Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    Need input on whether or not an excerpt is WP:UNDUE

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Sangh Parivar#Violation of WP:LABEL in the Lead (The discussion was initiated by a sock but later broadened after the original issue was resolved), about whether a section should be included in the article on the Sangh Parivar, over the classification of the organization as fascist by scholars and academics. In the course of this dispute, an editor added an excerpt from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the paramilitary which originally founded the Sangh Parivar, where an argument is made by a scholar against the classification of the RSS as fascist. However, neither the excerpt nor its sources mention the Sangh Parivar, which is why I consider the addition WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK. The editor has since said they will not participate further in the discussion, so I have come here seeking a resolution. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    For editors, I am pasting the disputed excerpt here, as the discussion at the talk page of the Sangh Parivar might be too long to get through:

    Jaffrelot argues that although the RSS, with its paramilitary style of functioning and its emphasis on discipline, has sometimes been seen as "an Indian version of fascism",[1] the "RSS's ideology treats society as an organism with a secular spirit, which is implanted not so much in the race as in a socio-cultural system and which will be regenerated over the course of time by patient work at the grassroots".[2] He argues that Golwalkar's ideology shared, with Nazism, an emphasis on ethnic homogeneity[3] but that the "ideology of the RSS did not develop a theory of the state and the race, a crucial element in European nationalisms: Nazism and Fascism"[1] and that, according to Jaffrelot, RSS leaders were interested in Hindu cultural homogeneity as opposed to racial sameness.[4]

    — EarthDude (Talk) 12:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @EarthDude: You brought this here knowing that there wasn't any consensus for the removal at the article's Talk page. I see that this was also taken to WP:ORN where similarly no one was convinced either. To then go ahead and make this unilateral edit with the edit summary reading [1] "Per talk, this has no support". An editor does not unilateraly decide this, if anything the insertion of the section itself has had more vocal and direct opposition at the Talk page. Want to seek a WP:3O go ahead but repeatedly vying to enforce a unilateral removal by edit warring over this is not going to happen. Gotitbro (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you even talking about? I have simply asked for third party opinions on the dispute so that it can be resolved. I had originally brought it to ORN due to a PNG misunderstanding which was later corrected, but I had a fairly civil discussion with the only other editor engaged in the noticeboard discussion, and the editor suggested I take it here and wished me luck in finding a resolution. "You brought this here knowing that there wasn't any consensus", "I see that this was also taken to WP:ORN where similarly no one was convinced either", "repeatedly vying to enforce a unilateral removal"; do you not know about WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, or WP:FOC, or are you willfully ignorant of them? Of course, I will come for third party opinions when a dispute resolution has not been reached between two editors. How is that a negative? My inclusion of the section has not had "more vocal and direct opposition" than your inclusion of the excerpt, because the only other editor who engaged in the discussion, aside from the sock, simply suggested for me to resolve the dispute on the talk page (which I tried to follow) and also against your excerpt because it did not speak of the Sangh Parivar. I get that I may have been hasty in the revert, but I only did it because you explicitly stated you won't engage further in the discussion and because I got no input here. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the policies you cite impinge on what was said. The rest of your comment simply means there is no consensus for your edits.
    I see the WP:POINTy insertion of NPOV hatnotes but will not be dithering over that for now. Gotitbro (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So simply adding a maintenance tag is disruptive now? — EarthDude (Talk) 21:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just left a note on the talk page. May I suggest opening an RFC? Although I’m fairly new here, it seems to be one of the most common and effective ways to help resolve content disputes. If you’d like, I can open one. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 51, ISBN 978-1850653011
    2. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 63, ISBN 978-1850653011
    3. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, p. 61, ISBN 978-1850653011
    4. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, pp. 56–58, ISBN 978-1850653011

    Opinion or fact?

    [edit]

    As we know from WP:NPOV, we should avoid stating opinions as facts, and we should attribute opinions. However, if we can construct a factual wrapper sentence for an opinion, is it okay to assert that as a fact?

    For example, can this sentence stand alone in an article with no inline attribution:

    Fred Bloggs has been described by media outlets and journalists as both an accomplished Wikipedian[1][2][3][4] and an incompetent one[5][6][7][8].

