Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

secret hamas conspiracy theory i.e. 1993 Philadelphia meeting

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

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

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

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

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

Source removals and BESTSOURCES, update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the diff showing the source removing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Totally agree that the more “hardline” quote definitely needs attribution as that’s very much an interpretation not a fact. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ive thought more about it, i think there is some balance to play out in the lede at least to avoid specific details while still reflecting what the body says, not sure how that reflects with this principle. Of notw i think all the ledes of these are rather bloated anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:24, 17 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)

Explicit bias in Honor killing article

There is unusually explicit bias in this Honor killing article. Broadly stated, the article as it stands is resistant to acknowledge, or outright denies, any meaningful association between Islam and honor killing. On several occasions, overtly polemic language is used:

"Though it may seem in a modern context that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions, the data does not support this claim", and

"This fact supports the idea that honor killings are to do with society culture rather than religion."

The first sentence I cited is simply not true. Firstly, and most importantly, while honor killing is not a common practice in all Muslim-majority countries (ex. Indonesia and others), it almost exclusively occurs in the Muslim-majority countries of South Asia and the Middle East (and their diaspora). Polling data is not dispositive, but three out of four peer-reviewed studies I found did find a meaningful positive relationship between various aspects of Islamic religiosity and support of honor killing. When I deleted the first sentence and added those four peer-reviewed studies, my edit was reverted.

On another occasion, an biased caveat which flies in the face of Wikipedia as a tertiary source is used. Shown below in bold:

Phyllis Chesler's 2010 study in Middle East Quarterly analyzed 172 incidents and 230 victims drawn from English-language media worldwide. In that study, 91 percent of perpetrators worldwide were Muslims. In North America, 84 percent of perpetrators were Muslim, with small numbers of Sikhs and Hindus; in Europe, Muslims comprised 96 percent. However, Chesler's article relies on a relatively small, media-based dataset; articles like this can be useful as a starting point, while still requiring caution about methodology and avoiding sweeping conclusions about Muslims as a whole. Peer-reviewed, empirical research is needed.

There are other issues along the same lines that I need not enumerate here. On the talk page discussion I opened, the editor has not provided any specific reasoning for why they reverted my edits, simply saying "You can add these studies without removing large amounts of the existing text and source that was why I reverted your edits." Due to how explicit the bias is, I do not have much faith that a resolution will occur on the talk page. Reversetalk (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If you look in the RSN archives you'll see that Middle East Quarterly is not considered a reliable source BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Very partisan: Middle East Forum Mevsherd (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the article, your bolded sentence is uncited and IMO sounds like someones personal commentary. It may be reasonable for all of that, but it doesn't look WP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The sources for the first two quotes are sourced here:

Honor killing#cite note-DrBrown-54

Honor killing#cite note-PsychologyToday-50

Neither strikes me as highly reliable, although perhaps they shouldn't be outright rejected (both border on opinion pieces). The Psychology Today article is arguing that honor killings are more cultural than religious, but that's not fairly summarized as a rejection that honor killings are tied to certain religious traditions.

This kind of thing comes up a lot in articles about the Middle East. Westerners tend to conflate Islam with Arab culture, and while there is a lot of overlap, they are different concepts. Likewise, Western culture isn't the same as Christianity, but there's lots of overlap. Mevsherd (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It is really unhelpful to start discussions in different places on the same question. I didn’t realize there’s an RFC about this. These discussions should be disclosed in both places. Mevsherd (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

"NPOV" Draft rejection amounted to nothing but religious bigotry

Could someone help? My Seton Miracles draft has been declined a second time now for NPOV-violations, and the first time, I worked hard to scrupulously eliminate any offending material. This latest time (today), viewable on the draft's talk page, the reviewer, @Sulfurboy:, who rejected my draft upon claimed WP:NPOV grounds, confessed that the only reason he considered it WP:NPOV, was because "Miracles aren't real. Sorry." I pointed out that if the reliable sources think something real happened, then it belongs on Wikipedia, and to not do so would be religious WP:BIGOTRY, and would additionally require the elimination of vast numbers of Wikipedia articles on miracles, and other religious topics. Accusing me of accusing him of bigotry, he refused to further discuss. Octavius1981 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd rather not dignify a response to yet another accusation by this user of being a bigot. However, if any admin needs me to chime in on this, I'm happy to. However, I feel this editors conduct speaks for itself. WP:BOOMARANG. Also of note should be their terse attitude towards @Absurdum4242 found here. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It’s sad too, because it’s a pretty easy fix to get to NPOV. Reword the first part as something like “The Seton Miracles were a claimed example of miraculous weeping statues and stigmata, connected to…”, cut out the editorialising of the “Fr. Bruse and the parish’s lives returned to normal, and the reputation of the events was discarded, as if trivial or inconsequential” section, and remove all the references to the AI narrated, and I’m honestly guessing AI written, self published YouTube video, and the Catholic sex scandal conspiracy webpage which claims that the miracles were a supernatural warning of the upcoming Great Catholic Priest Abuse Crisis (an opinion which somehow didn’t make it into the reactions section of this article, despite being the same source for the Scalia quote), and it would be an relatively interesting article… Maybe add some context to why the church shut down the pilgrimage aspect by linking to the actual Catholic stance on “Private revelations” and how they differ from saintly miracles doctrinally… Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

