🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

    Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:
    Start a new discussion

    Discussion at far-left politics

    [edit]

    There is a discussion needing input at Talk:Far-left politics#Covering right-wing extremism in the United States in this article about whether to include a graph in the article comparing far-left and far-right murders in the United States. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not graph, one paragraph of prose. No one thinks that the crazy captions are going to be a thing and they have not subsequently received support, after being removed. But inserting the statements has received support. It's really about prose content. The files are indeed suitable illustrations for it. If the paragraph should be added, so should the illustrations. They are a subsidiary issue.—Alalch E. 23:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See I kind of understand how we got here: there has been a lot of pressure from right-wing figures to put a recently conducted study that (bad science journalism) has claimed shows 2025 as a year in which left-wing terrorism has outstripped right-wing terrorism in the United States into a variety of articles about the political left.
    This study is deeply flawed. First of all 2025 is not complete. Second the examples of left-wing terrorism include the shooting of Brian Thompson (terrorism charges were dropped against the suspect who appears not to have been particularly left-wing) and the shooting of Charlie Kirk (for which the trial has not even begun which makes the question of terrorism premature). The most remarkable finding of the study is actually, rather, that right-wing terrorism in the United States is far lower in 2025 than in past years. This is partly due to redefinition of terms and partly for reasons that the study failed to speculate upon.
    But this has led a whole lot of people to quite rightly want to demonstrate that the situation, per scientific consensus, is far different from the one badly-constructed 2025 study that has become a point of faith in the right-wing. Of course, all of this, the study, the findings of the study and how that study correlates with the received body of scientific knowledge is highly Americentric. And the principal legitimate neutrality complaint about inclusion of this information on this page is its Americentrism. Far-left politics is not about far-left politics in the United States in specific.
    I understand the impulse to want to protect information about the political left from POV pushing but it does appear that, in this case, the cart is rather before the horse. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • From uploader of charts: To summarize a rather long section: The disputed charts visually represent countless sources that refute Trumpian false claims after Charlie Kirk's killing that left-wing political violence is worse, and supposedly justifies clamping down on any left-wing organization. The claims have been compared from across the political spectrum with the Reichstag fire that Hitler used as a pretext to restrict civil liberties, and have been described as "page 1 of the authoritarian playbook" (sources). The implications clearly go beyond the US, even if the data are taken from the one country that is supposedly the exemplary democracy. Separately, I proposed moving text from image captions to the article's narrative, to respond to formal objections. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am going to be honest: on this page, specifically, I think the text is undue - as would be the right-wing claims I mentioned above. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      With all due respect, this comment clearly demonstrates an approach to writing the article that is at odds with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RGW, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. The purpose of Far-left politics as an article is to provide a comprehensive, historical and international view of the subject, not to respond to Trump's talking point du jour. If anywhere, this sort of comparative analysis would perhaps be appropriate at Political violence. Discussion of and comparisons to right wing violence in a section such as Far-left_politics#Far-left_terrorism if and only if the RS that form the backbone of such a section take up the question of comparing far-left terrorism to far-right terrorism (although in reviewing the section quickly now, it seems like there's some conflation of "terrorism" and "violence" that may need to be cleaned up). signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that quite a lot of this editor's contributions involves the creation of charts designed to make a point and then placing them across several articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. RCraig09 should stop adding what he thinks the article should say as captions instead of integrating his original sourced content as prose. RCraig09 senses that what he wants to add cannot be integrated into running text and the normal structure of an article, because it does not naturally belong in the given article. So, he formats his text addition as a prose sidebar using (rather, misusing) the wikitext markup for images, such that his new prose is purportedly a caption. To justify such insertions he creates original images, to accompany this new text he had added. As a result of all this, the captions are not captions, they are sidebars (side text boxes), as they are known in journalism and publishing (on Wikipedia "sidebars" are for navigation only), and the added images do not illustrate the article, i.e., the body of the article, but illustrate the text in the sidebar. —Alalch E. 10:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa. The location of the text (in caption vs in narrative text) is a formal matter, not a substantive one, and I did propose moving text from caption to narrative. All multi-year data I've encountered in research point in one direction, and exist regardless of Trump's blurt du jour. Countless sources, not just I, "make the point", which has relevance across numerous WP articles. The most recent comments here are personal in nature, and though the US data clearly has worldwide implications I do appreciate the issue of US-centrism and see a consensus on that point. I have formally conceded the point on the Talk Page. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The caption/in-text discrepancy is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is hand-picking political arguments, and then putting them into several articles at once, prioritizing aspects that an editor has judged to be important based on their own opinion. I also have mandate (politics) on my watchlist, and I see you've added a WP:COATRACK about Donald Trump on that article as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The chart contains useful information, but is begins with the year 1975 and that is old data. LDW5432 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but it is interesting to see the historical trend lines. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the comparisons and I do get annoyed when people invoke "the science" as someone in science-genetics' specifically is a lot of this data is tampered with. The left and the right love to adjust numbers and figures to make their side look good and the other side look worse. I think any graphic on Wikipedia that is suppose demonstrate increases or decreases in terrorism should also probably come with a caption of where the data was pulled from and how it was analyzed also how many people/or situations were analyzed looking at a case study with 1000 participants is a lot different than one of 10,000 versus 100,000 etc. In addition this information will also probably vary by region. For instance the Pacific Northwest has a different profile than Texas. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Zaza language

    [edit]

    Hi, I believe the Zaza language article has significant issues with neutral point of view. There are 2-3 editors constantly reinserting and trying to maintain an unilateral view and removing other views and references. The article has been consistently subject to vandalism and non-neutral, biased edits for years. Although Zaza language is classified as a separate Northwestern Iraninan language by all major and prominent linguistic databases/sources, SIL, Glottolog, Ethnologue and many other linguists studied the Zaza language, there are 2-3 editors constantly and insistently removing the view that Zaza language is a Northwestern Iranian language, separate from Kurdish langauge, and adding the view that Zaza is a Kurdish dialect/language. None of the major and leading linguistic sources classify Zazaki as a dialect of Kurdish or a Kurdish language. As you can see here, Kurdish is classified into three main dialects; northern, central and southern, by all major and prominent linguistic databases: Ethnologue, SIL, Glottolog. In the article, the reference in which Ludwig Paul demonstrated that Zaza is a separate Northwestern Iranian language and Zaza is not a Kurdish dialect/langauge is distorted. The second of the reference in the first sentence of the classification section indicates Zazaki as a separate northwestern Iranian language. The first source contains only a diagram without offering any linguistic analysis. My contributions are being removed for simple reasons, here, here etc. And here, all the content I added was removed by the same 2-3 users, slowly, piece by piece. This version contained a very detailed and valuable analysis of the language. Now, the views and analysis of linguists who have specifically studied Zaza language are not included in the article, there are only distorted sources and sources of no linguistic value. The Zazas article also has the same NPOV problem. Under these circumstances, I don't know how to contribute and add other opinions. I'm sure, if I reinstate this version or I add any source that classifies Zaza as a separate Northwestern Iranian langauge, the same 2-3 users will remove it directly or will remove it piece by piece. I would appreciate perspective from any and all. Vuzorg (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You have for years now been disruptive on Zaza language. Making few tweaks to your disruptive edits is not helping you. Semsûrî (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little reminder: NPA, CIVILITY, HARASS, OWN.
    1. Why do you remove all the warning messages left on your message page by Wiki users?
    2. Why do you leave warning messages on others users' message pages but you delete the ones left on your page?
    3. Why do you remove even the slightest changes in the article Zaza language, without any analysis and reason? HERE
    4. Why do you delete my contributions?
    5. Why do you remove alternative views from article the Zaza langauge?
    6. Why do you remove well-sourced content?
    7. What is your evidence that I have for years now been disruptive on the article Zaza language for years?
    8. Why are you talking like ... is not helping you? CIVILITY again.
    All this is cyberbullying, wikimobbing. Vuzorg (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Vuzorg here. 2806:107E:1E:2430:18E6:BBD3:3542:CADE (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I would like to help build consensus here but it is not obvious what any of your links are trying to convey. Especially the seemingly problematic edits in question are not obvious as to what they changed. The ISO entry "ISO 639-3" does technically settle the dialect v. separate language debate by assigning it a "macrolanguage" status per one of the sources presented above. Hope this helps. Kvinnen (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion @Kvinnen. I've improved the article however while the article had more and many issues previously it still has some problems. Especially user Semsûrî's unending revokes and removes without any analysis or rewiew on the article was the main problem. That pattern of usage was a very grave violation of ownership of content policy. The policy clearly states: no one, no matter what, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article or have any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. User Semsûrî used to revoke and remove sources that classify Zaza as a distinct language among Iranian languages, another user, Berf u Baran also has the same usage pattern here and here. Semsûrî, on the othe hand, also, has a plenty of this kind of revokes and removes of well-sourced contents on the Zaza and related articles. All can be seen in the history sections and their contributions. They don't offer any good reason for removing and revokings by the way, only except for acussing users of disruptive usage (what, which and how distruptive? no answer.)
    Basically, If I hadn't brought this issue here, Semsûrî wouldn't stop and would continue to removes and revokes without good reasons. I brought the issue here, and they stopped and I was able to contribute to articles and I've improved the article.
    The classification section, at the moment, has significant neutral point of view issues. None of the Iranologists studied Zaza classifies Zaza as a dialect of Kurdish or Persian. In Iranology, Zaza was classified as a distinct northwestern Iranian language among about 40 Western Iranian languages. And there are only theories left after this. Beyond that, some sources classify Zaza as a distinct subgroup among northwestern Iranian languages, some suggest a subgroup of Zaza- Gorani (this subgroup was criticized), some classify Zaza in an Adharic subgroup of northwestern Iranian languages consisting of Zaza, Tat, Talysh, some classify in an Hyrkanian subgroup consisting of Zaza, Semnani, Baloch etc. None of the linguistic authorities, Glottolog, SIL, Ethnologue nor Iranology, classify Zaza as a dialect of Kurdish or Persian.
    One of the two sources used in the classification section, this one clearly states that: "...most scholars specializing in Zāzāki view it as a distinct language. Both Borjian (p.c. 2014) and Stilo (p.c. 2014) see Zāzāki and Gorāni as closer to Northwestern language groups other than Kurdish – especially Tāti – than to Kurdish. Because of this uncertainty, the classification of this group would benefit from further investigation." And while it also states "Windfuhr (2009) places Zāzāki and Gorāni together with Kurdish", however, neither Windfuhr's study nor Paul's study on Zaza in the Windfuhr's classify Zaza as a dialect of Kurdish, in contrast, both demonstrate that Zaza is not a dialect of Kurdish but a distinct language. The other source also does not classify Zaza as a Kurdish dialect and does not offer any linguistic examination in depth. Briefly, both sources were distorted while bringing them to the article and have S (verifiability, burden etc.) issues. The Paul source also were highly distorted. Contrary to classifying Zaza as a Kurdish language, Paul always classifies Zaza as a distinct language from Kurdish and clearly demonstrates Zaza's differences from Kurdish and Persian. And moreover, the section does not offer prominent linguistic authorities views and views of linguists specializing in Zaza. Distorted sources and one-sided conted have been added there as if they were the only truth. Briefly at the moment the classification section should be corrected and edited in accordance with Iranology's stance on the issue and Wiki policies.
    Thank you. Vuzorg (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Prop 50 introduction does not include criticism. As usual: Ideological bias on Wikipedia

    [edit]

    The fact that the introduction of Prop 50 doesnt include criticism is insane. Its almost like Wikipedia is partisan. I request that the WP:LEAD include acknowledgment of the criticism. 192.184.151.41 (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You are more welcome to make edits on that article, but you will need to justify the addition of any material with references to policies. The lead section isn't to make a political statement, as Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, it is to summarize the main ideas in the article so that the reader has an expectation of what further information they are able to find in the article. See MOS:INTRO. I'm not exactly sure sort of "criticism" you expect the lead to include that complies with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. Katzrockso (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The content of an article's introduction is dependent on the content of the article body. It is meant to be a summary of the article body. See WP:LEAD. You could argue that the article body is missing some content and/or that the introduction does not properly summarize the existing article body. But statements about an introduction as if it is an isolated, independent thing with no reference to the article body (as presented by things like Google's "Knowledge Panel", or AI summaries, tools Wikipedia has no control over) don't really make sense from a Wikipedia perspective. A singular focus on what an introduction says regardless of article body content is often a red flag in Wikipedia. It is associated with non-neutral, partisan editing, and attempts to influence the content of external things like knowledge panes/AI summaries. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles include whatever editors there think it should include. A lack of inclusion doesnt mean anything. It just may not have been done yet. This should be brought up there if it hasnt already. ←Metallurgist (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding one or two sentences of criticism seems to be WP:DUE based on the current iteration of the page. This was a very contentious issue nationally, so the page could be expanded on both sides of the ideological spectrum. But to everyone else's point, summary changes need to be based on what the body of a page looks like at a given moment. One follows the other! Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead in its current form looks pretty unproblematic to me and seems to be informative rather than having any real bias one way or the other. Looks like there is a Support, Opposition, and Neutral subsections under the Campaign section further down in the article. There would need to be rationale for criticism/support in these sections or other places in the article before including it in the lead per MOS:LEAD since the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article. Have you tried making edits to the article or discussing this on the talkpage? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Review—Possible Fan and Unneutral Bias

    [edit]
    OP hasn't edited in almost three weeks, and has expressed a lack of interest in editing WP. Since it has since been named a Good Article, I'll assume the bias concerns have been addressed there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    I am writing regarding the pages on Kpop Demon Hunters the film, and the page on its lead single, Golden.

    The pages read with wording that often sounds akin to promotional language and occasionally fan-like bias. I am not an expert or an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I wanted to point this out because I often turn to Wikipedia for neutral and well-researched perspectives on pop culture topics—especially when they are trending—and I was not able to find an objective perspective on this page.


    Just a things that stood out to me, starting with the most visible:

    • The Wikipedia article only contains the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores, with no mention of the film’s 3.6 Letterboxd score in the “Critical Response” section.

    • The negative critical response of the film is minimized, and the overall section reads like a fan’s preference. Only half of the last paragraph contains three mixed comments. These reviews are ambivalent rather than negative—mixing a “short runtime” critique with praise for the “worldbuilding and lovable characters.” The second review calls the short runtime “a fatal flaw” but also a “boon at points,” and says the film is only “slightly underwhelming” because of the “lovable characters.” The final mention of a negative element is about “occasional tonal whiplash.”

    • All three of these “negative” comments come from critics (Garcia, Chapman, and Goldberg) who had already given largely positive reviews and are cited elsewhere on the page—such as Garcia’s praise of the soundtrack’s “overly infectious melodies,” which is also referenced on the Golden page. With only these three mildly critical comments drawn from otherwise positive reviews, the article gives the impression that there was no meaningful critical backlash.

    • The “Critical Response” section includes only half a paragraph of negative commentary, while positive reviews—typically summarized as “generally positive reception”—are written out in extreme detail.

    • In reality, there were several critical reviews of the film from both professional critics and the general public, including commentary on its “propaganda-like” depiction of the K-pop industry, its avoidance of mental health themes, and issues with pacing and writing. Many of these are reflected in the Letterboxd score, which is not mentioned.

    For example:

    Sam Jennings, a film critic at the Metropolitan review critiqued the film's hyper processed pace "made for people with the shortest attention spans imaginable," and that it ignores the "darker reality" of the way the industry "train[s] young pop stars and sell[s] their talent as a corporate spectacle to stadiums," https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2025/09/the-dark-heart-of-kpop-demon-hunters

    The above is actually a critique that lowered the film's critic letterboxed score.

    Michael Li at Film Purgatory (an Editor’s Pick) called the film “an unoriginal story and a shallow approach… a flashy corporate sellout to appeal to K-pop fans,” also noting its “uniquely grotesque animation.”

    None of these more critical viewpoints—or even a general sense that some critics took issue with the animation—are reflected in the article.

    Additionally, the second half of the final paragraph in the “Critical Response” section, after the single “occasional tonal whiplash” comment, pivots to describing the film’s overwhelming success and claims that “Sony made an incredible mistake letting it go.” This feels like fan cherry-picking, emphasizing every positive comment while being reluctant to include anything less flattering.

    Instead of something more neutral, such as:

    “KPop Demon Hunters received wide acclaim from both critics and audiences, who praised its animation, music, voice acting, and story. The film’s acclaim led Netflix to make it a rare theatrical release," the article currently reads with a sense of overwrought bloat and promotional enthusiasm.

    Especially in the fandom-related sections, much of the writing reads like social media commentary or fan essays: “The film has been noted as a cultural phenomenon,” “Dance sequences went viral on TikTok,” and “The film’s success was also seen as a ‘watershed moment for representation.’” These are points frequently echoed by fans but not necessarily relevant or encyclopedic for inclusion.

    The same issue is even more pronounced on the Golden page, which contains no criticism whatsoever—just eight reviews of glowing praise and record-breaking details. This gives the impression of promotional writing rather than balanced coverage.


    Across both pages, there is little sense of objectivity. The writing occasionally includes embedded opinions, excessive name-dropping of other artists for comparison, and a tone that at times feels triumphant or proud of the film’s success.

    The “Production” section, for example, includes expanded directorial opinions that appear in the film’s Oscar campaign press materials, rather than production-specific details typical of film pages. While most lines are factual, the level of commentary and sourcing feels more aligned with marketing than documentation.

    To give one clear example:

    “...drawing on elements of mythology, demonology, and K-pop to craft a visually distinct and culturally rooted film.”

    The latter part (“visually distinct and culturally rooted”) reads as opinion rather than neutral description.

    Another instance:

    “Billboard noted that ‘following the soundtrack’s second-week streaming explosion, Republic hustled to have "Golden" impact top 40 radio stations’ on July 8.” This is oddly specific for an opening paragraph, as is the vague: “...and was named a cultural phenomenon by several publications.” Both sound promotional and unnecessary in the lead.


    In general, there are small tonal slips throughout—none are egregious individually, but together they make the article feel more celebratory than encyclopedic. I believe a more distanced editorial review could help bring the article back into alignment with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and objectivity.