    It is an assertion of fact about the two opinions held, and each of the cited sources mentions a different holder of the respective view. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I would consider that attributed, though in the least precise sense (as it's not saying which 'media outlets' are saying which thing). I would generally consider something like this based on other aspects of NPOV, like WP:DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think attribution helps. Using a "factual wrapper" might lead to WP:SYNTH - combining different sources into one sentence might suggest something that the sources don't actually support. Also see WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Asteramellus (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Any more views on this? Does it conflict with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or MOS:WEASEL? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine in the lead or the intro to a section, if it's summarizing views we go into in more depth further down. Beyond that it also depends on what those citations are to - if we're combining a bunch of individual people saying these things, we do need some caution to avoid eg. synthing up a statement or implication that everyone thinks this. But it's still necessary to use constructions like this sometimes in leads to summarize widely disparate views that wouldn't be appropriate (or possible) to stuff into the lead individually. Another situation to consider, of course, is that we might have a source that itself says eg. "we surveyed a bunch of political science professors and they all say this guy is [great/horrid]", in which case we can just report that as fact. But even without that sort of secondary sourcing, as WP:WEASEL itself notes, we do have to sometimes summarize a bunch of disparate views in the lead; doing so isn't a problem as long as it's an accurate, even-handed summary of something that we cover in the body (and as long as the stuff in the body is appropriately WP:DUE and reflects the sort of balance required by WP:BALASP - which can sometimes be hard to establish when people are cramming a bunch of opinion-pieces into an article, and which is often a reason to prefer secondary sources summarizing opinions when available. But the problem there isn't really the summary per se, it's the inherent problem that stems from stuffing a bunch of primary opinions into an article.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    yes. at risk of invoking an Reductio ad Hitlerum, an example The historian and biographer Ian Kershaw described Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil".[3] from the adolf hitler article.
    WP:DUE applies, but if some majority of well educated academics and researchers opine it, we can and must do WP:ATTRIBUTE of the opinion, and include it, without necessarily having to balance it with another opinion. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    it would also help to know context btw, all of this is dependent on the article, opinion, etc. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluethricecreamman (and @Aquillion), thanks for your views on this. The trigger for raising it here was the Restore Britain article in the Platform section, which starts:
    Restore Britain has been described by media outlets and journalists as both a far-right[2][33][16][34][35] and right-wing party[36][37][38][39]...
    -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    i assumed it was something like this. i have no sympathy for whitewashing, but there is a valid debate underlying this to be had here about when far-right descriptors are appropriate. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much the particular opinions that are the problem, it is whether they are adequately described, contextualised and attributed. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Its easy enough to blanket criticize any statement as lacking context. Better to show your point with a proposal text replacement showing what the context that is missing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Herod the Great

    [edit]