You need to drop all of the references to the Marian Foundation, bishopaccountability.org, and other non-WP:RS, then focus on building the article from what is said in the reliable sources. You also need to avoid sensationalist language like famous journalists or headings like Media Frenzy. For a section about the media coverage you need sources discussing the media coverage, you cannot interpret the presence of those sources yourself as that falls foul of WP:Original research. There looks to be enough coverage of this in reliable sources to build an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the great suggestions, @ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Absurdum4242:! Those sound like very do-able ideas. I'll work on that. Also, 2 of them I had done already:

🔘 To Absurdum4242 - I reworded the opening sentence to "The Seton Miracles were unexplained, paranormal or supernatural phenomena." (I don't think I should say they were "claimed example of miraculous weeping statues and stigmata," as MOS:CLAIM deprecates that phrase, for precisely the applicable reason here, namely, that the Washington Post articles insists that they really were weeping, and that the stigmata really was there, so it isn't in doubt, which the word "claimed" might imply.)

🔘 To both of you - Yes, I'll FULLY remove the 2 unreliable sources

........the Marian Foundation's AI-generated video, and

........the BishopAccountability source,

but I had largely already done that anyway, insofar as I had already paired nearly every citation of it, with a citation of a reliable source. (For some reason, I wrongly thought that an UN-reliable source like this could still be used on Wikipedia to smooth over context & narrative, but I guess not.) Octavius1981 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep lose the junk sources, and anything sourced to them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes! See above, 1 minute ago, I said I'd do that. Octavius1981 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It does no harm to have more than one person advise it, so it is not mistaken for just one user's opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I didn't know I could do that. Octavius1981 (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that the articles you used as examples, Miracle of the Sun and Our Lady of Zeitoun, are critical of the claims that they were miraculous events. You also need to strike your accusations of bigotry as these are personal attacks; and your claims that atheism is a religion and credal display a complete misunderstanding of the term. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I have warned Octavius1981 on their page that they'll be blocked next time they attack anybody. Enough time has surely been wasted on this. Bishonen | tålk 12:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC).

Agreed, even if Sulfurboy was not as gentle as humanly possible, which can be quite difficult at times given the nature of passionate and dispassionate editors, they seems to have a better grasp of policy. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Darknipples I'm not in the business of hand-holding spa accounts that have a track record of disparaging myself and fellow editors. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with your decision. DN (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

To @O3000, Ret.

🔘 Miraculeous character - Yeah, that those two articles have sub-sections "critical of the claims they were miraculous events" is perhaps the most spectacularly obvious example I know of, of WP:FALSEBALANCE, because in both cases, advocates for their own side . . . i.e, professed, lifelong Non-Catholics (i.e, reporter Avelino de Almeida, and the Egyptian government, respectively), attested that the inexplicable occurred.

🔘 Personal Attacks - My response to Bishon's, and anyone else's discontent with my excellent, and intellectually-precise calling out of Sulfurboy's bigotry, can be found here. Don't just automatically recoil from something, because it EVER uses the word "bigotry," but compare it to the circumstantial facts. Octavius1981 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I read your absurd screed. There and here you made additional personal attacks. I suggest you stop as this will not end well for you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that we already have an article on weeping statues, and given that the claims made in relation to this one appear not to be materially different to the many others covered there, any discussion of these particular events would almost certainly be better covered there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

For the record: I responded to AndyTheGrump's point on weeping statues here. Octavius1981 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

A miracle can be defined as being the temporary cessation of the laws of nature such that something which is impossible is allowed to occur. By definition, they don't happen ever. Miracles are impossible. Following from that, any source which states, as fact, that a miracle has occurred (and not in a figurative sense) is by definition unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a sophism, @TarnishedPath. Although I agree with your excellent definition, yet your application of it equivocates upon the word "impossible," inasmuch as you use it in two different senses: Your definition intends it as "[naturally] impossible", but your application intends it as [absolutely] impossible". But I can prevent this confusion by rewording your definition: "A miracle can be defined as being the temporary cessation of the laws of nature such that something which is naturally impossible is supernaturally allowed to occur." Octavius1981 (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

None of this is really relevant to the question as to if and how we cover one of many reports of 'weeping statues', 'stigmata' etc on Wikipedia. That is determined by Wikipedia policy and practice, and not by the laws of nature. Policies arrived at by much discussion, over decades. And it should be noted that it has never been a requirement of such policies that we have to convince a contributor who submits a draft that said draft doesn't comply with policy. Instead, we look at the draft as presented, and if it doesn't comply with policy, which this draft clearly doesn't, we reject it. The onus is on the submitter to ensure compliance. And while we may chose to assist in this by offering advice as to what policy requires, we are under no obligation to do so indefinitely. Octavius1981, if you want us to have separate coverage of these particular events, it is down to you to write a compliant draft. Write it, not argue that it complies already. The consensus that it currently doesn't is absolutely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

StoneToss RfC on "neo-Nazi" attribution

An RfC has been opened at Talk:StoneToss#RfC: attribution of "neo-Nazi" characterization concerning whether the "neo-Nazi" characterization should be stated in Wikipedia's own voice or attributed to reliable sources. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. Viglietta2 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Lists of injuries/accidents in horse-sport competition articles

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

Specifics (in summary):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellen Granberg and the I/P conflict

Pretty difficult to try to write NPOV about something so incredibly politicized. I made some edits on Ellen Granberg. Can someone with a brain please take a look to see if that part of the article can be rewritten in a balanced and dispassionate way? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any immediate red flags although I did an obvious wikilink. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. It was pretty bad. I think its better now but still imperfect. It is not impossible that the IP responsible has made more problematic edits Special:Contributions/73.134.81.186. Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

United States and Israel has Nuclear weapons - But Russia and China has weapons of mass destruction

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.