    I appreciate the work that goes into maintaining pages like these and am only raising these concerns in the spirit of improving the article’s overall neutrality and professionalism. Lordonlyknowssopleasehelpsus (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Lordonlyknowssopleasehelpsus, welcome to Wikipedia! We rely on review aggregators like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes because they're well-known and because they do a decent job of summarizing the reviews of professional critics. Letterboxd, on the other hand, is a social media review site where the ratings are based on user scores. Even "Pro" accounts on Letterboxd are just regular users who have paid for the extra flair.
    As for the specific reviews mentioned in the article, they appear to be pulled from highlighted reviews on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. We can't include every review, of course. KPop Demon Hunters has a high score on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes because most professional critics liked the film, and many reliable sources have written about its wide acclaim. As such, it should be expected that we'll give prominence to more positive reviews than negative. Note that on Wikipedia, our Neutral Point of View policy means that we balance coverage around the prominence of reliable sources. We don't intentionally, say, pick 5 positive reviews and 5 negative reviews, because that would give articles a false balance that doesn't represent the actual viewpoint of available sources.
    A quick note about that Sam Jennings review. I see that it's currently one of the top negative reviews highlighted by Rotten Tomatoes. Something to keep in mind is that it was published on September 14th, nearly 3 months after the film came out—and also 3 months after the "Critical response" section was initially added to the article. I doubt anyone is checking Rotten Tomatoes for more reviews to add to the article. If you think that this review better summarizes the negative aspects of the film, a better place to suggest that is at the article's talk page, Talk:KPop Demon Hunters.
    I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification! I understand about reliable sourcing and proportional coverage.
    My concern is less about which reviews are included and more about how the section reads overall.
    Even if most critics were positive, the way their comments are presented—with stacked praise and a somewhat promotional tone—might still stray from WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. I understand the reasoning about reliable critics, but that doesn’t seem to line up with some of the other sources cited. The io9 piece by Isaiah Colbert, for example, reads more like a blog-style feature than a formal critic’s review. Colbert’s byline describes him as “a former Kotaku writer who loves to write about anime and post good takes on the internet,” suggesting he’s an entertainment writer rather than a professional film critic. While io9 may be reliable for general entertainment coverage, this particular piece doesn’t really fall within the “critical response” context you mentioned, and may merit less weight under WP:RS/ENT and WP:NPOV.
    My concern isn’t the inclusion of these sources per se, but that their presence shows the threshold for “professional review” in this article is already broad. As such, the reliance on only positive excerpts still raises a WP:NPOV balance issue. It reads more as a search for positive reviews than, as you say, a natural “prominence.”
    Also noting that the Empire review by Kelechi Ehenulo (published September 17 and retrieved October 5) was added after the film’s release—which shows that the article has been updated with later reviews, even later than the one I mentioned.
    I realize ongoing updates like chart data or awards are different in nature, but their recency indicates that editors are actively maintaining the page. So it feels inconsistent to suggest that later critical reviews weren’t added simply because “no one’s been checking.”
    My concern is that the pattern of additions—especially when later updates skew positives—may unintentionally affect balance under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
    I believe I already made a note on the Talk page, but the procedural navigation is still a bit new to me, since I mostly just wanted to raise the concern—so apologies if I didn’t place it quite right.
    I’d suggest condensing or summarizing some of the quotes for balance and readability. It’s more about the skewed subtext across the page than a simple matter of the number or date of individual sources.
    I hope this helps clarify my point! Lordonlyknowssopleasehelpsus (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    io9 is a blog, yes, and it's generally well regarded. They do film and television reviews, and that review was among the 87 critic reviews highlighted by Rotten Tomatoes. I don't know what kind of reviews you typically read, but they can and are all over the place as far as tone goes. For example, a snippet from one review on Metacritic reads "The action sequences are fluid and immersive, the art is frequently striking and the music (catchy, if formulaic earworms) is a properly wielded and dynamic storytelling tool." That strikes me, personally, as strong praise, perhaps even promotional if written as ad copy—but it also strikes me as very, very normal. And, believe it or not, it's from The New York Times. Again, this film was very well received by critics, so it's expected that quoted reviews will include praise. Read through List of films considered the worst and you'll find the opposite.
    Perhaps you'd have to spend some time on Wikipedia to know it, but chart data and award updates are very different from most article content. Some editors do almost nothing but update review scores, YouTube subscriber counts and views, sports scores, and so on. After any major award, other editors add wins to every relevant article. For a humorous essay on this tendency, see Wikipedia:WikiGnome. Woodroar (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the follow-up. I’ll leave it at this—my concern isn’t about any one review’s tone, but about cumulative presentation and proportionality under WP:NPOV. I think that actually helps illustrate my concern about how tone and proportionality come across in the current presentation. Hopefully future edits keep that balance in mind. I hope this context is useful going forward, if a professional editor cares to look in the future. Thanks for taking the time—I think the discussion itself illustrates the tone concerns pretty well. Lordonlyknowssopleasehelpsus (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The reception section is VERY robust right now. Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am writing regarding the pages on Kpop Demon Hunters the film, and the page on its lead single, Golden...The pages read with wording that often sounds akin to promotional language and occasionally fan-like bias. I am not an expert or an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I wanted to point this out because I often turn to Wikipedia for neutral and well-researched perspectives on pop culture topics—especially when they are trending—and I was not able to find an objective perspective on this page.

    What is this claim based on? Your own opinion? How can you say the page isn't well-resourced? There's so many editors and so many sources which have been cited.

    The Wikipedia article only contains the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores, with no mention of the film’s 3.6 Letterboxd score in the “Critical Response” section.

    Letterboxd is not more reliable than the others, in fact I'd say it is less reliable. Also, what is the problem with containing those scores?

    The negative critical response of the film is minimized, and the overall section reads like a fan’s preference. Only half of the last paragraph contains three mixed comments. These reviews are ambivalent rather than negative—mixing a “short runtime” critique with praise for the “worldbuilding and lovable characters.” The second review calls the short runtime “a fatal flaw” but also a “boon at points,” and says the film is only “slightly underwhelming” because of the “lovable characters.” The final mention of a negative element is about “occasional tonal whiplash.”

    Most reviews of the film are positive and the response from the audience has been overwhelming. That is a fact. I don't know where this "negative critical response" claim is coming from, because when I've read reviews of this film, from various sources, there have been few criticisms from critics.

    All three of these “negative” comments come from critics (Garcia, Chapman, and Goldberg) who had already given largely positive reviews and are cited elsewhere on the page—such as Garcia’s praise of the soundtrack’s “overly infectious melodies,” which is also referenced on the Golden page. With only these three mildly critical comments drawn from otherwise positive reviews, the article gives the impression that there was no meaningful critical backlash.

    What is the problem with mixed reviews? What's the issue with reviewers giving them? I don't get the issue with this. Where's the evidence there was a "meaningful critical backlash." You provide no sources to back this claim.

    The “Critical Response” section includes only half a paragraph of negative commentary, while positive reviews—typically summarized as “generally positive reception”—are written out in extreme detail.

    That's because that is how critics have responded to the film. A critical response section is a snapshot of critical commentary of a film, or other piece of media. It is never required to include every single review of a film in existence.

    In reality, there were several critical reviews of the film from both professional critics and the general public, including commentary on its “propaganda-like” depiction of the K-pop industry, its avoidance of mental health themes, and issues with pacing and writing. Many of these are reflected in the Letterboxd score, which is not mentioned.

    It's possible that such reviews exist, but I have to be skeptical because you don't even provide sources. Your own source are self-generated reviews on Letterboxd, which are not allowed, as noted at WP:SPS. Where are these "critical reviews" you speak of? If you are going to make claims like this, then provide sources. The only reviews you cite are by the New Statesman and Film Purgatory. The latter source, when you look on the website, provides no information about editors. So, I have to say, via WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:UGC, at the very least, that the source is not reliable. The New Statesman review is good, but I have to wonder if it would even add anything (especially since it is the first review this individual has even written for the publication), as it is only twelve paragraphs long, and there are many other reviews which are more detailed and would be helpful for readers. The claim that "none of these more critical viewpoints—or even a general sense that some critics took issue with the animation—are reflected in the article" is not true. There is criticism in the article.

    Additionally, the second half of the final paragraph in the “Critical Response” section, after the single “occasional tonal whiplash” comment, pivots to describing the film’s overwhelming success and claims that “Sony made an incredible mistake letting it go.” This feels like fan cherry-picking, emphasizing every positive comment while being reluctant to include anything less flattering. Instead of something more neutral, such as: “KPop Demon Hunters received wide acclaim from both critics and audiences, who praised its animation, music, voice acting, and story. The film’s acclaim led Netflix to make it a rare theatrical release," the article currently reads with a sense of overwrought bloat and promotional enthusiasm.

    I'm not sure how these changes would do anything? Calling it cherry-picking and emphasizing positive comments is insulting to the editors who worked on that page. The proposed sentence you made has already been incorporated into the article. Of course there is going to be a lot of commentary in the article, and of course it is going to be long. That's the nature of the article because it has become a popular phenomenon.

    Especially in the fandom-related sections, much of the writing reads like social media commentary or fan essays: “The film has been noted as a cultural phenomenon,” “Dance sequences went viral on TikTok,” and “The film’s success was also seen as a ‘watershed moment for representation.’” These are points frequently echoed by fans but not necessarily relevant or encyclopedic for inclusion.

    It has bee documented as a cultural phenomenon. The film's dance sequences have gone viral on TikTok. Saying the film's success was a "watershed moment for representation" was citing a reliable source. You can keep trying to pull the article apart and claim it echoes fans, but you aren't doing a good job at making your case. It just seems like you are rambling.

    The same issue is even more pronounced on the Golden page, which contains no criticism whatsoever—just eight reviews of glowing praise and record-breaking details. This gives the impression of promotional writing rather than balanced coverage.

    Again, nothing is suggested to improve the page. How is including positive reviews "promotional writing"? If reviews are positive, Wikipedia needs to add them, regardless of our own personal feelings on said media. That's the reality. You clearly have no idea how this site works.

    Across both pages, there is little sense of objectivity. The writing occasionally includes embedded opinions, excessive name-dropping of other artists for comparison, and a tone that at times feels triumphant or proud of the film’s success.

    You are reading far too much into this article, almost claiming it is pushing some agenda. Sorry, the article isn't doing that. Nope.

    The “Production” section, for example, includes expanded directorial opinions that appear in the film’s Oscar campaign press materials, rather than production-specific details typical of film pages. While most lines are factual, the level of commentary and sourcing feels more aligned with marketing than documentation.

    If there are expanded directorial opinions, that would help people understand the text more. he claim this "feels more aligned with marketing than documentation" is again another insult of editors who worked hard on this page.

    To give one clear example: “...drawing on elements of mythology, demonology, and K-pop to craft a visually distinct and culturally rooted film.” The latter part (“visually distinct and culturally rooted”) reads as opinion rather than neutral description.

    I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here. How is saying that a film is "visually distinct and culturally rooted" an opinion? It's a fact.

    Another instance: “Billboard noted that ‘following the soundtrack’s second-week streaming explosion, Republic hustled to have "Golden" impact top 40 radio stations’ on July 8.” This is oddly specific for an opening paragraph, as is the vague: “...and was named a cultural phenomenon by several publications.” Both sound promotional and unnecessary in the lead.

    Those lines are describing what happened. And yes, several publications named it as a cultural phenomenon. What is the problem? How is describing facts "promotional" and "unnecessary"? I don't get it.

    In general, there are small tonal slips throughout—none are egregious individually, but together they make the article feel more celebratory than encyclopedic. I believe a more distanced editorial review could help bring the article back into alignment with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and objectivity. I appreciate the work that goes into maintaining pages like these and am only raising these concerns in the spirit of improving the article’s overall neutrality and professionalism

    Your claim that the article feels "more celebratory" than encyclopedic is a plain lie. You claim that the review should be "more distanced" and is violating Wikipedia's standards, but don't provide any actual ways the page could be changed. You then say you appreciate the work that goes into the page, but your rant here ends up insulting the very people who maintain these pages. I'm not sure how your posting here is helpful to anyone, or worthwhile at all. You make lots of claims and provide no evidence. The only real thing you provide is links to two reviews (only one of which is actually a reliable source, the addition of which would not significantly improve the page). If you truly want to become an editor on here, you have a lot to learn. And this posting is not a good start. It isn't going to endear you to people on here, not at all. Historyday01 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Lordonlyknowssopleasehelpsus a lot of times these pages are created by people who are fans of the film/product/artist etc so the tone can sometimes skew in a celebratory direction for this reason. As pages become bigger and more editors with discernment and distance from the subject chime in the wording and tone of the page will change. However I have noticed that certain pages can sometimes be guarded by overzealous editors who maybe do not see or want negative criticism on their articles, have you tried adding any of these sources yourself and if you have gotten push back have you attempted to contact the editors that have reverted you about these concerns? That's a good way of generated dialogue that doesn't come off as combative since it appears you just want a more balanced representation of the critical response to the movie. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides a kind of ranty edit request & this post, the editor has not edited outside of these discussions. I was one of the editors who nominated it as a Good Article (it passed GA review) & it is now up for review as a featured article candidate. As a new editor, Lordonlyknowssopleasehelpsus you might be interested in seeing the suggestions posted at these reviews and in the case of FAC, help improve the article when that review happens. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Neutrality in Gaza genocide

    [edit]

    A discussion about maintaining neutrality in the article Gaza genocide has begun at Talk:Gaza genocide#Statement from Jimbo Wales. Editors interested in ensuring compliance with WP:NPOV are invited to comment. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • That statement was an exceptionally bad idea on several levels and I strongly urge you to retract it; even if you stated that you were writing this in my personal capacity, and I am not speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else, the fact that you led with a banner declaring yourself the founder of Wikipedia, the way you referenced your position on the NPOV Working Group, and the sweeping dismissal of hard-wrought consensuses and compromises on the article obviously create the perception that you're trying to dictate article content from above. This isn't how we resolve NPOV issues, and if the NPOV Working Group has lead to incidents like this then it has gone badly awry and needs to be disbanded. I'm not even saying every part of the article is necessarily right - while I don't think you made a good case overall, obviously we can get things wrong sometimes, and previous discussions sometimes need to be reconsidered - but the way you've gone about this is deeply wrong in a way that overshadows everything else. Regardless of how anyone feels about this specific article, this sort of from-above "we've received a lot of complaints, so Jimbo Wales is gonna step in" dynamic has the potential to be deeply harmful to our ability to write NPOV articles as a whole. You need to be more considerate of the perception of your role as founder and the harm you can do with dramatic, poorly-considered statements like these. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Jimbo Wales, as I mentioned in that discussion, high-quality academic sources and international humanitarian organizations are largely in agreement that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This is also the determination of human rights organizations inside Israel itself. Voluminous talk page discussions and sourcing at Gaza Genocide attest to this.
    You frankly describe yourself coming to us under political pressure and you are asking us to betray scholarship and WP:NPOV. We cannot do that. This is all the more alarming in the context of an effort by the Trump Administration to threaten and bully Wikipedia. This is a moment for you to stand strong as an advocate for the encyclopedia. If you need to educate yourself about the topic, you should use our page to do so. -Darouet (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo Wales has made quite clear hat he did not start that discussion because of politival pressure it is to do with his own views on NPOV.(nor is he asking anyone to betray it.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what you are fighting against: Editors demand no changes to articles be made without an RFC. They make one, and suddenly... a ton of people show up. They weren't discussing on the page, they weren't involved in improving articles, they've never edited that article before, but poof - they just show up to vote. It came out that one of the editors in this discussion [1] was suspended for canvassing offsite '2 years ago', so it's not a stretch to imagine that's what happened in this discussion; this came out recently during an Arbcon decision. The reason people do it is because they get away with it, their friends just demand to keep the "status quo" going after they are gone.
    "Consensus" no longer exists on Wikipedia, it's just a matter of how many people you can get to come vote for your side. Gone are the days of uninvolved editors who believe in the project. When I post to the appropriate channels to get uninvolved editor comment, no one comes. I'd love to get working on editing article but so much time is spent cleaning up the mess that people leave after something hits the news, and multiple articles are created and changed and manipulated, then the fuss dies down. The only solution I can think of is editors closing the RFCs to have better tools and processes in place to help them shut this kind of thing down, but it means... standing by the policies of Wikipedia and stopping the "vote" mentality. If people "vote" against policy, it shouldn't count. Denaar (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are very serious allegations. If we assume good faith, "They weren't discussing on the page, they weren't involved in improving articles, they've never edited that article before, but poof - they just show up to vote" is process working as intended. This is the very reason why notice boards like these exist - so uninvolved editors can assess the questions and weigh in. Voting is not actually voting, and no competent admin is closing RfCs by a naive !vote count. StereoFolic (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcon actions aren't "allegations". Another user involved in that article was topic banned after their blog was reported. I've read it. It says they were coming to Wikipedia to make attack articles about their perceived political enemies, using Wikipedia's SEO ranking as a poison pill to discredit groups when reporters looked them up, so those reporters would be biased against them. That article is one of the articles they discussed multiple times. I constantly feel like a lawyer defending villainy and scum, but even villainy and scum deserve due process, and on Wikipedia, that means WP:V, WP:NPOV. MOS:LABEL needs to be updated to be stronger, because one of the strategies users are using to break NPOV, in my opinion, is packing the leads of articles with negative labels in wiki voice, and avoiding in-text attribution for those terms. I also didn't realize regular uses could close RFCs. I feel that RFC is a perfect example of users "voting" to violate MOS:LABEL on an RFC, and it sticking, that's why I included it. Denaar (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I agree that there is a lot less focus on Wikipedia:Consensus in general then I'd expect, and discussion is mostly an ideological popularity contest. In my experience, if someone posts a well sourced argument, cites policy/essays/other examples, but a majority of people vote against them without their own sources (or even addressing the sources/argument that were brought up), the majority opinion is enforced regardless of the actual sources and content of the minority argument. Furthermore, for the editor with a local minority opinion, trying to discuss/explain it leads to accusations of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Four people can post separate comments, but if the one editor with well sourced minority argument responds, we literally have policy to penalize them. Essentially, majority rules, and we can't be bothered to entertain a discussion about a topic without accusing the person in a local minority of bludgeoning the process. Consensus requires detailed discussion, but we have rules in place that make such discussion difficult to impossible for (well sourced) minority opinions because the majority find it annoying to discuss something once they've made up their mind. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are under no obligation to rediscuss what has been discussed ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Will a more formal statement from the NPOV working group (I assume this one, I think I did see something about it in the Signpost but my recall of it is not great) be forthcoming, with more details on what it believes the shortcomings of the preceding discussion were? Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrasting with other views, I think this was actually a very well worded and perfectly well timed contribution @Jimbo Wales. Thank you for saying it, and please continue to contribute in this way through to the end of whatever results from this. We need more brave voices saying what isn't otherwise being said. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hat it, this is a notification not a discussion. "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." (emphasis added). Waiting two minutes before posting here is not discussing the disagreement on the article's talk page, as nobody had disagreed with you by then, this is therefore a waste of a discussion and intention of this noticeboard. There are plenty of editors already engaged on the Gaza genocide talk page after you notified your user talkpage of the discussions, now the media have arrived we don't need this discussion fragmented or further publicised. CNC (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it bad if the discussion is publicized? If the goal is to get a worldwide consensus on a controversial topic and ensure NPOV, then having more editors looking at a topic would be better. LDW5432 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what I said or suggested. This noticeboard is for resolving disputes that already exist (beyond existing in ones own mind). There was no attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page first per requirement. Hatting this fragmented discussion doesn't reduce the visibility of the topic either, it just helps to keep it in the same place. CNC (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A the dispute does exist I think the discussion shows that weather it should be hatted B I do disagree that this should be hatted there is no benefit to closing this discussion so it should be kept open. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The dispute didn't exist when this notification was posted. CNC (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really sure what those diffs are about but yes a dispute did exist as Jimbo Posted the discussion on that page before he posted here so the dispute had already happened as he was disputing it on that page before he posted here(and it is possible that the dispute existed before that if some no !voters from the RFC kept their view.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, he wasn't disputing the article with any editors prior to publicising it here. The diff proves the timestamp of this fact, as it was posted here before the first reply. Hence the reference to "beyond existing in ones own mind" which is what you're describing here. CNC (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Those diffs only show the first reply to his page and this discussions creation.The dispute started before that as his statement was disputing the decision and views of the editors who had changed the article to state in Wikivoice that Israel is committing Genocide. That was the start of the dispute and that happebed before this discussion opened. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The dispute over the first sentence and wikivoice occurred a long time ago, it was resolved by the RfC that has still yet to be challenged. This is a new dispute that was brought here before it had even occurred, without referencing the previous RfC. If the dispute is over the RfC that needs challenging then AN is that way and this topic is even more redundant. CNC (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a dispute over Genocide in wikivoice he explictly states in his opening statement when after talking about good faith he states"At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV that requires immediate correction." I am not sure this type of dispute is one that goes to those places rather a disagreement on the content and how NPOV works so I see no issue with the discussion taking place where it is. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's irrelevant to my point. If our co-founder were treated like any other editor they would be expected to discuss the issue on the talk page first before bringing disputes here. Instead preferential treatment is being delivered. CNC (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't preferential treatment this is me opposing hatting this discussion as it would not be beneficial. Whether he should have done more than just his opening comment before putting a notice here is a different matter but this discussion should not be hatted(and I would take the same stance if it was not Jimbo Wales who started the large discussion and notified this noticeboard.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The RfC was not formally challenged but look at the article's archived talk pages and you'll see a constant flow of editors opposing the way the lead is now framed and describing it as non-neutral. That has obviously blown up more since JW's intervention, but it didn't come from nowhere this week.
      Re the point at the start of this part of the thread, I think the talk page there has too much discussion about neutrality in the project in general which I would say belongs at a central board like this one rather than that local board, so I'd oppose hatting this section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The first point makes me wish that the RfC close had been challenged as I was sure it would be at the time, then we could have avoided the concept of a continued dispute that still remains formally unchallenged. Instead this comes across as forum shopping when the dispute with the close hasn't been raised with the closer, nor challenged, but instead re-litigated. We have processes for these things which should be followed not ignored. But understood, re: opposition to hatting, maybe there's even value in this type of discussion even if I'm not personally seeing anything that hasn't been said on the article talk page already. CNC (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It wasn't formally challenged because they was and still is no valid (policy based) reason to challenge it. JW's intervention brought nothing to the table, all it did is add more heat than light. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there probably should be an essay written by a collection of editors about what "genocide" entails that is then used as a blueprint for pages going forward. One of the issues with Gaza Genocide in addition to the the Zionism page is that many of the sources do push a specific POV. Citing figures like Norman Finkelstein (who just went on Candace Owen's show for context) and Edward Said who was (and still is) a controversial figure who pushed certain contentious a ahistorical POVs through his writing and activism without balancing out the page with opposing information (Einat Wilf comes to mind) and dismissing almost all Israeli sources with exception of Haaretz which pushes a far left POV and has gotten in trouble for misinformation for this reason is also morally and ethically wrong and it makes Wikipedia look unreliable overall not just for this issue but a variety of topics. I think the fact that the lone African women on the ICJ who voted against the genocide label and dismissing her POV (also the ICJ in fact ruled this conflict was not a genocide but I digress) is bad faith and makes editors look more like activists than stewards of truth. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:GENOCIDE guidelines under development, please look over