    This is about [2]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I think we should have a discussion about this. I think it's genuinely unclear how we should handle this issue- I'm inclined to say we should put 1 BC first, but I understand why that might seem like an NPOV violation.
    As far as I can tell, the latest research on Herodian chronology (basically since Steinmann's 2009 article) overwhelmingly favors the 1 BC date for Herod's death. I haven't seen anyone from the 4 BC side respond to the new arguments, such as the testimony of Appian and Dio Cassius favoring a 36 BC date for Herod's siege (and hence a 1 BC death), or the coin evidence showing that Philip reckoned his reign from some time between Tishrei 6 and Elul 5 BC (not 4 BC), or the evidence from the Caligula statue crisis showing that the 4 BC date implies an incorrect Sabbatical year cycle. Nevertheless, Steinmann (2009) has been cited over 40 times, so it's not like he's being ignored. The other side just hasn't responded.
    That said, most scholars outside the very narrow field of Herodian chronology still seem to be citing the 4 BC date without questioning it. I think the question here is: what is the relevant set of experts? Herod specialists, or historians from adjacent fields? Montgolfière (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Marshak, Adam Kolman (9 May 2023) [11 January 2018]. Herod the Great (Report). doi:10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0251. Retrieved 5 March 2026. Clearly sides with 4 BCE.
    Pope Benedictus sides with 4 BCE, although one might suspect that for a Pope 1 BCE would be more convenient.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aehrmanblog.org+herod+steinmann has only two results. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at some of these 40 citations and the reliable ones i saw seemed to follow a general trend: the consensus or majority view is 4 but point out the opposing view of Steinmann. Not familiar with all the issues here but seems a natural and not too difficult bit of content for the article. Creating "sides" and a "Herod specialists" group of authors or sources doesn't really seem to follow policy in basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. If there is some division in the scholarship form "Herod specialists" then it should probably be discussed in the article text and you would need a reliable source which points that out—you can't make that call. fiveby(zero) 19:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not original research, it would be following the WP:BESTSOURCES. I haven't checked the sources to evaluate whether or not that the supposed division is accurate. Katzrockso (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my thought was that the best sources are the scholars who have actually examined the primary pieces of evidence. It seems like the "consensus" of 4 BC is maintained primarily by scholars citing each other, or citing the 130 year old work of Schürer, without evaluating the evidence and arguments themselves. And yet, the evidence is frankly not that hard to evaluate, and once you see it, it's hard to take the 4 BC date very seriously. And tgeorgescu, I don't have access to the full text of the article you linked, but I see no indication from the bibliography or intro that it is engaging the question of chronology at all; it simply assumes that Schürer is correct. I have yet to see an actual response to the strongest 1 BC arguments, like the statue crisis and the coins. Montgolfière (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, here's Steinmann himself calling 4 the "consensus view" in 2020. fiveby(zero) 02:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I never denied that there is a "consensus" of ill-informed scholars who cite each other and a 130 year old book, rather than the actual primary sources. In my humble opinion, I don't think those scholars are the "best sources" for this issue. But if I'm outvoted on this, we can change the order back to "4 or 1 BCE." As long as we keep providing evidence and arguments in the Death/Dating section. Montgolfière (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to your edits the article had (c. 72 – c. 4 BCE) and i suspect you've created a false balance within the "Dating" section. You don't get to declare "sides" say those which do not support your content position "ill-informed" and claim that is some application of WP:BESTSOURCES. A best sources approach would be, for instance, starting with the Oxford Bibliographies article from Marshak author of The Many Faces of Herod the Great linked by tgeorgescu. Examine what those authors say on the matter, how they characterize any disagreement in dating and who the cite on the issue. fiveby(zero) 13:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think I've created a false balance, I encourage you to actually look at the arguments for Schürer's chronology yourself. Feel free to add them to the Death/Dating section.
    I don't have access to the Marshak article. If you do, please go ahead and put his arguments for Schürer in Death/Dating. I suspect, however, that he will simply assume Schürer's chronology and will provide little or no justification for it. That's how this "consensus" gets perpetuated. Montgolfière (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with @Fiveby now. For better or worse, Wikipedia puts greater weight on the balance of views within the academic community rather than our own interpretation of which perspectives have stronger arguments than each other. Given that Steinmann himself states that the majority view is the 4BCE date, that should receive greater weight. Hopefully the scholarship will change to reflect the weight of the arguments as you have assessed them.