---

Nuclear weapons of the United States Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom and Israel and nuclear weapons

However - if it's China, France, Russia, India and Pakistan - nuclear weapons is weapons of mass destruction.

China and weapons of mass destruction

France and weapons of mass destruction

Russia and weapons of mass destruction

India and weapons of mass destruction

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

How can this be justified and considered neutral? SideEffect (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This is indeed a rather embarrassing inconsistency. For neutrality and consistency, Wikipedia should use "nuclear weapons" for all nuclear-armed states. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

We do: in each case there's a parent page for "weapons of mass destruction" (which includes chemical and biological weapons) and a child page for "nuclear weapons". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

See articles United States and weapons of mass destruction and Nuclear weapons of China and so on. Our treatment appears to already be consistent. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Opps… I think I made a mistake. SideEffect (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

We also have the option to use eg. Nuclear and Weapons Programs of China SideEffect (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

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.

non-neutral article on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker

I noticed that someone made changes to the article on the Ivory-billed Woodpecker that made it non-neutral. They removed citations to journal articles that present evidence for the persistence of this species, replaced those references with a citation to the opinion of a journalist (who is a non-expert who wrote a popular article), and included a non-sourced (and incorrect) claim about why a submission was rejected. I posted about this in the talk page, but nothing has been done to correct this article. I must disclose that I am the author of the citations that were deleted. I am not the one who initially included the discussion of those articles, but I did add discussions and at least one image. Cinclodes (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give us these sources? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The citations that removed are References 107-111 in this version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivory-billed_woodpecker&oldid=1266589824

Cinclodes (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

But none of these sources say it has been found, so it remains "unfound". Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Those sources state that it has been observed and present supporting video evidence. Cinclodes (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not how I read them; rather, they say things like "claimed to show". Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

There was a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivory-billed_woodpecker/Archive_2#%22Evidence_of_persistence_in_the_United_States_since_1944%22_subsection. This may explain the removal. Not all primary research studies need be included in an article. Fences&Windows 21:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That section was about another edit, and the material was eventually restored. The material OP describes was removed here, before that talk page section was opened. Certainly a collection of peer reviewed journal articles aren't worth blanking because the researcher who wrote them is talking about ... his research. It's not like it was citing a blog post. Presenting them carefully is necessary, since there are an awful lot of hardline believers and, well, anti-believers (i.e. not just skeptics) on this issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Rooftop Koreans

This article could use some context and balance. Seems kinda important to mention that of the four people they shot, 2 were friendly fire. See Talk:Rooftop_Koreans#NPOV. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Of the two deaths we mention, one was "freindly fire". Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Yeah and the other one wasn't shot by the store owners but by the National Guard, see the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Actualy it was not determined who shot them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven That is what the article says, but I found a better source, see the talkpage, that says:

Castro, 49, was shot in the back as he walked in East Hollywood. The bullet broke his spine and punctured his heart. A friend put the mortally wounded Castro in the back seat of his car and drove to the nearest contingent of police. The LAPD determined that a National Guardsman shot Castro. His death was ruled accidental. Polygnotus (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no mention of that being related to "Rooftop Koreans" but rather related to the wider LA riots. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I deleted it from the article. Let's move to that talkpage section. Polygnotus (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Non-neutral paragraph at Pokémon

Pokémon (e|t|h|li|w|lo) is an article I pretty much wrote from scratch. One of its sections is called "Reaction to Pokémania (1999–2000)". It is a bit of a time capsule, describing how children took their Pokémon cards to school, how parents and teachers reacted to it, how the adults looked down on such a "ruthless commercial" property, "brainwashing" their children with elaborate marketing. The section is a blast from the past, but its themes of anti-consumerism and media influence on children are still relevant today.

But then... out of the blue, the section ends with a very unexpected turn:

Pokemon's rapid rise in popularity resulted in popular conspiracy theories as well as significant governmental and religious scrutiny in the Muslim world. In 2001, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa banning Pokemon in Saudi Arabia on the basis that it promotes gambling and that the cards contain symbols resembling "the star of David, which everyone knows is connected to international Zionism and is Israel's national emblem". He also claimed that other symbols shown on the card promoted Freemasonry and Christianity.[424] As a result of this edict, Pokemon products were removed from shops in Saudi Arabia and customs officers began preventing them from entering the country. [425] Various conspiracy theories circulated in the Arab World about Jewish themes in Pokemon, and Japanese embassies throughout the region received inquiries from local officials who were concerned that "Pokemon" meant "I am a Jew" in Japanese. In Jordan, Sheikh Abdel Monem abu Zent, a former member of parliament, claimed that Pokemon "is part of a Jewish plan to corrupt the mind of our young generation because it alludes to blasphemous thinking, it mocks our God and our moral values".[426]

The above was recently added by User:Sobelone96 (diff). It *is* factual, but it is anything but neutral. Especially in the context it was placed.