    [edit]

    In case folks missed it, some participants from that discussion are making a new proposal to measure when it is appropriate to say something is a genocide in WP:WIKIVOICE User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New article - List of academic scandals

    [edit]

    Looks like this was created with use of an LLM and without regard to the large number of articles in the relevant categories. I'm leaning to article deletion. Anyone think it can be salvaged? - Hipal (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The category does a better job than this page. And the ordering of each scandal doesn't make sense. LDW5432 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seems like an indiscriminate list with no clear structure or logic behind it. I'm sure we could create a good article about this, but it seems better to speedy delete this. Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally categories are better for this sort of page than a list page given the WP:NLIST considerations. In theory, a page like this could be made and made well but it would need to be more specific and better sourced. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think academic scandals by genre makes more sense? Like academic scandals involving sexual misconduct is a very different thing than scandals involving the forgery of data in published journal articles--and this type of scandal is also very different across academic fields. Like science and medical academic data scandals are different than those in the humanities. I am almost tempted to break this entire list into separate sub groups--so start from scratch. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish exodus from the Muslim world

    [edit]

    The following sentence was added to the article:

    Jews ... were subjected to persecutions and pressures to convert to Islam.

    this quotation from the used source is supposed to support the added sentence:

    If Islam seems to have been more tolerant than Christendom, this is true only in a qualified sense. In the Middle Ages, tolerance, in the modern, liberal meaning of full equality, was not considered to be a virtue to be emulated. Monotheistic religions were by nature mutually intolerant. Adherents of the religion in power considered it their right and duty to treat the others as inferiors rejected by God, and, in extreme cases, to treat them harshly, even to encourage them (in some cases by force) to abandon their faith in favor of the faith of the rulers. Though the religious minorities (Jews living under Christian rule; Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule) were hardly happy with their second-class status and legal inferiority, let alone the occasional persecutions, for the most part they accepted their inequality and subordination with resignation.

    1) The quotation was cherry picked from a section of the source that isn't specific to the Muslim world. 2) "pressures to convert to Islam" is not present in the quotation. The part that starts with "to encourage them (in some cases by force) to abandon their faith in favor of the faith of the rulers" is a statement about Monotheist religions in general, it's not specific to Islam. 3) it says "occasional persecutions" not "persecutions".

    Here's what the source says about Jews in the Muslim world:

    In the Islamic world, nothing along the lines of the specific "Jewry law" of Christendom developed, the latter focusing attention upon the Jews as the single nonconforming population of the population (apart from Christian heretics) and eroding the protected status of religio licita they had enjoyed under pagan Roman law. In Islamic law, Jews were considered part of the dhimmī class as a whole.... For all the reasons discussed above, it is not surprising that only rarely did the Jews suffer qua Jews in the Islamic world.

    As far as I can tell, the source has been misrepresented, and given what the source elaborates on in the specific chapters, the first sentence also violates NPOV.

    You input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Separating "persecutions" and "pressures to convert to Islam" in the disputed sentence:
    The source explicitly says "persecutions" in a sentence where it identifies one set of the relevant minorities as "Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule". That part of the sentence is supported by the source.
    On the conversion part of the sentence, since this is contentious it is worth finding other sources explicitly and specifically about coerced conversion of Jews to Islam. Those sources exist (quick Google finds this Encyclopaedia Iranica article with multiple instances of forced conversion of Jews to Islam in Persia, and off the top of my head I think Martin Gilbert's In Ishmael's House will have more and more general info on this topic). I won't be able to check that book myself for at least a few days, maybe a couple of weeks. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source explicitly says "persecutions" in a sentence It says "occasional persecutions".
    The conversion part is not supported by the source either. Whether other sources exist or not is irrelevant to the issue of cherry picking and source misrepresentation that I highlighted above. M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The context to which the sentence was added (in your first diff) was the comparison of treatment of Jews in the Christian and Islamic world, favourably deeming the Islamic world more tolerant - the preceding sentence to the added one: Jews were treated relatively well in the Muslim world compared to Christian Europe.
    The source directly addresses that comparison, and clarifies that it should not lead us to ascribe tolerance in an unqualified way to one of two dominant religions that variously practiced persecution and forced conversion. This is not cherry-picking. There is no conceivable way it could be more specific to the topic.
    There's no misrepresentation either. The source describes the practice of Christian and Islamic polities in the Middle Ages towards religious minorities, including persecution and forced conversion. That persecution and forced conversion occurred is reliably known from many high quality sources, so to avoid any doubt in this high-temperature topic, I think additional citation is advisable.
    As this is NPOV/N, I should also add that I'm not wedded to specific mention of forced conversion in this article, but the question of whether it's an NPOV issue is not whether it's a fact verifiable in this particular source, but of how significant a phenomenon it was in the Muslim world in general, as judged by RS as a whole. I suspect, although I'd need to check, that forced conversion was more common in earlier periods, and not in the early modern Muslim world that is most relevant to this article. If I'm right, blood libels (like the Damascus affair) may be a more relevant issue to spotlight in the Background section than forced conversion. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is the sentence and the supporting source that is mentioned above. There is cherry picking, source misrepresentation and WP:OR (as explained and acknowledged by another editor below). M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The context of the sentence is the sentence that immediately precedes it, the paragraph it's in, the section and the article. This is NPOV/N. If it were the only sentence about "Background" in the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, it would be a clear NPOV issue. In the context where it's balancing the prior content, it's not. Source misrepresentation and cherry-picking are conduct issues. You're plenty experienced enough at alleging those in the relevant forums, although in this case I think you're just wrong. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the context of the source misrepresentation/cherry picking is the sentence and the source that was used to support it. The fact that it was filed at NPOVN rather NORN doesn't alter the issue (see my reply to your initial comment). M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "pressures to convert to Islam" was intended as a summary of "even to encourage them (in some cases by force) to abandon their faith in favor of the faith of the rulers", but you are right in that the source clarifies that they are talking about Abrahamic religions broadly and not the Muslim world specifically. It seems like WP:SYNTH to extract the claim of "pressures to convert to Islam" here. Katzrockso (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other sources that asseverate this fact more directly, for example in Bensoussan's book on the Jewish Exodus from the Arab World (Jews in Arab Countries: The Great Uprooting):

    At the heart of this system of power [i.e., relations between Muslims and dhimmis - אקעגן] was dependence. Every Jew had to place himself under the protection of a Muslim leader. Arbitrariness seemed to be the usual rule, and this included the payment of the jizya, which was the occasion for a public ceremony during which the dhimmi is struck on the head. The acknowledgment, worn around his neck or on his chest, was simultaneously a guarantee of safety and a mark of disgrace. The heavy tax burden resting on Jews encouraged them to convert, but such conversions put the treasury in difficulty and only increased the tax on those who still had to pay it. For example, the communal property tax, or kharraj, resulted in an exodus of dhimmis to the cities, and this is one of the reasons why city taxes on Jews and Christians were so high in the Arab-Muslim world.

    Numerous specific examples of conversion pressures (or forced conversions) are described, but the above quote is fairly general. אקעגן (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant to the issue of cherry picking and source misrepresentation that is discussed here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can cite more than one source to conclude a point if an editor isn't happy with one of them. אקעגן (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fort the last time: that's irrelevant to the issue of cherry picking' and source misrepresentation that is discussed here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to a comment that suggests there is SYNTH, which, if it is an issue, can be easily alleviated. אקעגן (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue if the SYNTH can be remedied, but it does not alleviate the fact that the original edit was WP:SYNTH. Katzrockso (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really share @Katzrockso's reading (as I explained above) but I can understand it. Since the issue is easily remedied, the best solution would be to just go ahead and do it, even if some of us don't think it's strictly necessary. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 acknowledging it is the only way to ensure that it won't happen again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the extensive discussion on the talk page, which also includes other sources. אקעגן (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The extensive discussion is about many things, while this one is about the specific sentence that you added. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence seems like a generalization for a section that needs to be expanded on. Jews were pressured and forced to convert to Islam--this is true but being pressured is still different from being forced to and considering how expansive the Muslim world is I think that is why this sentence was used. For instance at different points in Iran's history Jews were both socially pressured by laws and society to convert but also there were campaigns of violence and terror that forced conversions this is all happened at different points in the country's history and under different rulers. In other countries such as Yemen, and Saudi Arabia Jews were in fact violently expelled if they did not convert to Islam, so that to me is being forced versus pressured. In Morocco I think "socially pressured" is acceptable but for gulf states its a different scenario and a country like Iran has a mixed history so I just think more sourcing is needed in addition to clarification. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2025 United States federal government shutdown

    [edit]

    Needs some more eyes (e.g. on the lead section). A more neutral version would acknowledge both parties' roles. Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead section is incoherent; what does "The government has remained shut down for 38 days as Senate Democrats have blocked a continuing resolution 14 times that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed to fund the government" mean Katzrockso (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably both parties are responsible. Democrats blocked it from cloture and Republicans refuse to overturn cloture, and both refuse to compromise, altho its over now so I suppose this is moot. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that the summary could be written in a way where Democrats and Republicans take responsibility for the recent shutdown. It makes sense to put more emphasis on the Democratic Party for leading the way with this shutdown, since even many Democrats acknowledge that they were pro-shutdown, but Republicans aren't blameless. Based on my surface-level reading of the news stories at least (not an expert) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the section seems to be unbalanced in blaming the Democrats for the shutdown when both parties played pivotal roles (by not compromising or cooperating) in this mess. Would be good for more neutral language and less finger pointing in the lead. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on gender exploratory therapy as a form of conversion therapy

    [edit]
    YES
    Yes. The consensus is yes, we should say in Wikivoice that GET is a form of conversion therapy, and we've got a rare November snowstorm to say so that's backed up by a metric truckload of medically reliable sources. At Gitz6666's request I've let this run on for a couple of days, but the fact is that a change like this would need consensus to enact, and there's no realistic prospect of any such consensus emerging here. The least disruptive course is to close it.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Should the statement "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy" appear in wikivoice?
    1. Keep the current wikivoice statement that "GET is a form of conversion therapy".
    2. Revise to in-text attribution with conditional phrasing (example: "GET has been described by major medical organizations and scholars as tantamount to conversion therapy when used to delay or deny indicated gender-affirming care").
    3. Revise to balanced attribution, summarizing both main viewpoints (example: "Some professional and academic sources describe GET as a form of conversion therapy, while others caution against conflating neutral exploration with conversion practices").
    4. Other (please propose alternative wording).
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Survey

    [edit]
    • Option C or (second best) Option B. The claim that "GET is a form of CT" is currently supported either by weak, non-MEDRS sources (Lawson 2023, Amery 2023), or by relatively stronger, MEDRS-compliant sources (Bharat 2023 and RAND 2024) which, however, use conditional language (e.g., GET is CT when it prevents treatment, the boundaries between GET and CT are blurred). The strongest high-tier MEDRS source usually cited (WPATH et al. 2022) also uses conditional language: the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of "exploratory therapy" ... is tantamount to "conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name. Moreover, the claim that "GET is a form of CT" is explicitly rejected by sources of comparable strength, including the 2024 Cass review (It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve, [2] at paras. 11.4-11.6) and the 2024 UK Council for Psychotherapy's statement (Exploratory therapy should not in any circumstances be confused with conversion therapy, [3]), plus several non-MEDRS commentaries published in peer-reviewed medical, psychiatric, psychotherapeutic and bioethics journals (e.g., Evans 2020, Jauregui 2025, Sinai 2024, D'Angelo 2025, and McDeavitt 2025). Since the best available sources generally use conditional wording and/or contradict each other, the article should describe their position and disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint per WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE (Option C). At most, the article should use attributed wording without oversimplifying the majority view, i.e., that GET is a form of CT when it is meant to delay, discourage or prevent gender-affirming care (Option B).
    I hope the following review of sources is helpful.

