reviewed sources. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The non academic sources do not support the idea that China is a superpower, nor do they justify the article being flattened into the way it is now. The FP article is a researcher's analysis on why China isn't a Superpower from 2023 and the Atlantic article is speculation on what kind of a superpower China will be from 2020. China in 2026 is stronger than what is speculated in analysis from news articles written in 2023 and 2020 and that position is reflected in more recent academic journals. Recent research proposes that China is a step above a "possible extant superpower" and is a superpower along with the United States. Both are fully formed superpowers, which makes the current state of the article, where they have been lumped them in with three other countries with no distinction made, incredibly hard to justify. PaulRKil (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Removing these two sources wouldn't change the sentences. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 04:16, 6 August 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)

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)

I went through a lot of the edits made by CranberrySt, and agree with LWG. It might not be directly relevant to this discussion anymore, however edit summary is abused by a lot of editors it seems, or they are simply unbothered to mention what they did. There should be stronger guidelines regarding the same. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

If an editor is leaving intentionally misleading edit summaries (example: saying “minor copy edit” when the edit was more substantial) report the editor at ANI. That is disruptive behavior.

If (on the other hand) they are simply not leaving any edit summary at all, they are not being intentionally disruptive… they are just not communicating well. Contact the editor and politely request that they improve their level of communication (but first, check the article talk page… if they have discussed their edits there, that counts as acceptable communication). Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for replying and explaining that. I am relatively new and noticed it being frequently done; many a times it is just laziness taking over. However I will keep your suggestions in mind. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 05:16, 10 August 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Even if Franson+ 2023 would not state HIP 99770 b is a brown dwarf, which it does, since WP:ORMEDIA clearly states 'Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research' (emphasis by me), so using a graph is not automatically WP:SYNTH, the editor above does not have a secondary source supporting the claim that there is a consensus for the object being a clear 'planet', while repeatedly changing the object description back to 'planet', recently more like 'gas giant exoplanet'. Btw, this is done while the dispute whether it is a clear 'planet' is ongoing.

The editor above removed 5 sourced references on 21 July 2026 without a proper edit summary, then did not properly explain a future plan to change that, except for one of the 5 sourced references on 23 July 2026 and since 25 July 2026 says this was an 'an extensive two-phase edit'. A simple 'step 1/2' or 'step 1/3' in the edit summary on 21 July 2026 would have been enough to prevent a revert. This is also not the first time something was inverted by the above editor without a summary.

If someone is interested to check for WP:POVDELETION here is the linked notice board (now with shorter summaries). Thank you. Stevinger (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

To repeat, this is the same dispute already under discussion at WP:NORN for WP:SYNTH (and thus WP:NOR) violations by the above editor. See here.

In that discussion, an uninvolved editor (User:EducatedRedneck) already addressed the WP:ORMEDIA claim in detail. They reviewed the situation and identified the above editor’s (User:Stevinger) disputed material as WP:SYNTH, removing it on the HIP 99770 b page per WP:ONUS. I.e. the uninvolved editor disagrees with the above’s reasoning.

Nevertheless, the above editor has now reverted the article back to a version containing additions flagged as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR in contradiction to the uninvolved editor’s decision.

The WP:NORN is the original source for this dispute discussion. Attempts to spread it to a separate board gives the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP.

On the merits, I would only add two things. First, "Gas giant exoplanet" is directly sourced: the discovery paper's title calls it a "gas giant planet," and its abstract identifies it as an exoplanet. That is a source statement, not an inference. If another editor nevertheless prefers slightly different phrasing to distinguish citations that is fine: but this consensus-building certainly does not warrant a noticeboard filing. Second, the above editor’s notes themselves show that my changes on the “5 sourced references” were in good faith: I clearly said that I would conduct a two-phase edit. Saying that there may have been alternate, better ways of documenting these changes is fair enough: but this again does not warrant an entire noticeboard complaint. 2632cgn (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC) 2632cgn

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

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)