He added a shorter version to Abdulaziz Al Sheikh (diff). Wikipedia articles on Islamic extremism are often not very neutral. That particular topic, I don't really care about. But the Pokémon article is something I hold dear.

I've attempted to explain to User:Sobelone96 why his addition is inappropriate (see talk page thread), but he either does not get it, or he pretends not to get it.

I will not be removing this dubious paragraph, but will leave it up to others to do so. - Manifestation (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeing the problem; care to elaborate? Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

??? What do you mean you don't see the problem? Did you read the above text? More importantly, did you read it in context? Ever heard of textual flow? The text abruptly jumps from a Western 1990s generation gap discussion to a "hahaha look at those stupid warmonger Muslims" paragraph. This is completely unprofessional. - Manifestation (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What has that to do with neutrality, that is more a MOS issue. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

No it isn't. And if you don't understand the words neutrality and context, then why are you even here? - Manifestation (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

May I kindly suggest that you read a few relevant Wikipedia policies before returning to make your point:

• WP:CIVIL
• WP:NPOV
• WP:OWN

Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing these resources Michael. I'm wondering if there is a Wikiessay that clarifies that "neutrality" does not mean "avoiding facts that could be seen to reflect poorly on someone". I couldn't find one explicitly saying that, and I wonder if that's behind the confusion here.

Obviously Wikipedia must report facts even if they could be considered to reflect poorly on someone. Like obviously there must be information on the Belgian colonization of the Congo even if one could say that it reflects poorly on white people. Likewise, there must be articles on Idi Amin and the Rape of Nanking even if someone claims that that will reflect poorly on black people or Japanese people. Manifestation's comment about "stupid warmonger Muslims" makes me think the confusion is along these lines.

Best,

Sobelone96 Sobelone96 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there is an essay: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. And even better, the policy WP:NOTCENSORED states that "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content". Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Sobelone96 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The only element that has an NPOV problem is "the Muslim world", which is an unnecessarily broad generalization. It should be replaced by "Saudi Arabia and several other countries", or the countries should simply be named.

Otherwise, I do not see an NPOV violation. The paragraph describes a direct reaction to Pokémania, the views are clearly attributed to named clerics, and the facts are sourced to BBC News and the Los Angeles Times.

Finally, "the Pokémon article is something I hold dear" is not a policy-based argument. Combined with "I pretty much wrote [it] from scratch", it risks sounding like WP:OWN. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

With that, I am out of here. I do not see how this violates NPOV; WP is not censored to save people's feelings. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about censorship. This is about someone shoehorning an anti-muslim paragraph into a section that is about something else entirely. And for the record, I don't care about muslims, or about MENA. But the addition of this is obviously inappropriate and not neutral. Why don't you delete it? - Manifestation (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the size of the article, and the level of detail it goes into elsewhere, I don't see it as undue, and the sourcing is fine. It certainly isn't about 'something else entirely'. It is about the way the product was received in one part of the world. That it's reception was heavily influenced by local cultural/political discourse isn't particularly surprising: the same could be said for the United States, and is no doubt true everywhere outside of Japan. If anything, I'd say the article would be a better thing if it discussed such interactions more broadly - like many articles, this one seems overly-focussed on the United States for what is a topic with a much broader scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You are correct about your last point. The article is indeed very US-centered. There also used to be some European info, but last December, a user pointed out that the article had become too big. So I had to cut out large parts of it. "My heart is bleeding", I wrote in that thread. Because that's what it felt like. I worked *very* hard on that article, and trimming it wasn't the most pleasant thing to do.

So that's another reason why the paragraph shouldn't be there: the article is full. If there was a Reception of Pokémon or a Reaction to Pokémania article, and if User:Sobelone96 would've inserted it there, I would have *tolerated* the paragraph. I would not've *accepted* it, at least not without *another* paragraph pointing out that things have, in fact, modernized in Saudi over the years, and that Pokémon cards can currently be sold legally in that country. For instance, there is a card store called Battle Round in Jeddah, and another one called SageTCG in Al Khobar.

Two users in this old Redditt thread also report that the Pokémon cards are not banned in Saudi. Another user reports that they are also allowed in Qatar, and possibly other Middle East countries as well. Not something the casual reader would say after reading Sobelone96's paragraph, hmm? - Manifestation (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use this Saudi secondary source, which shows how much things have changed: in 2025, Pokémon cards were openly featured at an official collectors' festival in Riyadh with more than 50 vendors. But that does not mean you can remove the previous text: it is sourced and accurately describes the situation at the time; things have simply changed since then. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Manifestation OK so I think I see where you're coming from. In a 1213 word section about global reactions, it's a bit odd to devote 221 words specifically to Saudi Arabia. This does rather seem a bit undue. However I do think some inclusion is due. What I am going to do is cut the sentences at the end that pivot to Jordan and that seem somewhat out of proportion. I'm going to recommend the rest remain in. I would also second those people who have warned you about WP:OWN. I understand you have put a lot of work into this article. That doesn't give you veto powers. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 You write that the sentences at the end seem "out of proportion" as a justification for their deletion. What does that mean? Is that a policy? If so, what are the criteria for determining if something is "out of proportion"? These are properly-sources facts reported in the LA Times and none of the other three additional editors who chimed in on this (Michael, Andy or Slatersteven) had an issue. It seems hasty to delete this information as a minority in a three-to-one opinion without first trying to seek consensus with the others in this discussion.