    Here is an article from the opposing (1BCE) side [3] that replies to some of Steinmann's arguments, for what it's worth. This author has several more about this question as well ([4] [5] [6]).
    If there was a clear delineation of sources that are Herod experts vs those that comment on the chronology only in passing, that would be grounds for a distinction per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:RSCONTEXT, but I didn't see such a delineation and indeed both 'sides' of this debate agree that the consensus view is the 4BCE date. Katzrockso (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article you cited misreads Antiquities 1.3.3 in support of Nisan reckoning; the word translated "ordinary affairs" is διοίκησις, which means "administration," which certainly would include the reigns of kings. Steinmann has pointed this out and if they had read him, they would know that they need to at least respond to this argument. Josephus clearly implies that kings use Tishrei reckoning, and he is an earlier source than the Mishnah. Josephus also demonstrably uses accession year reckoning, since in several places his math is inconsistent with inclusive counting, but not with accession years, as Steinmann and Young have also shown. Herod himself used accession year reckoning when he minted a "year 3" coin after taking Jerusalem, since if he used inclusive counting, it would be year 4.
    Links 13 and 14 seem to mostly respond to the weakest arguments for 1 BC. Link 15 is interesting, and I hadn't seen it before, but even if it's entirely correct it wouldn't rebut the decisive arguments from the Caligula statue crisis and coin evidence. Nevertheless, it might be worth mentioning in the article. Montgolfière (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the issue isn't whether we can evaluate these arguments in the sources and decide that one source is better than the other. I could 100% agree with Steinmann and think that these rebuttals are all bogus (in reality I haven't read enough to comment), but we still have to reflect what the balance of reliable sources say, not our interpretation of those sources. Katzrockso (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the false balance comes not necessarily from present the 1 sources and discussing them, but presenting them as newer and unchallenged, your argument here. I was going to say that you should have access to Marshak through WP:Library, try logging on and viewing the link again. If that doesn't work Oxford Bibliographies is in the sources list. Unfortunately there seems to be a service issue with the Oxford collections right now. Encourage you to try later tho, lot's of very valuable and underutilized resources available.
    The specific article tho is annotated bibliography, a tertiary source and not really appropriate as a source for citation. It's useful maybe sometimes as a model for what WP content should look like, but mostly as a means for identifying best sources. I checked Marshak's The Many Faces of Herod the Great: he simply states 4 without qualification, discussion, or citations. Not really useful for article content here, but one indication of what the consensus view is and how far disputed. Haven't checked anything else yet. fiveby(zero) 17:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So far the sources i am seeing supporting your view is along these lines ...acording to most scholars, occurred in 4 BCE with footnote For the dissenting view arguing he died in 2/1 BCE see...FILMER...STEINMANN. (what about 5?) Ideally we do i think want to find a quality independent source which directly addresses the issue and presents arguments and counter-arguments. If such has not been written yet or we are unable to find it then i think the content should default to 4 with footnote and some limited content in the body. fiveby(zero) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the latest research on Herodian chronology (basically since Steinmann's 2009 article) overwhelmingly favors the 1 BC date for Herod's death. I don't think that that's true at all. Your argument seems to boil down to dismissing absolutely anyone post 2009 who uses the 4 BCE date as just citing the 4 BC date without questioning it, but that's your personal assessment; it seems to me that our default assessment ought to be that Steinmann has proposed a novel theory which has not yet attracted much support. Based on that, we should use 4 in the lead and template (solely, not first, but as the only number), and mention Steinmann solely in a sentence in the body somewhere. His paper qualifies as something akin to what we'd call a single study with an exceptional conclusion in other contexts I don't agree with the argument that "Herod specialists" support Steinmann, and that feels like a No true scotsman argument where you're excluding anyone who rejects his argument from being a specialist because you think they're wrong. Your edit here were inappropriately lending undue weight to Steinmann's largely marginal views, and ought to be entirely reverted. Steinmann should get one or two sentences, maybe a paragraph at most, which make it clear that his views are marginal; he shouldn't be referenced anywhere else and all other dates should treat 4 BC as the accepted date, as it is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that the 4BC date is the predominant/consensus one and should receive much greater WP:WEIGHT, it is factually inaccurate to claim that Steinmann has proposed a novel theory or that he is the only proponent. The original proponent of this alternative chronology is actually Filmer in 1966. Steinmann cites a number of others who agree with Filmer's chronology;