This is forum shopping (Wikiproject Mathematics, request for comment) by a single-purpose account (contributions) that seemed to immediately have enough knowledge of wikipedia to ask for page protection on the same page mentioned here. Drew Stanley (talk) 00:59, 5 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)

Editors with knowledge about WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV needed

The discussion is at Talk:Shotacon#Source, don't respond to this thread. The main question is whether it would be policy-compliant to say on wikivoice that this genre of Japanese manga is "child pornography", even if reliable sources have not directly made that specific statement. V. S. Video (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've replied at the article talk page. It absolutely is child pornography in the UK and likely constitutes such in Canada and the USA as well per reliable academic sources. Its legal status is more accepted in Japan which uses a different rubric for CSAM from the aforementioned countries. However, for the purposes of an infobox listing, sufficient sources call it such to include the designation in the infobox. I will note those sources are not currently being utilized. I provided two peer reviewed sources at article talk with sufficient bibliographical information for someone to edit the page accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Human Appeal, redux

Please see Talk:Human Appeal#Ongoing concerns about verifiability and neutrality of article content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Template talk:Fascism

Template talk:Fascism has a discussion at Template talk:Fascism#Chiangism and Ukrainian right-wing politics about how articles ought to be included in the template and/or categorized. You are invited to contribute. Placeholderer (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ayyubid dynasty misuse of the sources

Article: Ayyubid dynasty Talk page discussion: Talk:Ayyubid dynasty (several posts, no response after several days)

Issue The Origins section presents a misuse contested scholarly hypothesis as established fact and omits important qualifications from the cited sources, creating an NPOV / UNDUE problem.

Current problems

1. The text treats Minorsky’s view on the Rawādiyya / Rawwadid connection as settled history.

2. It generalises later Arab/Umayyad genealogies without the qualifier used by the source.

What the sources actually say

Minorsky: “There is always some uncertainty about the names of the Kurdish tribes as the original tribal name is often replaced by the names of the outsiders who succeeded in taking the leadership of the tribe. This apparently happened to some sections of the Hadhbanis, who came under the rule of the originally Arab families issued from Rawwad al-Azdi. In my opinion … the clan to which Saladin’s family belonged was somehow connected with the Rawwadi family whose name may have been simplified by non-Arabs into Rawadi.”[1]

He presents this only as his opinion / “particular connection,” not as proven descent, nor does he say Rawadiyya were Arabs or they’re genealogical descent of Rawwadids.

Boris James (pp. 48–49): “Plusieurs thèses s’opposent quant à l’origine du terme Rawâdî et quant au lien qui existe entre le sous-groupe hadhbânî du même nom et la dynastie.”[2]

James attributes to Minorsky the view that Hadhbānī Kurds in the service of the Kurdicized Rawwadids “prirent le nom de leurs maîtres: Rawâdiyya,” presents it as the most widely adopted interpretation, then discusses alternatives (including Vanly) and offers his own tentative suggestion about origin of term Rawadiyya. He does not treat it as established fact.

The Encyclopaedia Iranica article on the Rawwadids is being misused in the Origins section of the Ayyubid dynasty article.

The Iranica entry carefully distinguishes three related but separate things:

- the original Arab Rawwād family (8th–9th centuries);

- their later Kurdicized descendants who ruled in Azerbaijan in the 10th–11th centuries;

- the Kurdish Rawād / Rawādi tribe.

It notes uncertainty about the relationship between them and states that the confusion “probably arises from the intermarriage of the Arab Rawwād family with the Kurdish tribe of Rawād….”.

Nowhere does the article state that the Rawādiya clan from which the Ayyubids came were themselves Kurdicized Arabs or genealogical descendants of the Arab Rawwād family. Presenting the Iranica article as support for the claim that “the Rawadiya were of originally Arab origin but became Kurdicized” therefore misrepresents the source. The article actually emphasises distinction, intermarriage, and uncertainty rather than simple genealogical continuity.

Request Uninvolved editors are asked to review whether the current wording fairly and proportionately reflects the cited sources (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:V). A more neutral summary has already been proposed on the talk page.