Also, for what it's worth, part of your critique was inaccurately stating that 221 words were focused on only on Saudi Arabia, but then you deleted the parts that referred to other places. Only after your edit is it now only focused on Saudi Arabia. You changed the article to now say that Pokemania caused controversy in Saudia Arabia and don't mention the rest of the Muslim world at all. To me this seems less accurate and more unnecessarily specifically: the reaction to Pokemania was a phenomenon across the Muslim World, as the section you deleted explains.

I am reverting the edit until the other editors chime in and a consensus is reached. Sobelone96 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree here, its WEIGHT is a bit much but it seems some discussion in the Muslim countries should be mentioned. Masem (t) 20:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. It seems the meat of the para is about the late-90s Saudi Arabia ban so I left that in an cut the much more marginal information about Jordan as undue. Lots of things are said about Pokémon that aren't necessarily important enough to go in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The wording is a bit unclear but it seemed to me like @Masem is approving of discussion of countries beyond Saudi. (It literally says "some discussion in the Muslim countries should be mentioned.") Your response makes me think you have misinterpreted Masem's comment as supporting your cuts when that was not the intention. Can you clarify @Masem? Sobelone96 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

im supporting the cuts because right now it feels like too much weight has been given to this. Some mention is absolutely fine but not the length the current passage offers. Masem (t) 21:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Masem. So in that case, besides the two original disputants, there are three editors (@AndyTheGrump, @Boutboul, and @Slatersteven) who did not find an issue with the text and two that favor its deletion. Does anyone who previously commented have anything to add? I personally support maintaining the text. It is properly cited from reliable sources. It would only add around 100 words to keep it but it would broaden the geographic scope of an section that is, as Andy pointed out, extremely Western-centric. Sobelone96 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the wording as of now is o.k. as far as discussing Saudi Arabia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I was against outright deleltion, not re-wording. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

And I was likewise against outright deletion but not rewording. @Sobelone96 I think you need to be a bit more collaborative in your approach. This is not an "us vs them" situation but rather one of deciding which information has sufficient weight to be worth how much mention. Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Would just like to add that I am also against outright deletion. I personally the the original wording was fine, however I have no issue with it being reworded if others feel it deals with issues of weight. — Czello ^(music) 11:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure by what you and other people are proposing when you say "re-wording" rather than "outright deletion". @Simonm223, your solution was to delete half of the paragraph as it existed at the beginning of the dispute. Not to reword it or any other part. If there is a part you would like to see reworded, I would be happy to propose alternate wordings and see what people think. Sobelone96 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on others' stated concerns about weight, I propose this additional sentence to succinctly summarize the information that was deleted:

"Muslim leaders in Oman, Qatar, Jordan the UAE, and Egypt also stated that Pokémon contains anti-Islamic principles."

It's only 17 words rather than 97. Based on chronological flow, I think it makes sense as the penultimate sentence. Thoughts? Sobelone96 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that the use of the source for such a general statement is blatantly undue. I mean you're depending on one American newspaper article at a time in the history of the United States that could easily be called peak Islamophobia. When we dig into the source for the "leaders" in these other countries they include:

• No named individuals in Oman.
• No named individuals in Qatar.
• A fatwa from an unnamed source in Dubai calling Pokémon gambling.
• A then-former Jordanian MP described by the article as a hard-liner
• A random schoolteacher from Jordan
• A statement from the Syriac Orthodox Christian Church in Jordan
• A newspaper editorial in Egypt

In what realistic way does this appropriately summarize to "Muslim leaders" in all these countries. The newspaper, in this case, is clearly and obviously editorializing. We should absolutely not follow suit.

Here's what's different with the Saudi Arabia example from these others:

Something actually happened. There was a ban that lasted from 2001 until... sometime before 2025 which is not clear from the sources. In these other cases, nothing happened. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The article was published before 9/11, so your "peak Islamophobia" comment is not accurate.

The article also reports an academic at a top Muslim university in Egypt, as well as the Saudi ban. You say that "something actually happened" in the one case, but the implication of that statement is that all the other things reported to the LA Times adds up to "nothing happened". Which does not seem like an accurate summary.

"Muslim leaders" does not mean "all Muslim leaders". Just as, earlier in the section, "the franchise elicited mixed response from parents" does not mean that every single parent on Earth had a mixed response. Sobelone96 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, to address @Simonm223's concerns about previous statements being too general, I found contemporary BBC articles describing more concrete events. Sobelone96 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That's better than your prior efforts but I still think it's at the edge of undue. I'm not going to revert it because it is an improvement but I still think you're pushing too much to add 9/11 era cruft to an article about a children's media franchise from Japan. I would suggest not adding more to this section at the very least. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The section is titled "Reaction to Pokémania (1999–2000)", right? These sources are from 2001 and 2025, which is off topic.