    Those who accept Filmer’s 1 BC for the death of Herod include Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114 (1982): 29–42; Paul Keresztes, Imperial Rome and the Christians: From Herod the Great to About 200 A.D. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989): 1–43; Ernest L. Martin, The Birth of Christ Recalculated, 2nd ed. (Pasadena, CA: Foundation for Biblical Research, 1980); idem “The Nativity and Herod’s Death,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos, 85–92; Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, (rev. ed.; Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1998): 284-291, §486–500 and table 139; Andrew E. Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 1–2

    I bolded the distinct names for emphasis. Again, this does not mean that these scholars constitute the majority view, but it definitely means that Steinmann hasn't proposed any "novel theory". I also disagree that this would constitute such a marginal view to be confined to only a few sentences in the body. Indeed, as this articles notes [7], technically the 1 BCE dating precedes Filmer and was perhaps first proposed in 1629.
    We should report what 'both' "sides" say in the text, but be careful not to give undue WEIGHT to the minority 1BCE date. An alternative might be to create an article on Chronology of Herod the Great given the volume of published literature on the topic and then summarize it WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in the parent article.
    An even more minority view would be that of this paper [8], which argues that Herod died in 3AD. There are a few other dates out there too, such as John Pratt's 1AD [9]. Vladimir Blaha was another proponent of the 1AD dating for Herod's death, based on his chronology giving Jesus's births in 1BC. A few people have even entertained a 5BC date of death for Herod [10] Katzrockso (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A less reliable source here [11], since I am unfamiliar with this publication, but it also argues for a 1BC/1AD date of death for Herod.
    This book by simple:Gerard Gertoux "Herod the Great and Jesus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence" presents a contrast between "mainstream historians" and "scientific scholars" on the date of death of Herod, and he supports a date of 1BC as supported by "scientific scholars".
    I wonder if there is more scholarship in other languages. Katzrockso (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion Given the earlier discussion, I went ahead and reverted my own changes to put 4 BCE first.
    Your unilateral decision to completely remove the arguments for the 1 BCE was unwarranted, and I have reverted it. Steinmann's view is not a "novel theory," and many other scholars have proposed 1 BCE. Montgolfière (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ermenrich Do you agree with Aquillion's position? If not, then we should probably revert the page back to "4 or 1 BCE." Aquillion unilaterally changed the page and never responded to Katzrockso's arguments.
    FWIW, I would be happy with making a Chronology of Herod the Great article as well. But if we're going to do that, we're acknowledging that 1 BCE is far from a fringe view, and many scholars have held to it for decades. So it makes sense to list it as a secondary date. Montgolfière (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy acknowledging the proposal, but I do agree that it's not a majority position and we should follow the consensus view of scholars on the date.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV requires that we represent views of reliable sources in WP:PROPORTION to their prominence in the overall array of sources. A version of the article that minimizes the discussion of the minority view does not comply with this policy. Katzrockso (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So does a version of the article that maximizes that view.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree Katzrockso (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no longer defending the idea that 1 BCE should be listed first, even though I think the evidence for it is overwhelming. I'd be satisfied with restoring "4 or 1 BCE" to the intro sentence.
    I also think we should restore the discussion under the Death section, until one of us has time to draft a Chronology of Herod the Great article. Montgolfière (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Need opinion on Paštrovići article

    [edit]

    There is a disagreement between me and other editor on Paštrovići page you can also see the tp [[12]], in my opinion if there are different theroeis about the origin of the tribe it should not be part of the lead, the other editor thinks we should include all theories. Which is the right WP:Npov way? Theonewithreason (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional eyeballs at Pornography Act (Austria)

    [edit]

    Hi. An issue came up recently at Pornography Act (Austria) regarding the neutrality of having an article sourced primarily on this one source. In this case, the author is very well known, possibly the definitive author on the topic. However, the source is 25 years old and unfootnoted, and it's not clear if it is a book, conference or workshop proceedings, or what. (Full text available in German.) I am not sure how to deal with this. Your feedback at Talk:Pornography Act (Austria)#More balanced sourcing needed would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be from a policy institute ("Austrian Institute for Family Studies"), which is based at the University of Vienna. I commented with some sources I found, but many I was not able to access. Katzrockso (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV and UNDUE concerns regarding the Gender-critical feminism article

    [edit]

    National Iranian American Council

    [edit]

    Current article decidedly non-neutral. Article fought over by rival partisan editors. Needs neutral editors to weigh in BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    MycoWorks — Article structured as advocacy, not encyclopedic content

    [edit]

    The MycoWorks article has significant NPOV problems beyond the BLP issues raised at WP:BLPN:

    Undue weight: The article gives disproportionate weight to insolvency and litigation. MycoWorks was a $225M+ venture-backed biotech company with notable partnerships (Hermès, General Motors, Ligne Roset), a 136,000 sq ft factory, and meaningful technological achievements. The current article structure subordinates all of this to a narrative of executive misconduct and company failure, giving undue weight to negative events.

    Advocacy structure: The article reads as a narrative arc (concealment → lawsuits → insolvency → asset stripping) rather than neutral encyclopedic description. The editorial choices—which facts to include, which individuals to name, what characterizations to use—consistently serve a single point of view.