Previously involved editors: @Al Ameer son, R Prazeres, and Robert McClenon:

Thank you. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"In my opinion …" What does the edited-out text say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Certainly. The omitted text is:

“There is always some uncertainty about the names of the Kurdish tribes as the original tribal name is often replaced by the names of the outsiders who succeeded in taking the leadership of the tribe. This apparently happened to some sections of the Hadhbanis, who came under the rule of the originally Arab families issued from Rawwad al-Azdi. IN MY OPINION (see above p. 123), the clan to which Saladin’s family belonged was somehow connected with the Rawwadi family whose name may have been simplified by non-Arabs into Rawadi… Finally, the existence of the Rawadi clan among the Kurds of Dvin is likely to be explained by some particular connection between them and the Rawwadi dynasty of Azarbayjan.” (Studies in Caucasian History, pp. 128–130)

The earlier discussion on p. 123 is similarly tentative:

“It is tempting to think that the Rawadi clan to which Saladin’s ancestors belonged came to live under the aegis of the Rawwadis, or that they were local Kurds who became associated with the lords of Tabriz…”

My point is not that Minorsky denied a connection. Rather, he consistently presents it as a tentative historical reconstruction (“it is tempting to think”, “in my opinion”, “somehow connected”, “may have been”, “likely to be explained”), and he never says they have blood connections or genealogical connection with rawwadid dynasty. He and all other sources say they were Hadhabani Kurds that adopted the name of the masters they served as tribal auxiliary unit. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

KurdishFalconeer was not previously properly notified of this, but per WP:GS/KURD, they do not yet have standing to edit or comment on Kurdish topics, which includes this subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate content between Yahoo and Criticism of Yahoo

Hi, I'm a COI editor for Yahoo (a client of my employer, Porter Novelli), posting here at Spintendo's suggestion, since the discussion I started on the article talk page hasn't received any feedback. I'm looking for input on how much the content of Yahoo should overlap with Criticism of Yahoo.

The Similar Page Checker tool shows that Yahoo is 44% similar to Criticism of Yahoo, and Duplication Detector identified numerous paragraphs that are verbatim between the two articles, including:

• the entirety of the Criticism section, except for a few sentences under "DMCA notice to whistleblower" and "Censorship of private emails affiliated with Occupy Wall Street protests" – the rest is near-verbatim
• commentary on the 2010 Yahoo! Groups remodel
• a paragraph on a 2016 lawsuit
• the paragraph on paid inclusion in 2004
• the first paragraph on data breaches
• commentary on the 2013 Flickr redesign
• commentary on the Fox IT malware attack

This seems to have initially come about as part of a plan to merge the two articles, but Criticism of Yahoo passed its AFD nomination, resulting in the redundancy. Now the Criticism section is almost as long as the History section.

Per WP:SPINOFF (Summary sections are used in a broader article to briefly cover the content of more detailed subarticles.), I think it would make sense to convert the itemized content above into summary format and incorporate it into the History section rather than keeping it in a designated WP:CSECTION. Happy to take a pass at drafting this if other editors are aligned, but wanted to get feedback first in case I'm missing something about the duplication of content. Alternatively/additionally, I could rework "Criticism" as "Reception" (per WP:POVFORK, If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative), moving select items into History as appropriate.

Would love any feedback to help ensure this article reflects best practices. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine § Issues with recent edits. Editors are discussing whether the relative coverage of the ICJ, the Supreme Court of Israel, the government of Israel, and academic commentary in Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine complies with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. A substantial proposed revision was first reverted because of concerns about its reliance on primary sources and overemphasis on Israeli domestic law. It was then restored in revised form with additional secondary sources and a shorter discussion of Israeli law, and reverted again on the ground that it gave "undue weight to Israeli opinion". Uninvolved editors are invited to comment on the article talk page. Proposed revision before the latest revert. — ac talk 07:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Update: A formal RfC is now open at Talk:Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine#RfC: Lead, article organization, and domestic legal treatment. It asks three separate questions concerning the lead, the separation of academic commentary from judicial decisions, and coverage of Israeli domestic treatment of international law and ICJ advisory opinions. — ac talk 16:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Federal Medical Center, Carswell