Sure, we can expand the topic, but I would still argue that they're mostly undue. A cursory Google search found 53 search results for "Pokémania" published in 1999 and 2000. Compared to these 3 sources, that's a disparity of more than 17:1. At most, this warrants a sentence or two, but probably somewhere else in the article. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm confused by the comparison of search results found on Google to three sources cited in a paragraph on Wikipedia. I can find more results on Google about Saudi Arabia's Pokemon ban than just the three cited here, so I'm not sure the 17:1 ratio you quote is very meaningful. Sobelone96 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Are any of those sources actually from 1999 and 2000? And are they from reputable publishers like Time Magazine, The Washington Post, CNN, Duke University Press, Variety, etc.? Because those are the types of sources that were covering Pokémania, in general, in 1999 and 2000. On the other hand, I found no sources looking at Pokémania in Muslim countries in 1999 and 2000. Coverage was still rather sparse in 2001, but a number of quite good sources did cover the ban in Saudi Arabia. (BBC, The Guardian, USA Today, Reuters, etc.) But, again, that ban happened in 2001, after the "1999-2000" section that we're talking about.

This matters because we balance coverage around the availability or prominence of reliable, secondary sources. If there are, apparently, zero sources from 1999 and 2000 talking about Pokémania in Muslim countries during that timeframe, that's a good indication that we shouldn't be covering this niche subject at all. So maybe we broaden the 1999-2000 topic or put this all somewhere else in the article, but we're still looking at a massive disparity in coverage. That probably doesn't mean we can't cover it, but we have to be careful not to present a false balance in coverage. Woodroar (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I actually think the 2025 source should go together with the 2001 source because it shows change over time which is encyclopedically significant. But I'd support rewording the section header and changing its scope if it doesn't fit. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Please review this page

Hi. My disclosure first. I am a Westerner and not from this faith, however in my retirements, exploring into other religions and such orgs. While reading Wikipedia page on Isha Foundation, I see clear violation of the policy guidelines, which I have not seen in my reading of pages related to my faith. Requesting a neutral unbiased look at the section on controversy where the POCSO case tells a 2025 case involving staff at a school. A single isolated event with no subsequent outcome or any further coverage. This do not belong on the page. Please remove . There is justification to keep such information on this encyclopedia PaulSr5 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Was this written by AI? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see AI signs, particularly with the grammar errors and sentence fragment. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It is also hard to answer, as it asks for it to be removed and at the same time argues it should be retained, so wp:coi may be an issue with this request. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@PaulSr5, please raise your concerns at Talk:Isha Foundation. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Arvanitika / Arvanites — outdated population generalisations and anachronistic rewriting of medieval Albanian populations as “from Greece”

I have already raised these issues at Talk:Arvanitika#Request for review: broad identity claims, outdated sourcing, and anachronistic geographic wording. The talk page is largely inactive, so I am bringing the clearest NPOV and sourcing problems here for uninvolved review.

There are several passages that should be corrected. These are not questions of whether modern Arvanites identify as Greek; that is a separate and well-documented modern identity issue. The problem is that the articles repeatedly allow modern Greek national identity and modern Greek geography to be projected backwards onto medieval Albanian-speaking populations.

‘’‘1. A 1995 report is being used to make present-tense claims about Arvanites in general’’’

Arvanitika states:

“although ‘’‘today many Arvanites consider such names offensive’’’”

and shortly afterwards:

”’’‘many Arvanites are reported to dislike’’’ the use of the name ‘Albanian’ to designate it.”

The corresponding Arvanites article makes essentially the same population-level claim again.

These formulations rely substantially on the Greek Helsinki Monitor’s ‘’‘1995’’’ report. A source from 1995 cannot, without contemporary evidence, support Wikipedia saying in 2026 that “today many Arvanites” hold a particular view. Nor does a report based on sociolinguistic observations justify an unrestricted statement about an entire ethnolinguistic population unless its sampling actually supports that generalisation.

This should be rewritten as an attributed, dated finding, for example:

“A 1995 Greek Helsinki Monitor report stated that many of the Arvanites it discussed rejected the designation ‘Albanian’ for themselves or their language.”

If more recent representative scholarship exists, it can of course be cited. Until then, “today many Arvanites” is an unsupported expansion of what the cited source establishes.

The repetition of the same claim several times across the two articles also gives disproportionate weight to one identity attitude while the linguistic classification itself is straightforward: Arvanitika is an Albanian variety, conventionally classified within Tosk.

‘’‘2. “Arvanite settlers from Greece” is historically anachronistic and should be replaced with the actual historical polity or region’’’

Arvanitika currently states that Arbëresh:

“largely goes back to ‘’‘Arvanite settlers from Greece’’’”

This is historically imprecise.

The relevant migrations predate the establishment of the modern Greek state by centuries. In the fifteenth-century Morea, the polity in question was the ‘’‘Despotate of the Morea’’’, a Byzantine polity ruled by the Palaiologoi. Scholarly literature on the period explicitly refers to the ‘’‘Albanian subjects of the Despotate’’’. These were Albanian-speaking populations living within a Byzantine political territory; describing them simply as settlers “from Greece” replaces their contemporary political and ethnolinguistic setting with a later national geography.

Where the population concerned came from the Morea under Byzantine rule, the article should say:

“Albanian/Arvanite communities of the Byzantine Despotate of the Morea”

or simply:

“Arvanite communities of the Morea”

Where other migration streams are concerned, the historically appropriate polity or region should likewise be used — Albania, Epirus, Venetian-controlled territories, the Morea, etc. “Greece” should not function as a catch-all retrospective national label for fifteenth-century populations.