    Selective sourcing: The article relies heavily on primary sources (lawsuit filings, employee claims) rather than independent secondary sources. Information favorable to the named individuals or the company's accomplishments is absent or minimized.

    Requesting input from uninvolved editors on how to restructure this article to meet NPOV standards. ~~~~ Curious-Rabbit-65 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not start threads about the same subject on multiple noticeboards. [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I read that doing so was required to address the multiple issues raised. Help in resolving this is appreciated. Curious-Rabbit-65 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over quotation on Science for the People

    [edit]

    An dispute came up in Talk:Science for the People over whether it is appropriate to include a quote from a scientist referring to the group as "an action group that promoted Marxism-Leninism in a manner specialized to subordinate science to the service of that ideology," and more specifically over whether this constitutes a significant view, as described in WP:NPOV. As I am one of the parties to this dispute, I had hoped to get more opinions on whether this should be included. radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 04:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    E. O. Wilson is not only "a scientist", as RadioactOlive guardedly says, but one of the most famous biologists in the field, and also one who has personally been attacked (in at least one case physically) by members of this political group.
    Also, the group of editors RadioactOlive is working with is trying to delete and censor all other supporting sources. See this diff for an example.
    The material is clearly both reliably-sourced and notable.
    This is a clear-cut instance of WP:CENSORED because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    China superpower status

    [edit]

    Could we get a few eyes over at Talk:Superpower#RFC on China superpower status. Seems like a meaty situation lol. Moxy🍁 16:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Goldman Sachs controversies article does not have a NPV and gives undue weight to controversies.

    [edit]

    The Goldman Sachs controversies page needs to be completely reworked. Rather than outlining actual controversies, it has turned into a smear campaign against Goldman Sachs. That’s not to say that there aren’t legitimate facts in it, but it loses credibility when mud gets thrown against the wall. It’s also somewhat antisemitic to establish a double standard when JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Bank of America have similar such criticisms, yet none of them have a controversies page. The fact that Goldman Sachs is a Jewish-founded firm and is being singled out needs to be noted. I also see a comment on the talk page about a “global banking cabal”. That is an antisemitic trope and clear evidence of antisemitism at play here. This article clearly lacks a neutral point of view and provides undue weight to minor topics. Admins please take notice of this. ~2026-17922-10 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to comment on due weight beyond noting that there's likely to be plenty of reliable sources for all of that, but I do see how having a blanket page on controversies is POVFORKish. It might be better to have those on the page for the company itself or on individual pages for particular scandals a la Wells Fargo cross-selling scandal or 2014 JPMorgan Chase data breach.
    Also, given that your temporary account seems to have almost entirely been focused on this company, I suggest you read WP:COI. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on a recent 'propaganda film'

    [edit]

    Input from editors is welcome at Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge#RfC on film description in the lead sentence. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV concerns in the “Cognitive linguistics” article

    [edit]

    I would like input regarding potential neutrality and due-weight problems in the article “Cognitive linguistics.”

    Talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cognitive_linguistics#c-~2026-18481-04-20260324181600-Cognition_AND_Linguistics_vs_Cognitive_Linguistics

    Issue:

    The current lead claims that “cognitive linguistics” is primarily a broad interdisciplinary term referring to linguistics combined with the other cognitive sciences. This framing gives the impression of two roughly equivalent definitions. However, based on the academic literature, this does not reflect the mainstream usage. In the majority of authoritative sources—textbooks[1], handbooks [2], review articles [3], and encyclopedia entries[4]—the term “cognitive linguistics” overwhelmingly refers to a particular theoretical approach within linguistics (e.g., the work of G. Lakoff, R. Langacker, and subsequent researchers).

    Attempts to define the term more broadly appear only in a small minority of papers with limited citation impact. The article currently relies on two such sources[5][6], which seem to be cherry-picked and not representative of academic consensus.

    Policy concerns:

    • WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE: The article presents a fringe or minority definition as if it were on equal footing with the mainstream usage.
    • WP:V / WP:RS: The broader-definition sources appear to be isolated papers with low citation counts, rather than secondary sources summarizing the field.
    • WP:NPOV: The lead does not proportionally represent the dominant understanding of the term in the literature.