    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC question is pretty clear and straightforward, but there might still be some misunderstanding. Editors are not being asked to decide whether Gender Exploratory Therapy (GET) and Gender-Affirming Care Model (GACM) hold equal standing within the scientific community and therefore should be covered fairly. The question is simply whether GET is a form of conversion therapy. I think the answer should be based on the biomedical scientific consensus, or lack thereof.
    That said, some editors might find it helpful to have more info about the broader context of the RfC: the GACM vs. GET controversy. Here below, in the box:
    But the RfC question is not about "GACM vs. GET" as models of care: it is about whether GET is a form of conversion therapy. The claim that GET amounts to conversion therapy is a highly minority view: it is found in only a small subset of reliable sources, mostly from advocacy or activist perspectives, and cannot be attributed to WPATH or any major biomedical organisations.
    I have discussed the issue at lenght on the talk of Conversion therapy without encountering a friendly, let alone receptive, environment. I received a temporary Tban from the issue and waited patiently, as requested, for WP:ARBTRANS to conclude. I hope that uninvolved editors who don't have a particular stake in transgender healthcare will check the sources carefully and realise that the stance we are taking in wikivoice is not the same as WPATH's: WPATH disagrees with the psychotherapy-first approach, warns against the risks of delaying treatment, but uses conditional language (GET is a form of CT if...) and does not call the opposing view "support for CT".
    As I have already said, I'm worried that a transgender minor referred for psychoanalytic care might read on Wikipedia that the underlying intention is to persuade them to accept their birth-assigned sex. This could be misleading and harmful, and it's not in line with WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the RfC question is not about "GACM vs. GET" as models of care Absolutely nobody here has said that they think that is what this RfC is about. All of us have told you, repeatedly and emphatically, that your 'review' of the sources is inaccurate and hinged upon a misunderstanding of the subject, and that your refusal to accept this is getting disruptive. Everybody understands the question you posed, we just all strongly disagree with your answer to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. If you could provide a few verbatim quotations from sources stating that GET is conversion therapy, that would be helpful. I've managed to find very few, and almost all of them use conditional language. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only purpose to asking me to provide you with something you've already quoted multiple times is bad-faith rhetoric, but never let it be said that I am not the forgiving sort.
    • The very first source cited in the article is literally a peer-reviewed article which clearly lays out what makes GET a form of conversion therapy. The only reason it doesn't state it outright is because it's focused on examining the evidence for it. If you had more facility reading scientific literature, you would recognize how common it is for papers arguing a position to not state their conclusion outright. If you disagree, I would challenge you to find an example of Einstein writing in a peer-reviewed article that Quantum Mechanics is pseudoscience, even though he clearly believed that for quite some time (see "spooky action at a distance").
    • The third source unambiguously classifies clinicians gatekeeping life-saving hormonal interventions by encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity or initiate gender-affirming care until they are absolutely sure (sometimes euphemistically called “gender exploratory therapy”) among Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Change Efforts (SOGIECE) and then immediately points out that SOGIECE are commonly known as “conversion therapies,”
    • The fourth source says This has led to the emergence of non-affirmative approaches, or so-called ‘gender exploratory therapy’ (Gender Exploratory Therapy Association, 2023), with its founders implicating social contagion, homophobia, sexual trauma, and autism as causal factors for a TGE identity (D’Angelo et al., 2021; Marchiano, 2017). In our corroborated view (Ashley, 2022; 2023), the coercive requirement to ‘complete’ exploration before accessing additional care represents conversion therapy in all but name and violates the principles of the Memorandum on Conversion Therapy (BPS, 2022).
    • The fifth source states multiple groups exist worldwide promoting ‘gender exploratory therapy’, a label for a form of conversion therapy targeting trans adolescents and young adults,
    • The sixth source shows that this is a commonly-held view, by stating that However, much of his [Dr. Steven B. Levine] work around “gender exploratory therapy” is considered by some to be conversion therapy since it presumes that patients suffering gender dysphoria have underlying causes other than being transgender.
    • The seventh source reinforces this by saying For instance, this model [GET] has been likened to gender identity conversion therapy given that some practitioners avoid using clients’ affirmed name and pronouns, while aiming to question trans identification in children and adolescents [44].
    I would also point out that this is not the first time you've asked for this, and not the first time this has been provided for you. Your claim that none of them do so without "conditional language" is a flat-out falsehood. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at your seventh quotation, I notice conditional language: e.g., "likened to", which is not the same thing as "is equal to", and "some practitioners", which is not the same as all of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not conditional language. Conditional language takes the form "If X, then Y". Those quotes are comparisons, which is an entirely unrelated linguistic structure, used to communicate entirely unrelated ideas.
    Don't take this the wrong way, but this is the sort of stuff we are generally taught in elementary school. This is so fundamentally and shockingly incorrect that I have literally spent 5 minutes now trying to puzzle out some subtle meaning being implied by making such a blatantly incorrect statement before giving up and simply taking your comment at face value.
    Please spend a few moments considering what you are saying before typing it in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, grammatically, if/then is a conditional clause. But the word conditional isn't exclusively used for grammar, and a grammatical structure isn't the right place to look when someone's asking about facts.
    But that language is adding "conditions", in the sense of "limitations" to the statement: it's not exactly the same, but it's similar; it's only true if you apply it to some, and not true if you apply it to all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'd need to go back to basics here: from a basic English class perspective, a conditional statement is indeed a "if X, then Y" statement. "likened to" is a comparative claim. These are different types of logical/organizational statements. I don't know what "conditional language" means outside of specifying "if-then" statements (even when qualified with uncertainty), it certainly has that precise meaning in the writing/critical thinking textbooks I have read, and no broader sense that could go as far as to capture comparative/analogical language. Katzrockso (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the word conditional isn't exclusively used for grammar, and a grammatical structure isn't the right place to look when someone's asking about facts.
    You literally made your claim about the grammatical structure of the quotes. Where in the hell else should I look? The author's porn habits?? JFC, don't try to defend it. Just accept that you made the mistake and move on.
    But that language is adding "conditions", in the sense of "limitations" to the statement: No, it isn't. It categorically is not. That is just flat-out wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I make a claim about the grammatical structure of the quotes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants, you said that I lack "the relevant knowledge and skillset to accurately evaluate the sources", but your seventh source, MacKinnon 2023 (which is the only one not yet in my source table) has a line immediately after the passage you quoted: However, Spiliadis' differentiates the exploratory model from identity conversion therapy, stating that... (referring to Spiliadis 2019). In fact, MacKinnon 2023 is not claiming that GET is a form of conversion therapy, but it's just presenting the range of views on GET in the literature-review section of the paper. Therefore I omitted it from my source table.
    Note that when MacKinnon 2023 says this model [GET] has been likened to gender identity conversion therapy, that view is attributed to Ashley 2022 – your first source and the main proponent of the "GET = conversion therapy" position. Similarly, your sixth source, Caraballo 2024, says that GET is considered by some to be conversion therapy and again "some" is Ashley 2022. These are attributed statements: they don't speak in their own voice. Also your third and fourth sources (Bharat 2023 and Lawson 2023) cite only one source, Ashley 2022, while your fifth source, Amery 2023, cites an article in Health Liberation Now!. So our coverage basically echoes a single position: that of the legal scholar and activist Florence Ashley, which is a "significant view" per WP:NPOV and should be reflected in the article on conversion therapy and elesewhere, but if we rest almost entirely on that one line of scholarship, and then have a few sources of mixed quality simply citing it, we give it more weight than WP:DUE allows.
    As for the rest of your list, your analysis and mine broadly coincide, although there are a couple of small mismatches in numbering - you omitted your second source, which I guess is Eckert 2022, and as third source you linked to Ashley 2022 but actually quoted Bharat 2023. But the more important issue is their MEDRS ranking, which you don't consider. While Ashley 2022 and Bharat 2023 are high-quality secondary sources in the legal/ethical/policy domain and clearly argue that GET is conversion therapy (though in my reading Bharat 2023 is "conditional": GET is conversion therapy when clinicians [gatekeep] life-saving hormonal interventions by encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity) all the remaining sources you listed are not-MEDRS (Eckert 2022 is an editorial in a non-peer-reviewed online medical magazine, Lawson 2023 is a commentary by clinicians published in a non-peer-reviewed professional forum, Amery 2023 is a social-science article in a gender-studies journal, Caraballo 2024 is a socio-political analysis of anti-trans expert networks, and MacKinnon 2023 is a qualitative detransition interview study). So these sources are reliable for documenting and attributing views about GET, but don't amount to high-level MEDRS evidence supporting the unqualified statement in wikivoice that "GET is conversion therapy". They can be used, but any claim that GET is a form of conversion therapy should be attributed to the authors that say so. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole argument here about the seventh source is assuming that I made a claim which I didn't make about it, and then pointing out that the seventh source is comparing different views about GET (which is implicit in what I actually said).
    The rest is essentially asserting a conspiracy theory. With all those fucking people citing Ashley, a competent reader of scientific literature would think "Maybe Ashley's got a popular and well-argued view". But not you. Nope. Your thoughts are "I can use this to win an internet argument!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked you to provide a few verbatim quotations from sources stating that GET is conversion therapy, and in response you quoted MacKinnon 2023, which says that according to Ashley GET is conversion therapy and according to Spiliadis 2019 it isn't, yet you omitted the second part of the quotation. Presenting only the first half can appear selective, and on a contentious topic such as this one, that kind of presentation risks being read as a sign of the kind of incompetence and POV-pushing issues you repeatedly warned me about.
    And I did not argue for some conspiracy theory: I'm sure that sources relying on Ashley do so because they are persuaded by her arguments. My point was that our coverage basically echoes a single position, that of a transfeminine activist with no clinical education. It does so in wikivoice, treating Ashley's views as facts instead of opinions, and failing to acknowledge the existence of reputably published alternative views.
    I realise that I cannot win an internet argument, as you say, but I'd appreciate it if my arguments were at least understood correctly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and in response you quoted MacKinnon 2023 Well that's just blatant dishonesty, as I also quoted multiple others.
    and on a contentious topic such as this one, that kind of presentation risks being read as a sign of the kind of incompetence and POV-pushing issues you repeatedly warned me about LOLOL Stay mad, cupcake.
    And I did not argue for some conspiracy theory Your inability to follow your own logic doesn't make your logic any better.
    I realise that I cannot win an internet argument, Not this one, for sure.
    but I'd appreciate it if my arguments were at least understood correctly. The irony is palpable with this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say here I agree, Gitz seems to not recognise the clear difference between exploration of gender, and GET. As Ashley 2022 [9](not sure where Gitz got 2023 from) puts it "Gender-exploratory therapy does not include every clinical approach that facilitates gender exploration". Given that GET is predicated on the denial of treatment and discouraging gender affirmation, all conditional statements (notably Bharat and WPATH) where the condition is "when GET delays/denies/gatekeeps treatment" or "when GET denies affirmation" should be treated as saying GET is conversion therapy as they are just describing an element of GET not putting a condition on it. I also share concerns about the source evaluation above, a couple of notable examples showcasing my concern: describing the Cass report as a systematic review (clearly incorrect), the link provided for the UKCP statement does not contain the quotes used and lots of the additional notes imply that any exploration is GET. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I tried to explain to them at the talk page, but Gitz does not seem willing to accept any correction. Instead, they falsely insisted that I claimed the term "GET" has multiple meanings, then ignored me when I corrected them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I wholly agree with your critique of Gitz's 'review'. As I have previously stated at talk, Gitz does not seem to have the relevant knowledge and skillset to accurately evaluate the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LunaHasArrived:
    • not sure where Gitz got 2023 from. I got it from here. I'm not sure which date is correct, "Ashley, F. (2022)" or "Ashley F. (2023)", but they clearly refer to the same article.
    • describing the Cass report as a systematic review (clearly incorrect). You are right. It's a "NHS England youth gender-services review", as written in the "Subject" column, but the "Source type / MEDRS assessment" column is wrong.
    • the link provided for the UKCP statement does not contain the quotes. You are right again. The correct link is this one, and the quotations are faithful.
    If you have no objection, I'll correct the source table accordingly; otherwise I'll leave this note as an acknowledgment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask why you believe D'angelo (2021) and McDeavitt (2025) are peer-reviewed, or more precisely why you believe that the Archive of Sexual Behaviours peer reviews their letters to the editor. Also reading the Clinical Psychology Forums publication guidelines (Found here [10] )they do peer review Reflective articles and therefore Lawson (2023) should be marked as peer reviewed.
    It would be useful to note where you've made the assumption that the source is talking about GET and why you made that assumption as a lot of the sources used do not mention it by name and a lot of the sources that do use it by name do refer to it as Conversion therapy.
    Also your link to Spiliadis (2019) goes to a dead end with no paper which is disappointing for the formative manuscript on this practice. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • why you believe that the Archive of Sexual Behaviours peer reviews their letters to the editor The Archives of Sexual Behavior follows Spinger policy on peer review , which states that "All research articles, and most other article types" (my emphasis), undergo peer review. I did not find any reference to letters to the editor being exempt from peer review in the journal's submission guidelines, so I assumed that the usual editorial policy applies. Since letters to editor are relatively short, opinion-driven pieces, I assessed them as "Not MEDRS -– peer-reviewed letter/commentary". The long and articulate editorial process (10 months for submission/revision/acceptance) also seems compatible with peer review. However, if I'm mistaken or there are uncertainties, I'm happy to correct these two entries.
    • the Clinical Psychology Forums publication guidelines (Found here [19] )they do peer review Reflective articles and therefore Lawson (2023) should be marked as peer reviewed. Well spotted. The BPS site is a maze, and the journal's page itself doesn't clearly link to the author instructions – I still can't find a direct link to the guidelines anywhere. I'm going to correct the source table on this. Still, Lawson 2023 remains a "not MEDRS – expert commentary", similarly to to Jauregui 2025, which is on the "Conditional/Negative" side of the argument.
    • It would be useful to note where you've made the assumption that the source is talking about GET and why you made that assumption. I'm not sure this is necessary. The combination of "Verbatim quotations" and "Additional notes" sufficiently clarifies the sources' content. Some sources (such as SOC8, RAND 2024, EAP 2024, CoE commissioner 2025) are highly relevant for an RfC on GET, although it is open to interpretation how "GET stricto sensu" (i.e. the model advocated by GETA/Therapy First) aligns with the conditions they outline. The table provides useful information without suggesting a specific answer.
    • your link to Spiliadis (2019) goes to a dead end with no paper which is disappointing for the formative manuscript on this practice. You are right, I'll replace that link with this one. Perhaps we disagree on how "formative" that manuscript really is: I'm inclined to agree with WPATH 2022 that GET is nothing but the old "psychotherapeutic approach", which was used for decades before being superseded by evidence-based gender-affirming care.
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find that about ASB so well done, however according to the paper Spiliadis was currently working at GIDS whilst creating GET and I'm not sure where you got your information about why he quit from. I'll agree to disagree about where you've assumed they're talking about GET. You should also note Marucs Evans connection to SEGM around the time of the article used here. Looking at the 7th of August capture (here [11]) we can see SEGM say he is an advisor. Joanne Sinai does also have a relationship with Therapyfirst (here [12] is the page for a webinar hosted by TherapyFirst and led by Sinai) however I can understand that this is not as much of a relationship as others noted in the chart. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The information about why Spiliadis left GIDS is on his self-published professional website here. I included this in the "Additional notes" only to explain why the source table lists him as "GET community"; it wasn't meant to suggest anything about his WP:INDEPENDENCE (e.g., "he left the service, so he's independent"). Evans 2020 and Sinai 2024 are also clearly part of the "GET community" (as I mentioned here). For example, they both signed this letter submitted on behalf of GETA. As far as I can see, McDeavitt 2025 and Jauregui 2025 have no direct professional link to GETA/Therapy First, but the content of McDeavitt 2025 aligns with the core claims of the GET supporters, so she could be considered WP:BIASED.
    However, sources on the other side of the debate are pretty similar in terms of independence and potential bias: Eckert 2022 and Lawson 2023 have professional roles within organisations providing gender-affirming care (Anchor Health, TransPlus), Ashley 2023 and Caraballo 2024 are described in independent sources as trans-rights advocates (e.g. [13] [14]), and Amery 2023 writes from within a gender-studies/queer-studies framework that is itself not neutral with respect to the topic (she is co-convenor of Queer Frontiers network).
    Our assessments may differ on some details, but I hope it’s clear that I’ve put genuine effort into producing a solid source analysis that is accurate, informative, and neutral. I think the source analysis shows that there is a strong scientific consensus that psychotherapy (or "gender exploration") counts as conversion therapy when it aims to change a person's gender identity or to delay or impede indicated gender-affirming treatment. It also shows that there is an ongoing debate among experts about whether "gender-exploratory therapy" (proposed by some clinicians as an alternative to the gender-affirming care model) qualifies as a form of conversion therapy. The first point can be stated in wikivoice; the second, in my view, requires in-text attribution and balanced coverage.
    I will now make the connection of Evans 2020 and Sinai 2024 with the GET community more explicit in the "Additional Notes" column. I will also add a line in the "Scope" column there to distinguish between sources that explicitly discuss GET and those that don't. Finally, I will include a few extra sources that came up in the RfC, as well as some others I found on my own. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you truly believe that you "put genuine effort into producing a solid source analysis", you should focus your considerable efforts elsewhere as this is obviously going nowhere and is wasting community resources and your own time. Katzrockso (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC Gitz has not been participating in ongoing discussions on the conversation therapy talk page, which might be able to find a mutually satisfactory wording. I understand that they were previously tbaned for similar behavior. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wrong. I did participate in this talk page discussion, which I started, and the reason I was tbaned from gender exploratory therapy and conversion therapy was because I announced my intention to start this RfC with this comment. As the ArbCom case WP:ARBTRANS was pending, SarekOfVulcan thought that running an RfC in parallel might cause disruption; so they tbanned me temporarily, until the case was over, as they explained here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We can all see though that you aren't currently participating in talk page discussions. You waited 2 and a half months without doing anything, tried to implement your edits to the main page, got reverted and then started the RFC. You could have (and most would argue should have) joined the restarted discussion on the talk page and been able to more easily evaluate whether the RFC was worth running, or whether this was still a 1AM situation where the result would be obvious. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of you could have started a conversation here(or any other relevant noticeboard) without starting the RFC. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC or, failing that, Option A: We've gone through this one like six times already, sources in article overwhelmingly support calling GET conversion therapy. Per your own source analysis, the strongest thing we have in favor of GET is the Cass Review, which has been absolutely ripped to shreds by the global medical community as little more than an unqualified hit piece. Meanwhile against GET, we have WPATH and the RAND corp calling it "conversion therapy under another name"/ Snokalok (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC, Maintain Status Quo. When this user brought up this very question at the talk page, they were told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that this is a long-settled issue that has been litigated multiple times. I personally pointed out several serious logical failings of the argument underpinning this proposal. And above, I can see that option C is such a blatant violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE as to raise serious competence questions about the editor suggesting it, let alone !voting for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Edit: This comment of mine seems relevant. This is exactly what I predicted would happen. Pinging SarekOfVulcan who might want to take some action based on this RfC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Seen. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad rfc or barring that option a i havent paid attention to this either but WP:RFCBEFORE should be explicitly pointed out. The only discussion gitz points out in one reply appears to be overwhelming in favor of the status quo.
      i also find it frustrating that an editor who keeps getting banned and sanctioned from contentious topics, especially for culture war issues to continually push pov. This same pattern played out a year ago i recall with Imane Khelif User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC, Option A (Status Quo) - There seems to be a rather strong consensus on this matter already on the page, so this RFC appears superfluous. I also am unsure as to why this was started here, rather then on the conversion therapy talk page. Also, your inclusion of the description "balanced attribution" in your preferred option preemptively muddied the neutrality of this RFC. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I opened the RfC here because "GET = CT" appears in at least in six articles (see above, "Context") so a unified discussion was in order. And "balanced" is purely descriptive: if you think there are more POVs of roughly equal standing (Option C), then you need to represent them all. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC (or status quo) - Like everyone has already said, consensus was clear before this RfC so this RfC is not necessary, and arguably is disruptive because the reason consensus is clear is that the sources are also clear. Loki (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC, status quo. This appears to be a great example of WP:IDHT that is wasting editor time. Katzrockso (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC/Option A - consensus was and is clear. This rehashing cannot continue. It rapidly becomes disruptive. —Rutebega (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • AIUI the problem is that "GET" is two different things, and editors are forgetting that the process for Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes is to first decide what the subject of the article is, and then decide what the title is. Instead, we have editors saying "Oh, the title is GET, and in my filter bubble, that means X – whoa, this article is totally wrong! It says GET is Y! I've got to change this!" It's like we're editing an article on Yellow cake, and editors keep arguing about whether the subject is a popular birthday cake or a deadly poison, because they can't believe that the other editors think The Wrong™ Kind of yellow cake should be at the title "yellow cake". In particular, editors need to remember:
      • There is a kind of therapy that is called GET and which is just re-branded conversion therapy.
      • There is also a kind of therapy that is sometimes called GET and which is not conversion therapy, but instead is an opportunity for Questioning (sexuality and gender), trans, and cis people to voluntarily "explore" their own "gender" in "therapy", with a therapist who does not push for any outcome (e.g., does not say "I can tell that you really are/aren't trans"; instead, says "How do you feel about...?").
    • These are actually different things, so it might be best to split them into separate articles, e.g., Gender exploratory therapy (conversion therapy) and Client-led gender exploratory therapy. But if we're going to put them in the same article, then we really need to differentiate them in some way, even if it's just a hatnote that says "Not to be confused with ordinary therapy that explores gender without the therapist trying to influence the person's gender identity".
      See also Chronic fatigue syndrome, which is not just being tired ("fatigue") all the time ("chronic"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I do disagree with the idea that ordinary therapy where a client works through their own sense of gender on their own terms is frequently called GET. Perhaps once upon a time, back when the concept of Gender Exploratory Therapy hadn't made itself known, but at this point I think the bell is long past rung, and any therapies that do offer genuine exploration go by absolutely any other name now. Snokalok (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said that it was "frequently called" anything, especially by people marketing the service. But confusing these two is why we keep having these disputes. Wikipedia deals with this all the time, and the solution is almost never to insist that the other guy's understanding must be suppressed at all costs. See also Ketogenic diet, which is not the Ketogenic diet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that what Snok is getting at is "Client-led gender exploratory therapy" is not a term of the art. Instead, when 'exploration' or any sense of the word is used in the context of efficacious treatment, it is usually used in a descriptive sense, leading to lots of variations such as "therapeutic exploration of gender identity," "exploration of desired gender norms," "exploration of internalized gender" "undirected exploration of gender" and other, similar phrases. There is, as best as I'm able to ascertain, no single term of the art to refer to a therapist allowing an undirected, patient-led exploration of gender.
      Wikipedia deals with this all the time, and the solution is almost never to insist that the other guy's understanding must be suppressed at all costs. The problem here is that 'the other guy's understanding' is demonstrably wrong. Per WP:V and WP:N, we're required to 'suppress' it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Alternatively, per WP:YESPOV, we're required to acknowledge it.
      Also, as a purely practical matter, if you want these disputes to stop, you've got to redirect the "good GET" people to some other article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That is categorically not what WP:YESPOV says.
      Also, as a purely practical matter, if you want these disputes to stop, you've got to redirect the "good GET" people to some other article. There is no 'good GET'. There is no POV out there in the world that there is such a thing as 'good GET'.
      There is only two editors who can't understand some basic tenets of linguistics who are asserting that their own confusion constitutes a valid POV which should be reflected in article space despite well over a dozen editors rejecting that and trying repeatedly to explain your mistake, with neither of you showing the slightest indication of doing anything other than digging your heels in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn’t disambiguation based on what readers search for, or what they’d confuse a title for? The hatnote WAID proposed actually goes toward refuting the spin from GET proponents Kowal2701 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn’t disambiguation based on what readers search for, or what they’d confuse a title for? Yes it is.
      Now, do you have any evidence at all that people search for "Gender Exploration Therapy" while actually trying to find the affirming model of therapy in enough numbers to justify this? I sure haven't seen any evidence that anyone has tried to understand the affirming model of therapy by searching for GET. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm unfamiliar with the topic, and was confused at first by our coverage, because I'm sure legitimate therapy can involve questioning, and the current section doesn't make that distinction clearly. A hatnote essentialising this distinction would clear up that confusion. I don't think it's possible to get data for this, but it seems plausible that a reader might see the term somewhere without knowing what it means and then search for it, ending up astonished somewhat as I was. But whether that's enough for a hatnote, idk. This RfC should be closed anyways Kowal2701 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is that the term "Gender Exploration Therapy" (note my use of caps, as it's a proper name for the method) has a specific meaning, a meaning which is belied by the name, akin to the National Socialist German Workers' Party or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I could get behind some kind of explanation in the section, though I don't think we need a hatnote. There's good sources out there which explicitly contrast the 'exploration' in GET with honest, patient-driven exploration of their gender. We could add text to the section directly, which would have the happy side effect of improving the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      improving the article, now you're getting off-topic! Not what this time sink is for sounds good though Kowal2701 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh my god, you're right! What was I thinking?? lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In re There is no 'good GET'. There is no POV out there in the world that there is such a thing as 'good GET'. There is only two editors who can't understand some basic tenets of linguistics...
      There have been way more than two disputes around whether there exists a thing in which "gender" is "explored" during "therapy" sessions (the thing I have called 'good GET' as a simple handle for the purpose of this discussion), and therefore there are far more just "two editors who can't understand".
      If you want the disputes to stop, you've got to very firmly redirect people to a different article.
      At the top of Ketogenic diet, which POV pushers around weight loss diets have tried to usurp for Ketogenic diet (fad diet), we say:
      This page is about a dietary therapy for epilepsy. For information on ketogenic diets as a lifestyle choice or for weight loss, see Very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet.
      and this seems to have slowed down the rate of off-topic information being added.
      At the top of Chronic fatigue syndrome, which has struggled with the difference between ME/CFS and everything else, we say:
      Not to be confused with chronic fatigue, a symptom experienced in many chronic illnesses, including idiopathic chronic fatigue.
      and this seems to have slowed down the number of edits from people who thought that ME/CFS was just being tired all the time.
      At the top of Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy, why don't we say something like:
      This section is about a specific type of talk therapy that discourages and delays social and medical transition. For client-directed therapy without a therapist pushing for any particular outcome, see Transgender health care § Psychological care.