Hi! I saw there was a major rewrite of Federal Medical Center, Carswell. I started a discussion on WEIGHT related to those changes at Talk:Federal_Medical_Center,_Carswell#WEIGHT of allegations of poor medical care. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Bascom-derived Yorubaland map lacking POV and given undue weight

I would really appreciate outside input on the neutrality of File:Yorubaland Cultural Area of West Africa.jpg, currently used in Yorubaland and Yoruba people. The existing discussion is at Talk:Yorubaland#Itsekiri material on this article and Talk:Yoruba people#Itsekiri material on this article.

The map is derived from William Bascom's The Yoruba of Southwestern Nigeria and visually includes the traditional Itsekiri territory within a Yoruba cultural area. My concern is whether presenting Bascom’s classification as a general map of "Yorubaland" gives it undue weight or presents a contested classification as geographic fact.

Other substantial scholarship treats the Itsekiri as a distinct ethnic/cultural group while recognising their close linguistic and historical relationship with Yoruba-speaking peoples. For example, P. C. Lloyd treats the Itsekiri separately and describes the neighbouring Ilaje specifically as a Yoruba sub-tribe; Femi Akinkugbe distinguishes Yoruba and Itsekiri within the wider Yoruboid linguistic group; and Kathy Curnow discusses the historical contest over Yoruba identification and Itsekiri differentiation.

Under WP:DUE and WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED, is it neutral to use this image as a general map of Yorubaland without clearly attributing the Itsekiri inclusion to Bascom's particular classification? If retained, should the caption explicitly attribute the map to Bascom and provide context that other reliable scholarship treats the Itsekiri separately, or does the map itself give that classification excessive visual prominence?

I’ve also raised a separate question of whether the editor-created map accurately reproduces Bascom without introducing original synthesis at WP:NORN.

Itsekiriwriting (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has an RfC

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 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. SinhalaLion (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead image proposal at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania

I am seeking input on a proposed change to the lead image of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. A proposal on the article's talk page to use one of Evan Vucci's photographs showing Donald Trump raising his fist immediately after the shooting has received four supporting comments from four editors, with no objections raised. The most recent support was posted on 14 July 2026. As the article is currently semi-protected, I am unable to implement the change myself. I have therefore posted an edit request on the article's talk page and would appreciate input from editors familiar with the article or the relevant image-selection guidelines on whether the proposed change should be implemented.

~2026-43803-36 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, and you are in the wrong place. Plain and simple: it isn't a free image and we do not have permission from the owner to use it in the way you suggest. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Also, attempting to violate copyright law is not a NPOV issue and thus this doesn't belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yup… the issue is that the well known photos you want to add are “non-free content”. I agree that the article would benefit from having more photos, but finding ones that we can use will be tricky. Most of the photographers present that day were professionals who have not released their work from copyright. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

However, and this is speaking from an NFC standpoint, the photo has been used by Trump and others repeatedly for his own imagery , and thus there is possibly sufficient commentary on the photo itself. I don't know if there's enough to give it its own article like we have with Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (as I don't think many find it artistic, and its more on the political commentary about it), but if there is enough to support a significant section of the attempted assassination, this would be a case to include that image with that section. I wouldn't make it the lede, however, due to the non-free nature of it and it is best included next to the text it supports in this case. Masem (t) 03:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Masem Am I misreading you, or are you unaware of Donald Trump raised-fist photographs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

was not aware of that article, that would justify its use on that article. Still not sure if needed on the assassination attempt though. Masem (t) 19:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Right, "but it's so iconic" isn't really a winning argument. The photo is mentioned at Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump_in_Pennsylvania#Photographs of course, but the non-free stinginess is pretty much what I'd expect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

yes, having the standalone article on the photo alleviates any need to include it on the assassination article. (In contrast, staying with the Iwo Jima example, its second use on Marine Corps War Memorial makes sense to be able to compare these pieces. Theres zero need here with the raused hand photo) Masem (t) 20:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The Iwo Jima photo is public domain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