    Request:

    I would appreciate independent input on whether the lead (and related sections) should be revised to reflect the clearly dominant definition found in the cognitive linguistics literature, and whether the minority broader definition should be presented as such.

    • This reads like it was written by an LLM. But regardless, you don't need permission to edit an article. If what you're saying is true then you can go ahead and edit the article to reflect this and if no one objects then it will stay. But please do not blindly trust what an LLM tells you, and actually make sure any text you introduce is cited to sources which support the text. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I did use an LLM to write the message because I have no experience editing Wikipedia and I don't know the exact website's policies. However I do know the subject matter of the article in question and I've personally gathered and checked the sources cited.
    I'm not confident that what I contribute will stay. The article's history shows a marked trajectory towards decreased quality; it went from mediocre to bad in the span of some years. People with some sort of grievance seem to have been personally invested in editing the article to reflect their own biases and preferences. I will go ahead and write a draft nonetheless. EFO86 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I'll support a draft you produce since it seems like the issues you are raising are legitimate. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will let you know when it is ready for review.
    Best, EFO86 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Evans, V., & Green, M. (2018). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315864327
    2. ^ Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.001.0001
    3. ^ Alduais, A., Al-Khawlani, A., Almaghlouth, S., & Alfadda, H. (2022). Cognitive Linguistics: Analysis of Mapping Knowledge Domains. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040093
    4. ^ Cognitive Semantics. (2006). 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01087-7
    5. ^ Schwarz-Friesel, Monika (2012). "On the status of external evidence in the theories of cognitive linguistics". Language Sciences. 34 (6): 656–664. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.007.
    6. ^ Peeters, Bert (2001). "Does cognitive linguistics live up to its name?". In Dirven, René (ed.). Language and Ideology, Vol.1: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches. John Benjamins. pp. 83–106. ISBN 978-90-272-9954-3.

    Palestine 36: Should a contentious opinion published in The Free Press include The Free Press in the attribution?

    [edit]

    Discussion at Talk:Palestine 36#The Free Press attribution—In the article about the Palestinian film Palestine 36, should attribution for the contentious opinions of Oren Kessler published in The Free Press (entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) state that they were published in The Free Press? إيان (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    From the published opinion source it is not designated as a guest opinion and links to his profile on the work, so it would seem proper to identify this as being an opinion by him for the Free Press. If it were a guest editorial then attribution wouldn't be necessary. Masem (t) 19:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I concur. If an opinion is due it should be attributed as general practice and, in the specifics, I think Masem is correct here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    genuinely curious, is there a specific policy page that describes using attribution of the publication venue for long-time editors vs guest editors? it makes some intuitive sense ofc, but kinda curious if its codified in wikipolicy/ User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy but general how reliable sources themselves place inline attribution to other articles. Also often the person that authors these is non notable but the work they wrote for is, so it makes sense to mention that work to provide source authority. Masem (t) 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    kinda divided. The reader is smart enough to consider looking at the cited source if they want to consider it further. However, The Free Press is essentially considered a self-published source currently on WP:RSN by Bari Weiss (who has self-identified as an unhinged zionist), so inclusion of the publication could be useful to understand that it has a required framing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve commented on the talk page to the effect that a reasonable compromise is easy to reach. I want to add that if anyone wants to relitigate Free Press reliability so that it’s always attributed it would be legitimate to do so at the RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for input. I also think it would be useful to have a more consolidated community appraisal of TFP, though I don’t know if quality has changed since the recent Paramount acquisition. إيان (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    there seems to be less a question of if the free press is elevated by the acquistion into CBS News so much as if CBS news is downgraded by the installment of bari weiss. So far, with regards to the latter, there seems to be wait and see but remain concerned, seems the free press really hasn't changed much though User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Daghaghra The origin that is not in accordance with the academic consensus

    [edit]

    Could you please give me your opinion? I've put all the information on the talk page. It shouldn't be difficult to resolve; we just need to specify which sources are reliable and which aren't. Mhmdgrd (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghudwana is not Pakisttani Territory

    [edit]