      (We'd have to go write a little landing section there/at whichever article is linked.) This approach has worked in other instances, so I think it would work here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There have been way more than two disputes around whether there exists a thing in which "gender" is "explored" during "therapy" sessions (the thing I have called 'good GET' as a simple handle for the purpose of this discussion), and therefore there are far more just "two editors who can't understand". This is, once again, a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Allow me to, once again, state this in plain language that even a child could understand.
      There is no therapy called 'Gender Exploration Therapy' which has ever been used as a part of an effective course of treatment for gender dysphoria.
      Every time you say 'good GET' or refer to 'GET' being used in another way, you are misusing the term. I've explained this multiple times over the course of this discussion, in varying ways. I've also witnessed other editors explaining it, also multiple times, in their own ways. I've seen far more editors immediately grasp the notion than express any confusion. At a certain point, the question of whether you're confused or being deliberately obtuse leans inexorably towards the latter possibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, please maintain civility even if you don't agree. WhatamIdoing is a reasonable and kind editor. When there is a clear disagreement it's not likely because she simply is unwilling to understand and certainly comments that attack her like your final sentence are wholly uncalled for and counter productive. Please stop with the hostility. Springee (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Unlike MjolnirPants I think this idea is pretty obviously a good one. The point of the name is to confuse, so we should add a note to clarify. Loki (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I proposed sometime below [15] along those lines. Katzrockso (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Katzrockso would you be interested in drafting the wording for that? Since you had already suggested it earlier (which I missed, it was hard to keep track of who said what). BetsyRogers (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I also think that would be a good idea. Separating what seems like a reasonable idea from CT would make sense. Springee (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's an excellent idea. It's a mistake to assume that every reader is familiar with various terminology. BetsyRogers (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      By skimming through this, I think I agree with you and Loki. To be clear, there is no such thing as "good GET," or "non-CT GET" (which is how that term is used here), but I think having a note in the article differentiating GET, the rebranded conversion practice, from truly neutral psychotherapy, could be beneficial. Someone should get around to gaining consensus for that. Amateur Truther (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's clear that a consensus has formed but I see WhatamIdoning's concern. Also, looking at the source list (which I haven't and likely won't dive into) I can see the concern that sources seem to vary. It would probably be best to explain the issue rather than state it as fact (assuming that is what articles are doing). The controversy with how the term may be used as a wedge for CT can be discussed while still stating that no every source agrees. Springee (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with the source list is that some of them mean the opposite of what Gitz thinks they mean, some simply don't contain the quotes Gitz attributes to them, and some are not anywhere near the level of reliability that they ascribe to them.
      And everything I explained above has been explained to Gitz before, only to fall upon deaf ears. There is absolutely a potential for misunderstanding with GET's co opting of the word 'exploration', and that is very much the whole point of this approach being named as it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This semantic conflation is precisely what the advocates of "gender exploratory therapy" are trying to introduce. There is also a kind of therapy that is sometimes called GET and which is not conversion therapy but instead is an opportunity for Questioning (sexuality and gender), trans, and cis people to voluntarily "explore" their own "gender" in "therapy" is something done by nobody but the conversion therapists. I went to this type of therapy - my therapist called it gender affirmation. Go look for the term "gender exploratory therapy" on the internet - it simply did not exist until 2021 when it was invented ex nihilo by conversion therapists as a way to rebrand. Katzrockso (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So let's create an article about what affirming talk therapy actually looks like (it appears we don't have one?), with a section called something like ==Undirected exploration of gender==. Then we put a hatnote at the top of GET that points to that, and the people who keep showing up to say "You've got to recognize that good therapists engage in undirected exploration of gender!!!!1!!" can be told "Sure, of course, we all agree with you. But that's a different article. This one's about the bad guys. Go read about the good guys over there, and don't get too hung up on the article titles." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      On this basis it would probably be best seen at Transgender health care by making a new subsection in gender-affirming care that explains the role of therapies and exploration. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, I wouldn't have any objection to that. I strongly object to Wikipedia calling "exploration of gender" GET, even though a literal breakdown of the term "GET" would facially suggest that, though. This type of rebranding to use banal and seemingly acceptable terms is precisely how fringe movements have been developing/rebranding - "human biodiversity" or "cultural realism" for racialism/racism, "climate realism" for climate change denial, "integrative medicine" for homeopathy, "metabolic reset" for detox programs, "mind-body medicine" for weird yoga stuff, etc. Katzrockso (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And redirecting people away from the actual GET article/section towards the non-GET thing in a completely different article is how we avoid supporting the idea that exploring gender in therapy is the same as Gender Exploratory Therapy™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, we could have a WP:HATNOTE that says something like Gender Exploratory Therapy is commonly confused with the exploration of gender in therapeutic practice with a link to another article. No problem with that. Katzrockso (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Re "semantic conflation" between "good" gender exploration and "bad" GET/conversion therapy, I agree with WhatamIdoing that These are actually different things, so it might be best to split them into separate articles. "Exploration" (or psychotherapy) is usually part of the gender-affirming care model (GACM), while the GET model advocated by Therapy First and Genspect is alternative to GACM. However, I'm afraid that WhatamIdoing's proposal doesn't resolve the question raised in this RfC. We can create an article on GACM with a section on "Gender exploration", but we still need to decide what to do with Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy. Even when we look specifically at clinicians associated with the GET model, the sourcing is mixed and inconclusive. Some reliable sources do describe their approach as conversion therapy, particularly when it delays or discourages transition, but other sources explicitly distinguish GET both from GACM and from conversion therapy, while describing/supporting non-directive exploratory psychotherapy. These sources include peer-reviewed articles by authors associated with the GET network such as Evans 2020, Sinai 2024, D'Angelo 2021, D'angelo 2025 (Spiliadis 2019 is probably not peer-reviewed), as well as peer-reviewed commentaries by independent authors such as McDeavitt 2025 and Jauregui 2025. Therefore, while "true" GET supporters have been accused of practising conversion therapy, these critiques represent only one strand of the literature, not the whole of it, and we should summarise the different POVs fairly (Option C), as I've attempted to do in my reverted edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the status quo per MjolnirPants's and Snokalok's interpretations. "GET" in this context refers specifically to the nominally "neutral" approach to trans healthcare which aims to deny trans identity and reduce access to transition. A GET (good version without the conversion therapy) does not exist as a meaningfully distinct practise from the "gender-affirming" model, which (contrary to GET proponents' desired framing of it as a radical boogeyman) also involves exploration and does not assume outright that all GNC and gender-questioning people are transgender. Wikipedia is neutral, not balanced. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option A-- Our readers aren't scholars and over-qualifying the language obfuscates the message to them. GET is widely practiced as conversion therapy in sheep's clothes, the sources support this, and we do our readers a disservice by hiding that beneath cumbersome precision. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC As many have pointed out Gitz seems to have withdrawn from talk page discussions, then after a period of inactivity tried to implement their contentious changes. After these changes were reverted they chose to start a RFC here. It is most likely better to return to the talk page and discuss the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not an accurate description of the process. I initially raised this issue at Talk:Conversion therapy (see this thread), where I made six comments and was repeatedly told to drop the stick. As no RfC had ever been held on the question "GET = CT", I said that I was going to start one (which an experienced editor even said could be productive) and was temporarily topic-banned for the duration of WP:ARBTRANS specifically to avoid parallel disputes while the case was pending (see SarekOfVulcan's comment).
      WP:ARBTRANS took longer than expected, and by the time the Tban was lifted and the final decision was taken, I had other work to do both on-wiki and elsewhere. Before opening the RfC, I made a bold edit to show my preferred version of the section and to make one last check on the (admittedly remote) possibility of reaching consensus through editing. Once that edit had been reverted, I started the RfC at NPOV/N because the statement "GET is CT" appears in multiple articles (see the “Context” section in my OP) and a centralised discussion seemed the most appropriate venue. I honestly don’t think that further talk-page discussion would have been more productive than seeking input from uninvolved editors. So I don't believe this RfC is "bad" or premature; WP:RFCBEFORE was respected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the status quo (option A). Whether this RfC was on the rails at the outset or not, it's certainly off the rails now which would suggest no action even if the arguments for action were not as poor as they are. I see no need to change the staus quo here and the options offered are unacceptable fudges that serve only to soften or elide the basic facts and open the door to confusion, doubt and ongoing kvetching. Even option B, which is presented as if it were a middle path, is clearly unacceptable because it seeks to introduce an entirely false conditional "when used as..." which falsely implies that GET is ever not "used as...". It invites readers to form a false impression by insinuating something that isn't real. ("Cheese has a lot of calories when used as food." Yeah, mate. Cheese is food. What else you using cheese as?) GET is only used to delay or deny gender-affirming care. That is what it is. That is what it is for. That and only that! Option C is so bad as to strain AGF. It is not "balanced" and the alleged balancing actually introduces something completely off-topic. Where did "neutral exploration" come from? "Neutral exploration" has not entered the chat. This is not about "neutral exploration". This is about GET which only very superficially resembles neutral exploration from a distance and which, let's be honest here, major proponents of GET only pretend to believe to be neutral exploration. OK, yes, maybe some people really do fall for that line in good faith. Maybe the OP here is one of them. That doesn't mean that we have to give false claims equal standing with the actual, Reliably Sourced, facts about this topic or that we should carve out a void of doubt and uncertainty for them to lurk in. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC/Option A/Status Quo per MjolnirPants's and Snokalok. GET is undoubtedly used as a form of conversion therapy. That's the actual practice. This is a waste of time relitigating this when there is clear consensus for that position. RFCs are for when an outcome is uncertain, not for when editors want to push a position. I've called for a snow close at WP:CR. TarnishedPathtalk 02:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is an interesting discussion in that almost all the !votes are clearly siding with GET=CT but it seems like almost none of those present evidence to support that view. Based on the evidence presented here, per NOTVOTE this should be closed as GET doesn't always equal CT because that is what the sources presented here say. I would assume there are sources not presented here that strengthen the GET=CT argument else there is something really missing. Springee (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The sources OP presented do it well enough already. RAND and WPATH said it's conversion therapy, the Cass Review disagreed. Pretty easy to make an analysis and conclusion based on that. Snokalok (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      RAND and WPATH support the statement "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy when it is used to delay, impede, or discourage access to indicated gender-affirming care" (conditional phrasing, Option B). Any other use fails verification. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Show me anywhere where GET is not used that way. I'll wait. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's the dumbest, most wikilawyering argument I've read in a while, congrats. I guess you're not going to acknowledge the fact that I've quoted multiple sources stating this, and even the OP acknowledges that sources state this. I guess you're not going to notice that OP is flatly wrong about there being any good sources contradicting it, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please review CIVIL. Springee (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please review WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      CIVIL is policy. You can be correct about the argument but still fail CIVIL. Springee (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:E and WP:NPOV are both policies, as well. Maybe you should remove the log from your own eye before pointing out the mote in another's. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not going to be voting on this RfC, though I feel like your comment warrants some clarification. Gitz' main two arguments are:
      1) most of the sources supporting the GET = CT claim use conditional language (i.e. "GET is CT when it delays gender-affirming care")
      This is a moot point because a delay in gender-affirming care is central to the GET approach, a fact admitted by its own proponents.
      2) That there is an equal number of sources saying GET =/= CT as there are for the opposite.
      This may be true numerically, but it probably falls under WP:UNDUE. The experts Gitz cites for the GET =/= CT claim promote a number of claims which are considered pseudoscientific. Evans 2020, for instance, glazes Lisa Littman, the creator of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, as well as Kenneth Zucker, a man who openly supports attempts to make trans kids abandon their identity. Some of the cited scholars are also affiliated with SEGM, a major promoter of trans health care misinformation. Central to Gitz's list, the Cass report has been decried by every major professional body with a stance on this issue (see corresponding article). Compared to a citation like WPATH, an incredibly authoritative body which says GET = CT (and says so unconditionally, unlike what Gitz would suggest), the GET =/= CT proponents are a loud minority. If you think this is not the case, the fact that basically every major professional body stresses the importance of gender-affirming care accessibility should hopefully demonstrate it, in my opinion.
      @MjolnirPants I would like to understand this situation better. Do my thoughts here reflect yours? Amateur Truther (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty much. I've spent some time explaining the difference between GET and undirected, patient-led exploration as a part of the affirming model of care, but I don't actually think Gitz is under any misapprehensions there, based on their responses. I think this whole thing is just a POV-push, and the fact that Springee (an editor who's spent a great deal of time advocating for racist pseudoscience using very similar methods) supports them doesn't help that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would actually go even further here: neither 1 nor 2 is true simply on a basic reading of the sources.
      The sources, overwhelmingly, say that GET is conversion therapy. It's not equal, it's not close, it's not conditional. They just say that GET is conversion therapy, and any attempt to claim otherwise is based on Gitz's tortured reading of the sources. Loki (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, AT is laying out what Gitz is claiming. I agree that neither of those claims are true, and AT seems to, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, but when they lay out why those claims don't have merit they stop short of claiming they're simply not true. One is "moot" and the other is "true numerically but it probably falls under WP:UNDUE".
      I don't think that's true. I don't think 1 is moot, I think it's false. I don't think 2 is true numerically, I think it's false. I think both claims are just false. Loki (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, but one needs to engage with the sources to see how Gitz is misrepresenting the reliability some of them. By the count Gitz gives, it's 'true', the falsehood comes when you realize that some of those sources aren't useable, owing to the author or publisher being a promoter of WP:FRINGE ideas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all, thank you for engaging with my arguments. However:
      1. You have misunderstood my "moot" point. GET is not considered conversion therapy simply because it delays gender-affirming care, which is obvious and uncontroversial. It is considered conversion therapy when it is intended to delay gender-affirming care: that delay would be its very purpose. All reliable sources on conversion therapy (e.g., OHCHR Independent Expert, APA fact sheet, APA topic page, UK MoU-2, etc.) focus on intent - "aims" of "effort" to change sexual orientation or gender identification - as the defining feature that distinguishes conversion therapy from neutral psychotherapy. There is genuine disagreement among sources about whether GET is meant to delay gender-affirming care.
      2. Re a citation like WPATH, an incredibly authoritative body which says GET = CT (and says so unconditionally, unlike what Gitz would suggest); also Loki says Gitz's tortured reading of the sources: I think this reverses what is happening. You are interpreting the sources while I'm paraphrasing them faithfully. The MEDRS-compliant sources that connect GET with conversion therapy use qualifiers and/or attribution ("many similarities", "boundaries remain undefined", "when used to delay or deny gender-affirming care", "has been likened to", "is considered by some", etc.). The current wording in wikivoice strips those qualifiers away. Let's take the strongest source, WPATH 2022. It says that the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of 'exploratory therapy' ... is tantamount to 'conversion' or 'reparative' therapy under another name. The natural reading of a sentence of the form "X under the guise of Y is tantamount to Z" is not "Y = Z", but "doing X and presenting it as Y is Z". For example, "denying pain medication under the guise of 'clinical assessment' is tantamount to patient neglect" does not mean that clinical assessment is neglect, only that using it as a pretext to withhold care is. Likewise "humiliating someone under the guise of 'joking' is tantamount to bullying", "racial profiling under the guise of 'crime prevention' is tantamount to discrimination", "exploitation under the guise of 'charity' is tantamount to fraud", etc. Can anyone provide an example where the phrase "X under the guise of Y is tantamount to Z" is used to state that "Y = Z"? My reading of the WPATH's sentence as conditional is linguistically standard, not "tortured".
      Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is there's no evidence that GET does anything other than delay or deny gender affirming care so therefore the only reason to implement it would be to delay or deny GAC. As said before many many times Gender exploration is not GET and the defining feature of GET is the indefinite and unknown amount of time a patient is denied affirmation and GAC whilst being put through it. There is no evidence that GET is anything but "the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of 'exploratory therapy' " and many would use that as a definition for GET. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "X under the guise of Y is tantamount to Z" is not an accurate description of WPATH's view the way you frame it. This statement comes from a bulletpoint which states that GET's "psychoatherapeutic" approach (the original text has that word in quotation marks) has been debunked and replaced with gender-affirming care. It then goes on to say that Indeed, the denial of genderaffirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy”... is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name. Note that "exploratory therapy" is again in quotation marks and described as a "different name for conversion therapy." The most intuitive interpretation of this text is not "GET = CT under condition X," it is "X = CT, and GET is a euphemism for X."
      If you have doubts over this, you may review the previous bullet-point. It states At several points in the document, there is an emphasis on “careful exploration” of a child or young person’s co-existing mental health, neuro-developmental and/or family or social complexities... WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH are concerned that this appears to imply that young people who have coexisting autism, other developmental differences, or mental health problems may be disqualified, or have unnecessary delay, in their access to genderaffirming treatment... Whilst careful assessment is imperative, undue delay inherent within a model of care is not a neutral option and may cause significant harm to those accessing services. The fact this refers to GET, and refers to it as a model of care with inherent undue delay, is extremely obvious. Even if the quote you point to actually used conditional language, here we have WPATH stating that this condition is inherent to GET just one sentence prior. I see no reason to debate this WPATH report further. The text's statement seems obvious to almost every person here. Amateur Truther (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • C - Per WP:Voice: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Denaar (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not going to take a hard position on this one way or the other, but it needs to reflect what WP:RS are saying, all personal biases aside. If WP:RS unanimously support the current, it should stay as is per WP:FRINGE, in contrast if there is a mix, regardless of what any individual contributors think is right, we should present both POVs per WP:NPOV. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    B - I originally intended to read through this entire conversation in the interest of trying to understand everyone's point of view, but then it deteriorated to where it wasn't actually a conversation, and there's obviously some past interactions/conflicts muddying the waters, and I finally gave up trying to follow it.
    Anyway, as neutral party (as far as I can tell) I'd just like to say that B is the only one that made me want to read more about the topic. A is too simplistic and doesn't sound objective. It just declares " x=y " without explaining how that conclusion was arrived at. I generally stop reading when I see that sort of thing, i.e. when an author/editor doesn't respect me (the reader) enough to walk me through how they came to a conclusion. Someone here had suggested that Wikipedia readers wouldn't be looking for the amount of detail contained in B. Seriously? It's a pretty straightforward sentence, and it communicates that there's more going on than what proponents of GET would claim. For me, that's a good reason to continue reading (here or elsewhere) to find out more. BetsyRogers (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand opposition to Option A, but why Option B particularly? The current article explains why GET is considered CT: requiring mandatory extended talk therapy attempting to find pathological roots for gender dysphoria while simultaneously delaying social and medical transition and viewing it as a last resort. Option B is also based upon the notion that GET is CT only under a specific condition, except the RS agree the condition in question is pretty much inhertent to GET, making the latter more like a euphemism for CT. Amateur Truther (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that there isn't a case to be made that GET is arguably a form of conversion therapy. I'm just saying that of the three options, B comes the closest to neutral POV without being a WP:FALSEBALANCE (as seen in C).
    On the other hand, maybe I'm not understanding the original question. If the question is whether GET is a form of conversion therapy, my personal opinion is that it's likely being used as such in most cases. But if the question here is whether certain wording represents a neutral POV, then my personal opinion is irrelevant (or should be). BetsyRogers (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Between A and D. After some reflection, I think none of the options outlined by Gitz really actually fit this article. Option A feels slightly off based on WP:WIKIVOICE, given, whatever views they may have, there is clearly a community of experts who believes GET is not CT. At the same time, Option B is based upon Gitz's false impression that sources like the WPATH report use conditional language (false given these same publications describe the 'condition' as something inherent to GET, as well as false in general), and Option C would be a clear violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, given it mostly relies upon sources the likes of the Cass review, or experts clearly out of touch with the mainstream research (often SEGM affiliates), something clear from the fact their publications promote concepts such as ROGD. I think the word of major WP:MEDORGS and actual analyses of why GET is tantamount to CT (e.g. Ashley) supersedes such sources. Gitz's only really good source would probably be the UK Council for Psychotherapy's statement. Overall, I am not awfully sure how this situation should be handled. Compared to Options B and C, I definitely prefer the status quo. Beyond that, I am not sure how any "GET is not CT" should be represented without violating WP:UNDUEWEIGHT (if at all?). Option A or minimal change. GET being a form of CT is supported by WP:MEDRS, including authoritative consensus statements such as Alempijevic et al. (2020), WPATH et al. (2022), Bharat et al. (2023), and RAND 2024, as well as multiple independent commentaries, such as Ashley (2023). By contrast, the idea that GET is not CT is promoted by a handful of scholars known for being far outside the mainstream for this field of research (e.g. multiple of the sources cited in favor of GET not being CT promote rapid-onset gender dysphoria or are written by SEGM affiliates). Essentially, Option C would violate WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Option B is also based on the idea that GET is only recognized as CT when it involves an undue delay of gender-affirming care. This is false. According to the sources, GET is seperate from gender exploration as a concept, because GET is an undue delay of gender-affirming care. The source this argument is most applied to, WPATH et al. (2022), outright says in regards to GET: undue delay inherent within a model of care is not a neutral option. If the status quo is not preserved, I think we should at best say something aking to what is proposed here. Amateur Truther (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      there is clearly a community of experts who believes GET is not CT. Proponents of a practice are always going to argue their practice is good. How should we weigh the opinions of practitioners of acupuncture? Katzrockso (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The difference here is that people who practice acupuncture have no expertise. The GET proponents cited for this discussion are, in fact, doctors or mental health experts, making their commentary relevant . Plus, it is not exclusively zealous proponents. Some publications review the topic more from a distance, unlike, say, a blatantly SEGM-ian report. Take the UK CP publication. Amateur Truther (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      According to our article at Chiropractic education#Training people can obtain PhDs in Chiropractic practice. Surely such a person would have expertise in it? It's still unadulterated quackery. TarnishedPathtalk 08:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Chiropractic is inherent quakery. Medicine is not. Still, I am open to exploring this point and potentially changing my vote. What makes the "GET =/= CT" sources inherently invalid for wikipedia? If it is simply the researchers' background, I am not sure that is a criterion based on actual WP policy. If it is, I would like to see the policy in question. Amateur Truther (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Chiropractic (I swore that was spelled with a -y of some kind) isn't "inherent quackery". It's not ontologically quackery - it's quackery because we don't have evidence it really works or that diseases are caused by subluxations. It could have been true, just like lots of other outmoded theories of disease.
      They aren't inherently invalid, but their POV can be downweighted significantly per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Katzrockso (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess my question is, when 5 sources say "ABC" and another 5 say "CBA," as editors operating under WP's rules, who tells us which side is fringe? Is knowing that the CBA people have promoted unrelated quakery enough to reject their opinion on the ABC-CBA debate when they are still MD's? Amateur Truther (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's more a question for the WP:FTN, no? Katzrockso (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture exists. So does the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. And the World Federation of Acupuncture-Moxibustion Societies. They even publish their nonsense in respectable journals like American Family Physician; [16]. The authors of this paper are not exactly uncredentialed too, you can look them up. Katzrockso (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair point, though I imagine such authors are (in terms of how much their opinions are represented in the acupuncture literature) far more marginal compared to their opposition than "GET =/= CT" proponents are compared to "GET = CT" proponents. At least, this is the image I get from reviewing the sources here. Where do we draw the line? Amateur Truther (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a published consensus statement [17]. It states In those countries where it is performed, a wide and variable range of practices are believed to create change in an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Some examples of these include: talk therapy or psychotherapy (e.g., exploring life events to identify the cause). You can find identical statements from other position statements on conversion therapy. This is literally what GET is defined as.
      I don't see why this isn't cut and dry. Katzrockso (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You know what, this has probably changed my opinion. I see that Gitz has (I like to assume, unintentionally, as I missed this as well) not included some literature in this discussion (that, or they did, but I did not see it). The above paper is authoritative enough to honestly supersede independent commentaries supporting GET = CT. I will take some time later to probably change my vote. I think this source in particular should be added to the article as an extra measure against future discussions of this type. Amateur Truther (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that GET as a distinct term developed after most of these position statements were written or was minor in the global scheme of things, so they didn't directly mention it by name. And it doesn't help that these organizations have been trying to draw a distinction between GET and conversion therapy with a bunch of false conflations and whatnot, so it's much easier to find position statements from GET advocates that state "GET isn't conversion therapy, it's all fine and dandy". Katzrockso (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm happy to include the 2020 Statement of the Independent Forensic Expert Group on Conversion Therapy in my source analysis table if you think it's helpful. However, it is basically identical to other authoritative source there listed, such as SOC8, RAND 2024, EAP 2024, the CoE commissioner for Human Rights 2025, and (in my opinion) WPATH 2022: these sources are "conditional" in that they state that psychotherapy/gender exploration is conversion therapy when it aims to change the patient's gender identity or to deley indicated treatment. The contentious point remains whether "gender-exploratory therapy" is inherently that sort of thing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This point regarding conditional language has been addressed countless times. The "condition" in question is something that RS unanimously agree is inherent to the GET approach. When it is said that "exploratory psychotherapy" is used as an excuse to delay gender-affirming care, the meaning is not that there is a "pure" GET which does not do this; it is that GET, as a treatment option, is CT under a different name. I understand that you disagree with this, but you seem to be the sole user in this discussion who does not glean this interpretation. Amateur Truther (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do agree that none of them are ideal, but of the choices available I thought B was the most neutral. But assuming we're talking about the article/section that was originally linked (Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy), I think it would appropriate to say something like "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is widely seen as form of conversion therapy...". That's an objectively factual statement. Then what follows that is an explanation of why it's widely seen as such. BetsyRogers (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, the link to that section didnt show up. Trying again: Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy BetsyRogers (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Talk:Culinary Workers Union