For the interested, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_14#File:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp. In short, the fist-photo article appeared during that discussion, thus "saving" the image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

ASL19 and article content

I came across the ASL19 article while looking into something else. It contains two sentences about ten organisation, with the rest of the article being about allegations. Outside the allegations I'm not sure the organisation is notable, I can find barely any mention of it beyond the allegations in 2018. They get mentions as a source in reports by other sources, but I can't find any articles discussing the organisation itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Algeria-Palestine relations (heavy pro-Algeria bias)

Hello! I’ve got an article thats sort of biased, and that’s the Algeria-Palestine relations page. While these types of pages MUST be neutral, text like "Algeria has long been a champion of the Palestinians" was included + 5x more mentions of what Algeria has done for Palestine than keeping it balanced.

I had sent an edit request, as regular users cannot edit it (unfortunately), asking to replace the "champion" term with "strong supporter" and with already written text of what Palestine has done for Algeria (just a few examples, though!) to balance it a little. A user had replied to me on the talk page (where edits get requested) and had NOT replaced "champion", but had only replaced "champion of the Palestinians" to "champion of the Palestinian cause", which is pointless because Algeria in NO WAY is a champion of a cause that isn’t its own, especially the people!

I was asked for reliable sources and handed HANDFULS of sources, links and examples of where said term has been written. I have not gotten any responses since. I would appreciate some of your help! NotlikeBashar (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@NotlikeBashar editors are busy people. Try to pick the highest quality sourcing (academia, books) and make a clear and obvious and short edit request if you can. Some of the ones on the oage are longer and may take longer to address. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

2026 Clacton by-election: Inclusion and weight of demographic data

An unresolved disagreement has emerged at Talk:2026 Clacton by-election regarding the inclusion of demographic statistics from the 2021 census, specifically highlighting the constituency's racial make-up. I am seeking outside input from this noticeboard to help establish community consensus.

The disagreement:

• Inclusion / Expansion: My position (and that of several other editors) is that demographic data is standard practice across by-election articles (such as 2026 Makerfield by-election), routinely cited by secondary sources and pollsters, and holds clear encyclopedic value for readers. To ensure neutrality and avoid cherry-picking, we have also discussed broadening the section to include additional census data such as education, employment, and social class.
• Exclusion: Another editor argues that featuring racial demographics in isolation—or at all—is non-neutral, lacks direct relevance to the by-election, and gives undue weight to race given the current political climate.

Discussion on the talk page has stalled without reaching consensus. We would appreciate input from uninvolved editors on whether including/expanding census demographic data in a by-election article complies with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

Thank you. Kirbylegal (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I've not been following this but if the argument is just over this diff then it seems like a storm in a teacup. I would have expected it to be over something much more divisive than just how many white people there are in Clacton. My take is this: Demographics should be covered in articles about constituencies. They can also be mentioned in articles about elections where relevant to the election in question. In this case there is a "Background" section with a subsection that introduces the constituency in general. It seems to be fairly common to have a "Background" section for a by-election article but having a subsection that introduces the constituency seems unusual. Normally the "Background" section is mainly used for explaining how the by-election came to be called. I'd question how necessary the subsection is. Anybody who wants to know about the constituency can read the article about that. Saying that the constituency is 96% white seems perfectly valid if we are going to introduce the constituency in this way but... should we? That's where I am unsure. What I don't like is accusing an editor of "race-baiting" without good reason. Unless there is more to this than is apparent from the diff, that seems unhelpful. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You are correct the argument was mainly about that Diff. Appriciate your view on this. Theres also a conversation on the talk page: see here other then that thats all the context. Kirbylegal (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur fully with DanielRigal here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The bold text, generic calls to wikipolucy, and thank you politeness gives off major llm vibes. This seems at least llm polished per WP:GPTZERO User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear for the avoidance of doubt: I do not use LLMs.