This is particularly important for the Arbëresh because their migration history was multiple. The dedicated Arbëresh material itself describes migrations involving Albania, Epirus, the Morea, Attica and other Albanian-speaking communities. Reducing this to Arbëresh “largely” descending from settlers “from Greece” is both historically imprecise and inconsistent with the fuller migration history.

This is not solved by changing the phrase to “present-day Greece.” The article is discussing medieval population history. Where the relevant historical polity and region are known, Wikipedia should name them rather than organizing the narrative around the borders of a state created centuries later.

‘’‘3. Modern Greek identity must not be used retroactively to redefine medieval linguistic origin’’’

The article needs to maintain a clear distinction between:

• the medieval Albanian-speaking populations documented in the Morea and elsewhere;
• the political entities in which those populations lived;
• subsequent centuries of linguistic and cultural integration;
• and the modern Greek national identification of most Arvanites.

All four can coexist without contradiction.

The fact that modern Arvanites generally identify nationally as Greeks does not convert the Albanian-speaking subjects of the Byzantine Despotate of the Morea into medieval Greeks in an ethnolinguistic sense, nor does geographical departure from the Morea make an Arbëresh migration a migration “from Greece” in the modern national sense.

Wikipedia should describe each historical period in its own terms rather than allowing the endpoint of a later national integration process to determine the terminology used for earlier populations.

‘’‘4. The language comparison is stated as an unsupported absolute’’’

The Arvanitika article states:

“the unintelligible elements of the two dialects stem from the usage of Italian or Greek modernisms in the absence of native ones.”

This is too categorical. Arbëresh and Arvanitika have been separated for centuries. Their differences cannot simply be reduced to Italian versus Greek loan vocabulary. Independent phonological, grammatical, semantic and lexical developments also occur in separated language varieties, and the article’s following paragraph itself acknowledges variation in mutual intelligibility.

A defensible formulation would be:

“Arbëresh and Arvanitika share substantial inherited Tosk Albanian vocabulary, while centuries of independent development and prolonged contact with Italian and Greek respectively have produced additional differences.”

The articles should therefore be revised to remove or date and attribute the unsupported present-tense “many Arvanites” generalisations; eliminate unnecessary repetition of the same 1995 identity claim; replace medieval “from Greece” language with the actual historical region or polity, particularly the Byzantine Despotate of the Morea where applicable; describe the Arbëresh migrations as multiple Albanian-speaking migration streams rather than reducing them to an origin “from Greece”; keep modern Arvanite Greek national identity clearly separate from medieval Albanian linguistic and population history; and replace the categorical claim about Arbëresh–Arvanitika intelligibility with wording reflecting both inherited Tosk commonality and independent development.

These are matters of source scope, historical chronology, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The current wording should not remain simply because later national geography provides a convenient shorthand for populations living centuries before the modern state existed.

~2026-46629-03 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

A country called "Greece" in that region existed long, long before the 19th century; I don't think it is reasonable to expect that "Greece" can only refer to the modern nation state and nothing else. Remember that we do write for a general audience and the average reader will have no idea what "the Byzantine Despotate of the Morea" means - most will probably not even know that it refers to any kind of region at all, as opposed to, e.g., a diplomat, a military officer, or a flavour of soup. Greece is generally conceived of as having been Greece for more than 3,000 years; that it was ruled by diverse empires at diverse times doesn't negate that, and confining "country" to "nation state" is unreasonably restrictive and itself anachronistic.

I somewhat agree with your point about the 1995 source, but I would also say that unless there's good reason to believe that the general mindset of this people has changed significantly in the last 30 years, the default assumption should be that it hasn't. I don't know if it has or not, but I do think it would be wrong to assume it has for no other reason than "it's been 30 years". ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

One more point on anachronism: English sources written in the 15th century would have called that part of the world "Greece" (or possibly "Turkey"), so the anachronism claim really doesn't hold up; a valid argument could be made for it being incorrect, but not for it being anachronistic. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Ayyubid dynasty origins section (source misrepresentation)

Article: Ayyubid dynasty Talk page discussion: Talk:Ayyubid dynasty (multiple detailed posts over several weeks, no substantive response)

Issue:

The Origins section presents a contested hypothesis as established fact and misrepresents Vladimir Minorsky, Boris James, and Encyclopaedia Iranica.

Current Wikipedia text “The Rawadiya were of originally Arab origin but became Kurdicized over time. … the historian Vladimir Minorsky argued that they reflect an underlying historical reality. He suggested the Rawadiya Kurds to be descendants of the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī…”

What Minorsky actually wrote

• Studies in Caucasian History, p. 123:

“The Rawadis were Kurds, and the Hadhbani tribe are several times mentioned as their supporters. It is tempting to think that the Rawadi clan to which Saladin’s ancestors belonged came to Dvin under the aegis of the Rawadis, or that they were local Kurds who became associated with the lords of Tabriz…”

pp. 128–130:“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.”

Minorsky never states that the Rawādiya of the Ayyubids were of Arab origin or genealogical descendants of Rawwād al-Azdī. He only suggests a possible association/clientage that may explain the clan name.

Boris James (Saladin et les Kurdes, pp. 48–49) Explicitly says “Plusieurs thèses s’opposent” (several competing theories exist). He attributes to Minorsky the view that Hadhbānī Kurds in the service of the Rawwadids “prirent le nom de leurs maîtres: Rawâdiyya” and then discusses alternative explanations. He does not treat it as established fact.