    [edit]

    The page does not present a neutral point of view; and materials published by Culinary are excluded, even though they are primary sources. ~2025-31207-20 (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no talk page discussion and i dont actually see any citation with your edit. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about the lead section? I found a few areas like the following that could possibly be considered biased without proper citations like the following:
    "catapulted thousands of dishwashers, waiters, and hotel housekeepers into the middle class, even though those are poverty-level jobs in many other cities." Despite Nevada's status as a "right-to-work" state, around 97% of bargaining units choose to join the Culinary Union and pay dues"
    The phrase "poverty level jobs in many other cities" is definitely a generalization without sourcing--also probably a good idea to have what "poverty level" means ie: personal income versus cost of living expenses etc. This is definitely open ended and can be misconstrued. In addition "poverty level" in New York is different than poverty level in Cleveland or Pittsburgh and obviously different than Las Vegas where their headquarters in based. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential COI or Advocacy regarding Elliott Broidy

    [edit]

    I'd like other's perspective on @Iljhgtn's edits in relation to Elliott Broidy. They've made substantial edits to Elliot Broidy's article either removing or downplaying his role in scandals, including fully removing any mention of 1MDB (the article now only mentioning "his work on behalf of a Malaysian individual") 1 234

    They've also removed negative coverage/mention of Elliot Broidy from almost 2 dozen articles they've never edited before or since, with the following just being made this month (though I'll note this trend goes back at least to October):

    Before bringing this here, I discussed this with Iljhgtn at their talk page, where they denied having a personal or financial relation to Elliot Broidy. When I asked why they made these specific edits then, they replied with "WP:UNDUE".

    While I personally remain skeptical, I request other editors to look this over. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COIN would be the better place to bring this. Or WP:ANI, it's either COI or POV pushing. Really strange Kowal2701 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was originally going to post this at WP:COIN, but when I checked WP:COI, it said under "How to handle conflicts of interest" that "Whether an editor is engaged in advocacy should first be addressed at the user's talk page, then at WP:NPOVN, the neutral-point-of-view noticeboard."
    As I was unsure if it was COI or Advocacy, I thought it'd be better to follow the above & post it here, but I can move it to WP:ANI if you think that'd be more appropriate. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Best see what others think Kowal2701 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we wasting everyone's time when this should be discussed on any relevant talk page/s? Also, I remind you @Butterscotch Beluga to please remember to WP:AGF. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't pertain to a single article, but a range of them. As such, it's best to have a centralized discussion at a noticeboard. I'm following procedure as outlined by WP:COI.
    Also, I am assuming good faith. That's why I've presented a list of diffs & am asking for other's input on the matter, rather then immediately requesting any actions be taken.
    I'd rather notify others of a potential issue & be wrong, then be right about an issue & tell no one.
    If no one sees an issue with the listed edits & find my concerns unfounded, that's fine & I'll apologize, but I'd prefer to hear the perspectives of more experienced editors on the matter first. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard of this person before, but UNDUE is a dubious justification given the coverage I quickly found. Katzrockso (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Springee, this is similar behaviour for which you got sanctioned by Arbcom recently, where you show up at every AE and ANI report to defend anyone with a right-wing POV. This is obviously not a good-faith dispute on a single page, but tendentious editing. I'd understand if Iljhgtn was removing polemics or BLP violations, but they're not. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a right-wing POV? That is the first time that I've heard that. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, this doesn't pertain to a single article, but a range of them. As such, it's best to have a centralized discussion at a noticeboard. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide the article titles so we don't have to waste time hunting them down, especially if you're alleging a "range of them". We need to see the disruption that was caused, and not just your opinion of what is or isn't NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 14:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide the article titles as well as diffs. Please open the "Collapsed list for readability" in my original post that lists 20 direct links. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear...I meant for you to provide the articles that actually have NPOV vios by ilhgtn (or whatever their user name). I'm not seeing anything even close to a NPOV issue in your collapsed list of diffs. The editor made grammar corrections. This is off the charts BS...I'm sorry, but this whole discussion is a time sink. I can't even find the words to describe it. Any admin worth their salt who looks at those diffs should issue a boomerang against the filer and those in support of the filer. This whole discussion is POV railroading, and after you actually investigate the provided diffs...I rest assured that ArbCom would laugh at the allegations. After reading the diffs a second and even a third time, I am appalled at the allegations against this new editor, and with clear conscience can say the allegations are so far off the charts it's the most ridiculous time sink I've seen in a decade. Atsme 💬 📧 23:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now investigated two of the edits in question and concluded that there is no reasonable justification for the removal of the article content. Perhaps it would be more productive if you were to respond to my evaluations than imply @Butterscotch Beluga should receive sanctions.
    I am appalled at the allegations against this new editor Iljhgtn is not a new editor, they have 84,000 editors over 2+ years. Raising an inquiry is not the same as making an allegation and this was the proper procedure for raising suspicions of potential COI/advocacy editing. If you were to come across a pattern of edits that seemed aimed to remove negative information about one person in a manner not supported by policy, what would you do? Ignore it? Katzrockso (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The editor made grammar corrections", I'm not sure how to reply to this as it's just a plainly inaccurate description of the listed edits, even if you agree with them. This whole comment is actually rather strange as I'm a newer editor then they are, so I have no idea what you're reading.
    Either there's a massive misunderstanding here, or you've simply not read the diffs & have decided to be extremely rude & combative towards me. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are concerns on that page about COI editors [19], which raises the level of concern about widespread editing across a class of articles even further. As already noted, a talk page is an inappropriate place to discuss conduct that takes place across a number of different articles. We can certainly have a discussion in this forum about the relevant question, which is not unusual for forums like this. Katzrockso (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing up User:DanikS88. They had a history of claiming COI and that was one reason they got blocked (as well as being a sock puppet of User:AlanRider78). That account was POV pushing and I was trying to fix some of those issues created by DanikS88 and factor for BLP DUE/UNDUE considerations. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DanikS88 wasn't the only user who agreed that there were COI considerations on that article, Veldsenk did as well. I don't have familiarity with that user, but the ban reason states it was from a VRT demonstrating UPE. Either way, this is all off-topic, which is the issue of COI editing about Elliot Broidy. Can you explain why the information you removed from those articles was WP:UNDUE @Iljhgtn? Katzrockso (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After first seeing UPE editor DanikS88's large edits, each of mine were based on weight to the specific topic, both on this main page and each that is supposedly tangentially related to the figure. There seems to also be a lot of speculation in regard to this person and for a BLP, that is another consideration. In some cases it would just randomly be thrown in on a see also page that might not make sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to go look at one edit you made, since I don't have infinite time, on the Pseudonyms used by Donald Trump article. I have never read any background material about this before, but I read the sources in question here and I don't see how "blp vio and tabloidy unproven claim, retained the rest and sourcing" justified the removal of the content. WP:RSPNEWYORK is considered a reliable publication and the information from that article was repeated in many other WP:RS. The content about Shera Bechard was retained in the article, but Elliott Brody's information was removed? That makes no sense: the whole story about Shera Bechard from what I can tell is that she was paid off by Michael Cohen on behalf of Elliott Brody. [20], this was reported in tons of outlets from Reuters to WP:WSJ. How is this a "tabloidy unproven claim" when it was reported by just about every major news source?
    I want to WP:AGF here and read it as though you were unfamiliar with the story and it may have seemed like an unproven claim, but to remove information from numerous articles is what makes it more suspicious. Katzrockso (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source even says allegations. With details like that that remain unproven, for BLP type information, we should just tread lightly. I think we could restore content anywhere it is well sourced from numerous reliable sources and not just speculative or allegations too. Or if alleged, then we need to include that language. Often I was not seeing anything like that. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source I cited says allegations about impregnation, it does not qualify any of the statements about the arrangement of payments. Misrepresenting sources is not going to help you here.
    Part of the sentence you removed states "sources identified "Dennison" as Republican fundraiser", which is a perfectly accurate claim verified by the sources cited [21] that does not violate BLP. What gives? Katzrockso (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the issue here? It looks like they were just cleaning up a messy article that was heavily coatracked with a bunch of scandals. Its basically a hit piece the way it was written. There were sections
    • Lobbying with George Nader
    • New York State Common Pension Fund conviction
    • First Trump administration era scandals
    • Controversies and lawsuits
    • Lobbying for Guo Wengui's extradition
    • Involvement with 1MDB, federal indictment, guilty plea, and pardon
    • Role of government informant
    Its like someone wrote it up to be "this guy is an evil corrupt lobbyist", which isnt very encyclopedic, and is kinda conspiratorial. You cant seriously be defending the prior state of the article. I mean even the lede was a joke. Im sure some of this merits inclusion, but it was definitely due for cleanup and consolidation, especially as a BLP. Maybe IIjwhatever got carried away with some of it, but the intent seems fine. Its one thing to document scandals, but it should have proper weight in the article. Kinda reminds me of Bob Vylan where everyone kept trying to shove every controversy detail and it ended up over half the article. Im not a fan of their statements, but it was totally overweighted, and we cut it down and fixed it.
    Also, from:
    It looks like they were editing Brodys page, and found a whole slew of junk thrown on random articles to paint him poorly everywhere. Its one thing to mention it on his article and any other places where it was due, but a lot of these are irrelevant coatracking of a POV. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at only one article so far to evaluate the accusations, so if you're going to respond to me, please focus on the one article I was addressing.
    his is SYNTH. The cite deleted doesnt mention Dennison. Also, there surely are better sources than Buzzfeed. Did you read the sources? This is a blatantly false claim, I linked the article above which mentions:

    We should consider the strong possibility that the same tactic — i.e., shameless, baldfaced lying — may have played a role in the exposure of yet another Trump-related sex scandal. The Wall Street Journal published a story on April 13 revealing the existence of another nondisclosure agreement involving an affair between an adult entertainer and a client of Cohen’s. The NDA employed the pseudonyms David Dennison and Peggy Peterson — the same names used in the Stormy Daniels NDA — and was otherwise very similar to the Trump-Daniels agreement.

    According to this newly revealed NDA, Dennison agreed to pay Peterson $1.6 million, in exchange for Peterson’s promise not to reveal the affair or her claim that Dennison had impregnated her. This NDA, like the Trump-Daniels document, was negotiated by attorneys Keith Davidson, on behalf of Peterson, and Michael Cohen, on behalf of Dennison. Payments were also delivered through Essential Consultants LLC, the same LLC created by Cohen to facilitate payments in the Stormy Daniels deal.

    And so on. Buzzfeed News is considered a reliable source WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS. The information on Broidy was WP:DUE in that article, it was reliably sourced and the information was removed from that article on false pretenses.
    If we are writing an article on psuedonyms used by Trump, the fact that this psuedonym was used by another person is very relevant! Like read the section before and after the removal and please explain why the removed information makes the section any better.
    For the record, I neither care about these articles nor Trump, I just care about removing reliably sourced, WP:DUE and encyclopedic content. Katzrockso (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am responding to Butterscotch more than you, but this seemed the best subthread for it. The nature of the format of these discussions precludes an easy flow. However, I could move my comment if you think that would be better. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I didnt say Buzzfeed was bad, just that there are better sources surely. Also, Buzzfeed does have some reservations about it noted on RSPS. Secondly, I said removing that source was valid because it is SYNTH. If the other sources mention the connection, then it might merit inclusion or a brief mention, but as I said it looks like someone was trying to insert snipes at the guy in various articles, some of which at least likely deserved to be removed. Others may be DUE. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how there is WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, every sentence in the original text before it was wrongly removed was factually supported by the sources. "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources" (WP:SYNTHNOTPRESUMED)
    as I said it looks like someone was trying to insert snipes at the guy in various articles How? The context of that section was about the pseudonym "Dennison" and its use by Donald Trump. That it is used by another individual is highly pertinent information that I would expect to be in a Wikipedia article about the use of pseudonyms by an individual. Indeed, to remove the paragraph about how the payoff of Shera Bechard was directed by Elliot Broidy, the text falsely implied that Donald Trump was the one who directed said payoff. The version with all text correctly notes that Broidy was the one identified by sources as "Dennison", and points to some commentators who speculated that Broidy might be the fall guy. This is all WP:DUE, no WP:SYNTH involved. Katzrockso (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a discussion on that page, but WP:SYNTH "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." which is what was done there. And that article is about use by Trump, not use by Broidy. It doesnt belong there, but I suppose you could link his page to the Dennison section. And as I said, the fall guy speculation is probably all that is DUE on that page. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here's the rub. It is warranted/DUE/belongs in that article. There is enough material to create a standalone article on the pseudonym "Dennison" and that would include the use of the name by Brody. However because most coverage of this pseudonym is in the context of Donald Trump's use of the name, editors astutely WP:PAGEDECIDEd to cover the topic at Pseudonyms of Donald Trump. You can think of the heading Pseudonyms used by Donald Trump#"David Dennison" (2016) as a mini-article on 'David Dennison', which has been organized and collated with other pseudonyms used by Donald Trump. Obviously the use of the pseudonym by Elliot Brody would be DUE/warranted/belongs in/on a standalone article about "David Dennison", so it is DUE/warranted/belongs in that article. Katzrockso (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly douby David Dennison would pass GNG and would be WP:TRUMPCRUFT. I did say some brief mention is due, but not two paragraphs. The section is about DD as used by Trump, not by Brody, so its not for all uses of the name. If I went around calling myself David Dennison and derived notability, would that deserve mention there? Doubtful ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would. And it has. Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can, but we could end up with articles for every pseudonym he used, which would be excessive, when they could be merged under a common theme as they are. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm also seeing are borderline violations of WP:NOTSCANDAL
    Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
    The entire Stormy Daniels and other scandalmongering, regardless of the biased New York court decisions, which are still being investigated (and we all know there are innocent people serving time in prison), our job as encyclopedists is to respect the privacy of individuals. While we don't want to adopt the UK's censorship program, we sure don't want to become the Daily Mail. Brief mention with an objectively cited explanation is appropriate but using it as a political weapon obviously stemming from hatred for Trump while protecting Biden is unacceptable, and clearly not encyclopedic. confused face icon Just curious... is there a WP article about Biden's use of pseudonyms? Atsme 💬 📧 16:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again you are injecting a narrative of politicization into this that is entirely unproductive. Wikipedia does not make claims about supposedly "biased New York court decisions" without evidence, it reports what reliable sources report about a subject. Reliable sources have reported that there was a contract between Devesi and Broidy, reliable sources reported an investigation into their relationship, reliable sources reported that Devesi and Broidy both plead guilty to wrongdoing. You are more than welcome to personally believe that the prosecution was a sham prosecution, but there are no reliable sources to support such a claim and any inclusion of that or weighing that belief in evaluation of including article content is a total violation of WP:NPOV. Katzrockso (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't explain the edits to the other articles listed because, as far as I can tell, neither DanikS88, nor AlanRider78 ever interacted with those pages.
    Also, if your edits to Elliott Broidy's article were made to revert POV pushing, why did you 1) not mention this to begin with & 2) remove so much content that DanikS88 had never modified, like entirely removing mention of 1MDB, or categories like "People pardoned by Donald Trump" & "American lobbyists"?
    (For reference, these are all the edits DanikS88 made to Elliott Broidy's article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope Iljhgtn is getting paid for those edits. In any case, I checked three edits at random and all the cited sources mention Elliot Broidy by name, so I don't see how mentioning him could be UNDUE. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't believe Iljhgtn has any external relationship with Elliott Broidy, and I had simply assumed they tend to remove negative content because they interpret NPOV as requiring us to take a middle ground regardless of sources (which of course is not the case) but more recent edits do have me questioning this a little. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not COI, it's having a disruptive effect on the encyclopedia by removing reliably sourced information on false or mistaken pretenses. Katzrockso (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I have previously mostly interacted with the editor on one specific page, but I am concerned that the issue is in both directions and much more widespread than I had previously assumed, to the point where I'm fairly sure at least a logged warning is appropriate (though, qualifying my assessment by the fact that I do not typically make reports of conduct). I'm not sure I'd be able to handle the workload of putting together an AE (or ANI) report though, especially considering I'm also trying to work through an AFD caseload right now. Might need to put that off again :/. If there were a way to split the work that would help. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be dropping this from the list of things I expect to keep looking at because while I think there is some evidence of a double standard applied (i.e., for Israel Frey, their insistence on labelling Frey far-left and an activist, and their most recent edits to American Institute for Economic Research, such as labelling Niskanen Center left-leaning for whatever reason, are by themselves innocuous but troubling when contrasted with their typical practice of resisting similar things when applied elsewhere) I don't think any of the more recent edits of what I have seen are egregious enough to be obviously actionable, and I do not want to spend any more days reviewing this at this point. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Came across this ‘’out of process discussion’’ after reading the Grokipdia discussion and decided to respond to I'd like other's perspective on @Iljhgtn's edits in relation to Elliott Broidy. You’re in the wrong forum, which another editor explained above. The procedure is to discuss at the article TP FIRST. Next you hold an RfC about the specific issue. What is or isn’t NPOV is subjective so if you want different perspectives here, why don’t you want them in articles? The latter is how you accomplish neutrality, not by accusing others of not being neutral based on your biased perspective. Just because opinions are published in what a biased perspective considers reliable doesn’t make the opinion magically become fact. Opinions can also be speculative, as we’ve seen many times in the Russia gate conspiracy. And that’s why we discuss issues on the article talk pages first. NPOVN is for determining whether or not an article reflects a NPOV, not an editor. If you don’t like an editor’s POV, that is your issue to deal with, not ours. This discussion should be closed and hatted. Atsme 💬 📧 21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of these from the list are literally just removals of unnecessary and often extraneous "See also" list links. DarkMatter Group and Signals Intelligence Agency for example. In both of these I just said "Cut SA" for my edit summary which is what I did. Also, I did not cut just the bulleted link for Broidy, but cut several other links in the See also segment on the above which seemed to be just tossed on a list without much consideration for their appropriate inclusion on the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears as if this is a content dispute more than anything. While I want to assume good faith and not cast aspirations there are also apparent personal attacks being made over what appear to be POV/UNDUE/BLP BALANCE/BALANCE content disputes on how to edit pages citing a controversial political figure. On BLP pages in particular we are supposed to be as careful as possible with the sources used because people have sued Wikipedia over this very issue. It's always better to be careful when making claims (even those "alleged" in secondary sources) than posting them as fact for this reason. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check the edits? Katzrockso (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I note Atsme's advice and normally I'd agree except that we're talking about a whole set of articles, not one. Parallel discussions on all of them is impractical; a centralized discussion affecting many is better held on a noticeboard (per WP:COI, probably this one right here) instead of on a single talk page. That's particularly the case when the edits are all aimed in the same direction--reducing the coverage of Broidy's role in the politics of the last decade. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Mackensen. We can certainly agree to disagree regarding the purpose of this board and lack of diffs substantiating the allegations being made. Removal of content is not necessarily driven by bias and may actually be a case of caution when it comes to biographies, whereas adding derogatory information that's based on journalistic speculation or political opinion is obvious bias. My concern is that with the number of editors we have on Wikipedia, which is designed to accommodate different perspectives, why does WP have a rather notable systemic bias? What we're witnessing here along with the line-up at perennial sources, it's quite clear that NPOV is a systemic issue. We are/have been publishing biographies in a way that aligns with WP's systemic bias against conservatives, a significant number of which are sourced to opinions &/or speculation that is sometimes stated in Wikivoice, rather than providing factual information supported by objectively chosen reliable sources that provide varying perspectives. Let the readers decide. We should all support the removal of derogatory speculation by politically biased opponents, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit. That's my nickel's worth, and I bid you well. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an entire collapsible list of diffs in the original post. Did you not expand that before posting in this thread? Parabolist (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the bio and the allegations? Why is this person identified as Jewish? Considering the antisemitism issues WP is under investigation over, it’s an immediate red flag for NPOV. I haven’t read the entire article but based on what I did read, it comes off as a political hit piece rather than a biography. Atsme 💬 📧 08:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's a no, then. Great. Parabolist (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The content removed from articles did not all mention he is Jewish. This is completely off-topic and irrelevant to the content removed, I genuinely don't understand if you looked at any of the edits in question. Katzrockso (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it matters, and to think otherwise suggests a much needed review of our WP:PAGs relative to red flag, coat rack, BLP, POV, etc. Furthermore, why weren’t those particular diffs discussed on the article talk pages when made? I know full well what WP:POV railroad looks like, and this discussion fits it well. Atsme 💬 📧 08:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, for example, the edit I highlighted analyzed above on the page Pseudonyms of Donald Trump did not mention he is Jewish.
    Furthermore, why weren’t those particular diffs discussed on the article talk pages when made. Have you read any of the discussion here? You keep on asking questions that other editors have already answered. Katzrockso (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your question about me reading this discussion, yes, I have for the most part. What do you believe was the best response that actually answered the question, "why weren’t those particular diffs discussed on the article talk pages when made?" Perhaps I've overlooked it. There were none as far as I can tell, so please provide links to those discussions. Did this editor edit war the reverts, or cause disruption over the edits they made. What I'm seeing now is a handful of editors, all of the same opinion, who may actually be the ones violating BLP, NPOV, and RedFlag on a bio while projecting what they're doing onto another editor, falsely accusing him of a COI because you simply WP|don't like it, and want to keep the rumors, opinions, speculation and other dirt in this bio. Just my guess/opinion, but I'm certainly open-minded to be proven wrong. Until proven otherwise with concrete answers, this case still looks exactly like POV railroad. Atsme 💬 📧 14:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Atsme, you didn't click on the collapsed list and were under the impression it was just one article for your early comments and initial judgement. Literally none of the editors you're accusing of a POV railroad regularly edit AMPOL (including myself), perhaps you could look at people's contribs before making such broad ABF characterisations? It's common for people to rework an individual's biography, and we do have a big issue with hit pieces on Republican politicians, but very rare for someone in good-faith to comb through the encyclopedia and remove any unflattering info about said individual. That sort of thing is indicative of a COI. But no-one needs to satisfy you Kowal2701 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith cleaning up wouldn't involve removing material under false pretenses, as I documented for the article Pseudonyms used by Donald Trump above. Katzrockso (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked another edit, Andrew Hevesi. The edit by Iljhgtn removed information that was directly pointed out in the sources. From The New York Times article, Some of Andrew Hevesi’s contributors lived thousands of miles from his Assembly district, including Elliott Broidy, the Los Angeles-based chairman of Markstone. He donated $3,400 in 2005. and Donations from investment firms that manage state pension fund assets, or their executives, make up more than 10 percent of the campaign contributions that Andrew Hevesi has received. If anything, I found more to support that the information is WP:DUE through a quick Google search. See [22], [23] [24] [25]. This seems like the type of drive-by removal of information that paints Broidy in a negative light that does not take into account whether the information is WP:DUE, whether it is accurate and relevant. That does raise a serious question of either 1) competency or 2) COI. Perhaps another explanation but I can't think of one. Katzrockso (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Really? What makes a passing mention in an article about Hevesi due there? Do we always specify one contributor to a campaign? The source that was removed mentions "Mezzacappa Management LLC" and "Damon Mezzacappa", and interestingly it was not mentioned on that article. And the other sources you pulled up mention numerous other outfits that were involved, but the main focus is Hevesi. So why is Broidy DUE but the other people and firms not DUE? And then if we were to add all of them, at what point is the article too loaded with tangential people? Thats my concern here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If anything, the coverage warrants a significant expansion of the connection between Hevesi and Broidy, since the donations from Broidy to Hevesi were the subject of a criminal investigation that led to a prosecution, and said prosecution has received significant coverage over a sustained period of time (it gets coverage every year in reliable sources, from my searches). Is this connection between Broidy and Hevesi not something covered in reliable sources to some extent?
      I can't speak to the motives of why the editor (Sfeldman in this edit [26], by the way) who added that information didn't add the information about the other organizations. But from my evaluation of the information, there has been no coverage of the connections between Damon Mezzacappa and Andrew Hevesi after 2010. From what I can tell, there was never a criminal prosecution of Damon Mezzacappa or his LLC. In contrast, there was a criminal investigation and prosecution with regards to the Broidy and Hevesi's connections. How is this not a textbook case of DUE information and non-DUE information? Katzrockso (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      First, use common sense. Who cares? How is it encyclopedic information? Wikipedia accepts HUGE donations from ... well, you look it up. Are these donations the reason Wikipedia's systemic bias leans left? What you're doing when you add material that is simply "guilt by association" is a violation of WP:BLP. Look it up in past ArbCom decisions. It's there. And FYI, such information is NOT DUE as a result. Atsme 💬 📧 16:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Please stay on topic and try not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors by reference to donations. Where is there any "guilt by association" other than your references to donations? Including factual information reported by reliable sources about the prosecutions of Hevesi and Broidy is not "guilt by association". Katzrockso (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed this myself and reverted a few egregiously strange edits that crossed my watchlist, but I hadn't noticed the scale of it. One that I haven't seen mentioned is this edit on Lee S. Wolosky, where they removed a mention of Broidy saying that the connection was trivial; the cited source is entirely about Broidy, mentioning him in the first sentence and using his name twenty times throughout. Likewise, in this edit on Rex Tillerson, they removed a mention of Broidy (and modified a quotation in an extremely weird way) with the edit summary of Edited to best summ. reference(s) - Broidy is mentioned 40 times in the source and is, again, a major focus of it. I don't see how that could be reasonably characterized as more accurately summarizing the source; they removed a key focus of the source from the summary and omitted part of the quote. I'm particularly bothered by the latter summary because it's clear from the context presented here that what they objected to was naming Broidy, but they declined to state as much in their edit summary, which gives the impression of trying to avoid scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this while searching the subject on google, which may be of interest, and explain the provenance of some of these edits. It was the first result for me.