I am autistic and accustomed to writing legal filings, meaning my default writing style is highly structured. I also happen to be dyslexic, so I use Grammarly to check my spelling. My politeness here is because I am asking for help, my use of bolding is to highlight key points, and my references to Wikipedia policy are there because they are directly relevant to the matter at hand. Kirbylegal (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think grammarly uses ai to spruce up writing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont use that feature to improve writing; I only use the spelling and grammar features. Kirbylegal (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

2025 India–Pakistan conflict — Analysis section balance

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.

The Analysis section of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict currently draws on Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Le Monde, The Washington Post, Asia Times and AirForces Monthly. These converge on a broadly similar reading of the May 2025 air engagement. I'd like other editors' views on whether that selection reflects the range of published analysis, since two substantial assessments taking a different line appear to be absent:

• Walter Ladwig, "Calibrated Force: Operation Sindoor and the Future of Indian Deterrence", Royal United Services Institute, 21 May 2025 — https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/calibrated-force-operation-sindoor-and-future-indian-deterrence — argues that Indian aircraft losses on the opening day followed from deliberately restricted rules of engagement, and that coverage gave undue prominence to platform performance over targeting methodology and escalation management.

• Dinakar Peri, "Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor", Carnegie India, 6 October 2025 — https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/10/military-lessons-from-operation-sindoor — assesses the layered air defence network (Akashteer integrated with IACCS) and the air-launched BrahMos as capabilities that performed effectively.

Both are signed commentary and would need in-text attribution rather than being stated in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not extended-confirmed so I can't add them myself, and I'd rather have input on whether this is a genuine gap before filing an edit request. Noting also that the article already carries a maintenance tag regarding source reliance.

~~~~ ARAVIEE (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality, attribution and sourcing in articles related to Columbia University Gaza protests

I'm not sure if this is a question for this board or for RSN, but I welcome additional views on achieving neutrality at the articles Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus protests during the Gaza war, and Gaza Solidarity Encampment (Columbia University).

• My main question relates to the first of those three, and specifically to what extent we need to give in text attribution to factual claims about statements by Columbia University Apartheid Divest sourced from mainstream sources such as the New York Times, Ha'aretz, The Atlantic, and ABC. See this talk topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Columbia_University_Apartheid_Divest#Excessive_attribution My feeling is that we are excessive in attributing verifiable content in this case.
• On the other hand, in the other two articles, I am concerned that we use potentially contested terms (e.g. describing universities as "repressing" protest) in our voice, including in the lead, without in-text attribuion, that cite highly partisan sources.

But maybe I'm being too squeemish! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Depends. In the Lede, NYTimes says CUAD has become more hardline in its rhetoric. I would feel that needs to be attributed, that feels like a soft assertion.
But the claim that CUAD has openly supported militant groups fighting against Israel, which is the exact next thing from nytimes would not need to be attributed, that's a straightforward declaration of fact.
The ABC local affiliate with the headline that CUAD had posted an instagram post stating CUAD is comprised of "Westerners standing for eradication of western civilization" probably also doesn't need to be attributed.
It is up to reader to decide if that feels like CUAD became more hardline, the statement of fact is enough.

I think if its an obvious clear fact, no attribution required if its from highquality sourcing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think regarding second point, I see citations to marxists orgs, Palestine Legal, NYCLU, NYTimes, and NPR among other sourcing to support that inconsistently throughout entire article. It would be far better if there was a good high quality source to state that in wikivoice than to have done all these sources at once. Also im not sure what the sourcing says, the NPR link on a first glance didn't say anything about protest repression perse, just that Trump had removed funding for schools ostensibly due to protests, which is another thing altogether.

...which is to say, its complicated...

It is a straightforward statement of fact to say that Columbia, in the aftermath of the initial protest, drastically changed open expression guidelines, vastly restricted access to space on campus, and banned multiple pro-palestine orgs. that much would not need attribution at all either. It would also be a straightforward statement of fact to state that open expression groups have raised these concerns. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)