    This is a formal objection regarding the representation of the Ghudwana area on this page. The current map and related descriptions appear to present disputed territory as part of Pakistan, which is highly misleading and does not reflect the complex and contested nature of the area. Such representation risks violating Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality and verifiability. The Ghudwana region is part of a sensitive border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and any recent developments involving military presence or administrative claims do not automatically establish legal sovereignty under international law. According to the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), the use of force or occupation cannot be used as a legitimate basis for territorial ownership. Wikipedia, as a global knowledge platform, carries the responsibility to present neutral, balanced, and well-sourced information, especially on disputed geopolitical issues. Displaying one-sided claims without clearly indicating the dispute misinforms readers and undermines credibility. ✅ We respectfully request: That the map be revised to clearly mark Ghudwana as disputed territory That all claims be supported by reliable, independent sources That editors ensure strict adherence to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy This issue is not just about a map — it is about accuracy, neutrality, and respect for international standards. We urge Wikipedia editors and administrators to review this matter carefully and correct any misleading representation. Concerned Contributor ~2026-19262-77 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see where we say it is Pakistani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Markfield Institute of Higher Education

    [edit]

    There is currently a discussion at Talk:Markfield Institute of Higher Education#Islamic Foundation about how much weight its affiliation with The Islamic Foundation should be given. This could use additional input to find a solution that satisfied the NPOV challenge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Racism in association football

    [edit]

    There is a discussion at Talk:Racism in association football#Indiscriminate listing of events about whether the article fails WP:BALASP, and more input would be helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Pre-RfC comments welcome on WP:GENOCIDE

    [edit]

    The draft guideline WP:GENOCIDE appears to be nearly ready for proposing as an RfC. Comments at Wikipedia talk:Genocide#Is this ready for proposing as an RfC? are welcome there. For background, please browse the (archived) brainstorming of Nov–Dec 2025 and the prior debates table, and the talk page and associated editing histories. Boud (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Death penalty law has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    Death penalty law 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. Docentation (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The article in question was recently moved to Death penalty law (Israel). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant RFC: Talk:Zionism#RfC:_Moving_"as_few_Arabs": How should Wikipedia discuss the topic of Arab expulsion as relating to Zionism?

    [edit]

    Posting here for everyone to see, the RFC just started, additional views/votes would be nice. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Berberism

    [edit]

    Requesting input and editors willing to tackle the issue at hand at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berberism#POV_tag. Lankdadank (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    "Optimum" Economic inequality?

    [edit]

    The lead of the article Economic inequality currently states:

    While the "optimum" amount of economic inequality is widely debated, there is a near-universal belief that complete economic equality (Gini of zero) would be undesirable and unachievable.

    This seems to me to ignore the extensive political-philosophical literature that argues at least for the "desirable" part, whether it be Marxian socialism or Ronald Dworkin / Amartya Sen style liberalism. It also fails to account for the section in the article body that does discuss socialism's goal of creating a classless society. I therefore made the following revision:

    The optimum amount of economic inequality is a widely debated topic in political philosophy. While some social theorists have argued for the creation of a classless society in which all people are social and economic equals, others believe that complete economic equality would be either undesirable or unachievable.

    This was reverted by Avatar317 with the edit summary (in part) Karl Marx's writings are NON-mainstream economics, and the source doesn't say his views are representative of a broader consensus. I brought the matter to the article's talk page (here) but do not see much scope for productive engagement between Avatar317 and myself after reading their response. Input from the broader community would be helpful here. How can we best capture the due weight of the various points of view and settle upon a neutral presentation of the scholarship? Generalrelative (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Again you fail to provide sources backing up your OPINION of "extensive political-philosophical literature". The current lead statement is sourced to an overview of the literature in the field.
    The article currently has under the "Perspectives" section, these sub-headings:
    5.1 Socialist perspectives
    5.2 Meritocracy
    5.3 Liberal perspectives
    5.4 Social justice arguments
    5.5 Effects on social welfare
    5.6 Capabilities approach
    5.7 Societal acceptance
    5.8 Public perception and accuracy thereof
    5.9 Arguments that economic inequality is not a problem
    Why do you think that the Socialist perspective is so important that it deserves its own statement in the lead, while you choose to ignore all the other sub-sections? That seems very WP:UNDUE to me. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1346678081"