Encyclopaedia Iranica Distinguishes the original Arab Rawwād family from the later Kurdicized Rawwadids and the Kurdish Rawād tribe. It states that only *some* Ayyubids later sponsored Arab/Umayyad genealogies.

request Uninvolved editors: does the current wording accurately and proportionately reflect the cited sources under WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V? A more precise alternative has already been proposed on the talk page.

Previously involved editors: @Al Ameer son, R Prazeres, and Robert McClenon: KurdishFalconeer (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum at this point, and appears to be forum shopping. There was a discussion at DRN. The discussion at DRN resulted in a three-part RFC. The editor who is filing this request took part in the RFC, but their posts were collapsed as having been generated by artificial intelligence. The RFC was closed, and the close was contrary to what the OP had said. The close probably would have been against the OP even if their posts had not been collapsed. If the OP disagrees with the close of the RFC, the standard procedure is an RFC close challenge at WP:AN, not a new thread in a new forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If the OP in particular wants to challenge the finding that their posts were generated by artificial intelligence, the proper forum is probably the artificial intelligence noticeboard, not NPOVN, although I don't think that would have changed the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, As a newer editor, I was trying to seek uninvolved input on source verification and was unaware that the incorrect venue following the prior RfC close. I assure you I was acting in good faith and not attempting to forum shop.

I will withdraw/close this NPOVN request and follow the standard procedural channels regarding the RfC close and the collapse of inputs. Thank you for pointing me toward WP:AN and WP:AINB. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Public Storage

A quick summary of the issue:

Page: Public Storage

Talk Link: Talk:Public_Storage#Recent_Edits_2

Disclosure: I have a disclosed conflict of interest (I work for Public Storage)

Issue (from my view): Repeated content-blanking of well-cited content and adding of uncited content. Generally, removes most content that is not controversies and makes the Operations section exclusively focused on Controversies. Appears to be a recurring issue.

Request: @Czarking0: has already started some conversation. Would love for more editor(s) to get involved to form a clear consensus. Geoffreyvee (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Kahlil Seren — due weight and balance in mayoral-tenure section

Reliable independent sources document substantial policy, infrastructure and development work during Seren’s tenure that is entirely absent from the article. Representative examples include:

• Paid parental leave and civil-rights reforms. In June 2022, Cleveland Heights enacted legislation establishing paid parental and childbirth leave for full-time city employees, including non-birth, adoptive and foster parents. Seren also signed measures prohibiting conversion therapy and discrimination in city contracts.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-heights-passes-laws-to-ban-conversion-therapy-and-lgbtqia-discrimination-and-expand-parental-leave

• Cain Park investment and renovations. Cleveland 19 reported that the city received a $390,000 National Park Service grant for Cain Park renovations and specifically noted that Seren had made investing in Cain Park a priority. His administration also advanced the $1.292 million federally funded ADA-access ramp and tiered-seating project.

https://www.cleveland19.com/2024/09/27/cleveland-heights-awarded-money-cain-park-renovations/

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cuyahoga-county/cleveland-heights-cain-park-construction-ada-accessible-ramp-new-seating-area/95-cc165ec5-1575-41a8-b670-75eaf304d934

• Leopardo Energy contract. Seren’s administration selected Leopardo Energy following a request-for-proposals process and began the partnership in 2023. The resulting $17 million energy-efficiency project covered renovations to five city facilities, upgrades at Cain Park, LED streetlight replacements and other improvements. Leopardo guaranteed $33.6 million in operational and energy savings over twenty years. Seren introduced the legislation authorizing the contract.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/we-follow-through/out-of-state-energy-company-promises-to-save-cleveland-heights-millions-of-dollars-with-citywide-renovations

• Park Synagogue/Park Arts redevelopment. During Seren’s administration, the city spent several years advancing the planning, rezoning and development approvals necessary to redevelop the historic Park Synagogue property as an arts, educational and residential campus. Seren introduced the development-plan legislation and later proposed a $1.25 million city loan and a $750,000 public-improvements grant. Because the final financing agreement was approved after Seren left office, the article should state that his administration advanced the project rather than suggesting that he completed it.

https://www.ideastream.org/community/2025-07-29/commentary-cleveland-heights-shouldnt-let-political-strife-hurt-park-synagogue-restoration

https://www.clevelandheights.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19979

• Safe Streets initiative. Spectrum News reported that Seren prioritized neighborhood traffic safety beginning in 2022, including reducing the speed limit on residential sections from 35 to 25 mph. The city later received an $800,000 federal Safe Streets and Roads for All grant and committed a $200,000 city match, providing $1 million for pedestrian and cyclist safety improvements.

https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2024/11/18/cleveland-heights-aims-to-improve-road-safety-for-pedestrians--cyclists

These substantive initiatives are documented by independent sources and represent significant parts of Seren’s governing record. Their omission leaves the mayoral-tenure section overwhelmingly focused on controversies. Uninvolved editors should review the section under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, summarize the excessively detailed controversy material, and add proportionate coverage of his administration’s policy, infrastructure and development work. ~2026-44813-11 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are you raising this here? Is there someone who has objected to adding this information? All this doesn't seem to be controversial. Alaexis_¿question? 09:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

They have a self disclosed COI User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why this was raised at the NPOV noticeboard. There was no discussion at the article talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 09:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)