    On Sept 1, 2025, Calcalist published a story asserting, among other things, that the former vice chair of President Trump's campaign, Elliott Broidy, was a "partner" in an Israeli firm called KOIOS, which the story claimed had been involved in a PR campaign for Qatar, from which it could be incorrectly understood that Mr. Broidy was involved in the alleged campaign. After re-examination, it was found that there is no basis for this story, as there is no evidence that Mr. Broidy had any involvement in any PR campaigns and was simply a passive investor, not a “partner,” in KOIOS. We have retracted the story in its entirety, and we deeply regret any harm and damage our story inflicted upon Mr. Broidy.

    Given this, perhaps IIj was attempting to fix what they felt was overly negative coverage. I would rather AGF and try to work with someone than lay into them over being too zealous. From what I have seen so far, it does seem that earlier edits, before they did this, were sniping in targeted negative information, which in some cases may have been UNDUE. I think we should focus on looking thru these and figuring out which ones were fine and which were not. This whole thing strikes me as a bit personal, as I do recall the op and the questioned editor bickering a lot on Gaza genocide talk or somewhere, I cant remember. And really there are NPOV questions as to how negative some of the treatment was. Brody does seem to have been involved in a few tar pits, but they need to be properly contextualized and not exaggerated. Half his article was scandals, looking at the diffs, which I dont think is appropriate for BLP and that isnt his primary notability. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    While this noticeboard is the appropriate place to report neutrality issues for related edits across multiple articles, this noticeboard is primarily content-focused and is not well-suited for resolving conduct disputes. To file a conduct report for this issue, any editor can gather the relevant diffs and submit them in a new report on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 09:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger As noted above, WP:COI#Advocacy, noticeboards states "Whether an editor is engaged in advocacy should first be addressed at the user's talk page, then at WP:NPOVN, the neutral-point-of-view noticeboard". Is that inaccurate advice? Nothing on that page suggests that AE is the proper forum, and none of the very limited list of valid reasons to use AE seem to be met here (violation of CTOP/ArbCom-imposed restriction, requesting CTOP restrictions, requesting page restrictions for CTOP articles, appealing AE actions). That this noticeboard isn't supposed to handle conduct disputes is described nowhere in PAG as far as I can tell, and while most use cases may not involve that, there is no P&G reasons for conduct-related issues to be prohibited here (indeed, WP:COI suggests the opposite). Katzrockso (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed" are a contentious topic per Template:Contentious topics/list. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be meaningful if the filer of this NPOVN post definitively thought that sanctions were the correct outcome here. Obviously @Butterscotch Beluga wasn't sure what the community might think of this pattern of edits and filing a frivolous AE case on uncertain grounds is not the right decision by any means. Katzrockso (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "restrictions" might be confusing things — especially since it describes page restrictions in the next point but doesn't say what restrictions applied to an editor are — but the contentious topic restrictions that can be applied to an editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, include logged warnings, revert restrictions, blocks and bans. So restrictions in the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions sense, which are perfectly applicable if someone's behaviour is bad enough.
    On the other hand, while this place ultimately isn't able to take any enforcement actions (unless an admin does so unilaterally), I do agree that it's still a valid place to discuss things, if, like Beluga, we are unsure if any action should be taken but wish to raise things in a more centralised venue. A conversation over here might simply look like

    A: Hey, I'm a little concerned about these edits due to X, Y and Z. Can someone look over them to see if I'm overreacting?
    * B: Hmm, yeah, that does look a little concerning. Did you have any reason other than what you put in the edit summary to do W, C?
    * * C: I still think U and V are valid reasons to do W, but I also think T.
    [... etc, etc ...]

    Which would probably be a lot more pleasant for all involved than something at AE or ANI... if it worked, which it doesn't always, for example, if editor C is encouraged to think by people supporting their edits this is all politically motivated nonsense, so to speak. Engagement here was probably worth a try though, it may still be productive at this point. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the first half of you reply here is supposed to mean/apply to what I said, I apologize for misunderstanding anything.
    However, I agree with the general thrust of the 2nd half of your comment. I think that the imaginary scenario you proposed is not too different than what really happened here, though derailed by some off-topic commentary as noted.
    I find it quite concerning that at least 3 different separate forums have been suggested for this conversation (AE, ANI and article talk pages) by several editors, instead of engaging in substantive engagement with the actual issues arisen by the post [and it's worth noting that per the guidelines, this is the right forum and no editor has produced any PAG to suggest otherwise]. It seems like informal bureaucracy by appeals to process is getting in the way of meaningful discourse or addressing actual problems. Katzrockso (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Katzrockso, to clarify, Butterscotch Beluga was correct to initiate the current discussion on this noticeboard, and the content dispute (i.e. what to do about the edits across multiple articles) should continue to be discussed here. The conduct issue (i.e. whether sanctions should be applied to the editor who made these edits), however, is unlikely to be resolved on this noticeboard, based on the outcomes of past discussions here. The subject Elliott Broidy is covered under two contentious topics (WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP), so a conduct report against the editor regarding this issue would be appropriate at WP:AE, which has an efficient format for presenting multiple diffs as evidence. WP:ANI is not ideal for this conduct dispute, as it is poorly suited for handling large amounts of evidence and extended back-and-forth discussions. I posted a reminder about WP:AE because of the conduct-related comments in this discussion (including your comment about the edits having a "disruptive effect", and Buidhe's comment that the conduct "Looks sanctionable"). — Newslinger talk 11:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree that sanctions cannot result from a discussion here, but whether or not the editing here is in violation of policies that editors believe may arise to the level of being sanctionable is completely valid commentary to discuss here, as it provides reason/motivation for an editor to file a case at a forum that can levy sanctions/restrictions. That is the entire basis of WP:COI pointing to this forum, as it directly mentions the question of whether a pattern of editing constitutes advocacy - something that is a violation of Wikipedia policies. That is to say that the entire point of a discussion at this forum about advocacy would be to determine whether the conduct by a user constitutes advocacy. Editors should be perfectly free to opine whether or not sanctions are warranted (something I have not done yet), with the understanding that this is not a formal discussion that can impose sanctions. Katzrockso (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing this discussion and the listed edits in detail, I believe sanctions are warranted, and I have referred this discussion to arbitration enforcement at WP:AE § Iljhgtn. — Newslinger talk 14:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Newslinger, consider this when piling on this editor at AE/NPOVN: this is classic POV railroading dressed up as "policy enforcement." Multiple 2025 hit pieces accusing Broidy of secretly working for Qatar have now blown up in the faces of outlets that ran them:
    • Calcalist did the honorable thing and fully retracted on Nov 11, 2025, admitting "no concrete evidence."
    • Haaretz still hasn't corrected their identical garbage story, so Broidy had to sue them for libel in October 2025.
    Yet somehow the editor who took the initiative to remove or challenge the now-discredited crap is the one facing sanctions? Talk about upside-down!! WP:BLP says remove poorly-sourced contentious material immediately, especially when the sources themselves later admit it was a nothing-burger. Punishing an editor for following BLP to the letter because a handful of editors who are suspicious of his motives is the real policy violation here. Let's talk about the elephant in the room few want to visit: Qatar has been openly buying influence – Dems and Repubs – for years! $100M+ in lobbying (look at FARA filings), Menendez indicted for Qatar bribes, Lindsey Graham flipping after the money hit his PACs, Nick Muzin/Joey Allaham paid millions to pimp Qatar to conservatives, tens of millions dumped into Brookings, and so forth. But the second someone consistently calls Qatar out (like Broidy), suddenly every retracted smear and pardoned 15-year-old misdemeanor gets dragged out endlessly, while the actual pay-to-play recipients skate away unscathed. That's not neutrality, folks; that's letting Qatar's influence machine write the article by proxy. No RfC, no real talk-page consensus at those articles, just a rush to AE because the editor wouldn't keep libelous, since-retracted claims in the article. Better safe than sorry only applies when it protects the "right" people, apparently. This isn't about BLP policy. It's targeted harassment of an editor who refuses to carry water for Doha-funded narratives. Sad. The community should be ashamed if this sanction stands. Here are some diffs to consider: Calcalis, and Mother Jones, and [27] There's more, but I don't have time to do the research for you. My position is that it's always better to be safe than sorry. Atsme 💬 📧 20:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme I don't think any of us would have any issue if the edits in question were only removing that Calcalist story. But they were removing dozens of other pieces of reliably sourced content that was reported in dozens of outlets. That's the issue and one you seem to refuse to address. Katzrockso (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The current discussion has become convoluted and difficult to follow, so I split the conduct portion of the dispute to WP:AE § Iljhgtn to give everyone a chance to refocus on the content issues here (ideally in a new subsection). The result of the AE discussion will be highly dependent on the quality of Iljhgtn's response. If you believe any of the diffs presented at AE are mitigated by retractions, then you are welcome to specifically point them out at AE. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive been taking a deeper look at the edits Butterscotch referenced. Some of the edits I feel were justified. Many were indeed undue BLP attacks, and of the 21 edits on 20 articles I looked at the origins of, 7 were done by 3 accounts and 1 IP, who were subsequently indeffed. Some for inserting baseless BLP edits that were never reverted until now, and I wonder what is still extant. One had a total of 20 blocks over the years, which is wild. 3 further edits were done by accounts who were blocked at least once, but are not currently.

    The following I felt were justifiable (13):

    • DarkMatter Group and Signals Intelligence Agency - See alsos added by same IP, later blocked for 3 years for "Persistent disruptive editing: violations of WP:BLP, non-communicative, adding unsourced content with irrelevant references". Latter might be AFD-worthy.
    • João Lourenço - The same IP added this, there is some case for the NYT cite, but I find it weak, there are 5 mentions of Lourenco, but I think its more due on Brodys page. The intercept link doesn't mention Lourenco.
    • Yurii Karmazin - The creator of this page was also blocked, and would be G5-able, but has been edited since. The cited source is in Russian and didn't seem to support a mention.
    • Pseudonyms used by Donald Trump - This one was inserted by two editors, one has been blocked 8 times, mostly for 3RR. I actually think more should have been removed here, as noted on that TP discussion.
    • Andrew Hevesi - The cite only had one mention, so I think its weak to put it here.
    • Liviu Dragnea - Another from our blocked IP friend, who inserted the same NYT and Intercept articles. Intercept has no mention of Dragnea. NYT does, but as above, its a few mentions. The focus is on Broidy. Given the provenance, I am skeptical of it being here. However, it does meet DUEness for Broidys article.
    • Abuse of power - This is from the NYP, which is GUNREL. It does have 18 mentions, but I am skeptical of this being DUE. Brody wasn't in power. Also, the IP resolves to Spain, which is curious, and only has 3 edits.
    • List of Playboy Playmates of 2010 - This hosted the redirect for Shere Bechard until that became an article. It never should have mentioned the scandal. One of the three editors originating the text removed was later indeffed.
    • Fox News controversies - This is more focused on Hannity. HuffPo mentions Broidy 1 and Fox 8 times. NYTimes mentions him 4 times and Fox 7 times. By contrast, Hannity is mentioned 37 times in the NYT. Reuters and the Observer mention him zero times. The information was inserted by an editor who has been blocked a cool 20 times! (if I counted correctly)
    • Dave Wedge - This ref by an IP was improperly formatted and doesn't mention Brody.
    • First inauguration of Donald Trump - This is based on a NY Times infographic with limited information, but its own section. DUEness is shaky, but maybe. The editor who introduced it was blocked at one point.
    • Joey Allaham - This only removed one sentence, which is odd, but it does still mention Brody.

    The following had a case, but went too far (3):

    • Eric Branstad - This one is a bit difficult. The NYT cite has 45 mentions of Broidy and 3 of Branstad. The Intercept article has 1 mention of Broidy and 120 mentions of Branstad. I suppose thats enough. The creator of the article (who initated this information) was blocked twice for edit warring.
    • Keith Davidson - This involved three BLPs and probably should have been condensed. Do we really need profiles on each of his clients?

    The following made me shake my head (4):

    • Shera Bechard - This was the focus of a major scandal for him, so it is certainly DUE, but should have been rewritten. It was copied from the List of playmates above.
    • Louis DeJoy - Epithet not in the source. Broidy and Cohen may not even deserve mention here tbh.

    ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuči (tribe) has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    Kuči (tribe) 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. NotJamestack (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Battle of Fornovo

    [edit]

    Informations at Battle of Fornovo (and in all the pages that necessarily depend on it, such as First Italian War, Francesco II, Santa Maria della Vittoria etc. etc.) lack a neutral point of view. The battle is presented as a clear French victory, with Italians somehow trying to steal it from the French. In reality, according to scolarship on on the matter (see below), each side had a partial success/partial failure and both sides turned it into a total victory for propaganda purposes. Modern historians are divided on the issue, some give arguments in favor of a French victory, others give arguments in favor of an Italian victory. And others view it as a draw. Those articles don't use certain sources and misuse others, not quoting them in their entirety; this results in a non-neutral view.

    There should be 3 corrections.

    1)The result should be inconclusive or both sides claim victory. Who won (and if someone won) is too much of an unclear, debated and controversial issue to take a definitive side (you can also see there are recurring discussions about this across wikipedias in many languages). See the summary given by The Italian Wars 1494-1559, War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe, p.31, Shaw & Mallet (it's widely considered one of the best works on the Italian Wars). This summary of the battle is used as a source in those articles, but it's not mentioned in its entirety. The full verbatim quote is: "Both sides claimed the victory. The French had lost their baggage containing more than 300,000 ducats' worth of booty and abandoned the field of battle; the Italians had suffered more severe causalties and had failed to stop the French." The part unfavorable to a French victory is missing, only the part in French favor is mentioned. The theme of a comprehensive study on the matter, (The Italian Wars: Volume 1 - The Expedition of Charles VIII into Italy and the Battle of Fornovo, 1495, by multiple authors) is also that the battle has a debatable result.

    2)Per the above, the fact that Italians captured the enemy's baggage worth 300,000 ducats and remained in control of the battlefield should be mentioned in the body and intro of the article (just like it's already mentioned that the French inflicted higher casualties and successfully retreated).

    3)Casualties. It's well known that both sides greatly decreased their losses and increased those of the enemy. What we see in the infobox are only the figures extremely favorable to France and unfavorable to the Italian league (see below). This also should be corrected to the average and modern estimate of c.2000-2500 Italian deaths and c.1,000 French deaths. Here is a verbatim quote summarising this in The Italian Wars: Volume 1 - The Expedition of Charles VIII into Italy and the Battle of Fornovo, 1495, p.72: 

    "On the Italian side, Alessandro Benedetti reports that 200 men-at-arms died...Bernardino Corio, a Milanese chronicler, reports the exact same death toll of Benedetti. Marin Sanudo, a Venetian patrician, asserts instead that of French barons 80 died, among which 16 courageous captains, for a total of 2,000 dead. The Italians suffered 900 losses. In a few letters to the Venetian senate to report the outcome of the battle, the Venetian superintendents claimed to have won the battle and gave a rough death count: Angelo Maffei writes of 2,500 dead French and 800 prisoners, whereas Luca Pisani reports of 4,000 dead enemies. Conversely, the French chroniclers inflate the Italian death toll and decrease theirs. Varillas reports of 200 French foot soldiers dead and 4,000 fallen Italian soldiers, similar to Sismondi who reports 200 fallen French soldiers and 3,500 fallen League soldiers. The historian Delaborde is more impartial, and reports the death toll to be 2,000 to 3,000 dead soldiers, of which two-thirds were Italians. Lastly, it is important to cite the opinions of two modern historians. Pieri calculated the French death toll to be 1,000 soldiers and the Italian death toll to be of 2,500 soldiers, of which 1,500 were infantrymen. Michael Mallet asserts that it was the Italians who suffered the higher number of losses, more than 2,000 soldiers, among which several condottieri, however, they took more prisoners than the French."

    ~2025-34359-00 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the article you're trying to edit is semi-protected. If you're not already aware, you are not yet eligible to edit the article.
    The semi-confirmed status only requires four days and ten edits to gain – that's not too difficult to achieve, though it's probably not enough to fully get you acclimated with editing.
    Obviously you have a depth of knowledge on the subject and have something to contribute, but there are many conventions that can make your contributions more impactful and more likely to stay up when you add them.
    Have you read the beginner's guide and the manual of style? I am sure once you've acclimated yourself and made as many edits on other articles as you feel is necessary to gain experience, it won't be difficult to revise the article yourself.
    One last point – generally, the best way to improve an article is to make the edits yourself (see WP:BOLD) after you feel sufficiently experienced and comfortable with the Wikipedia conventions. Otherwise, you can make suggestions on the talk page (though it doesn't guarantee your complaints will be addressed).
    BTW – this noticeboard is for resolving disputes between editors, not for general complaints of NPOV that have not been attempted to address in edits.
    Kind regards, Faketuxedo (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutrality in the "HP Way"

    [edit]

    Hello,

    There has been a dispute primarily between myself and @Binksternet regarding the HP Way article. It is my view that the tone in some sections does not represent a neutral point of view. Overall, the tone is often inappropriate for an encyclopedia. At one point, Binksternet described his style of writing as “prose”:

    "further revert... Let's not let mediocre, boring writing take the place of engaging prose"

    By contrast, I emphasized the importance of language that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards, though I do not believe Binksternet’s edits were in bad faith. I do not take neutrality on Wikipedia lightly, and would not raise this issue unless I believed it to be significant.

    Examples:

    "Most other companies in the 1940s cared little for their employees, customers or society. For instance, Stanford business management professor Paul Eugene Holden asserted in 1942 that a corporation should be concerned only about its shareholders. He was speaking at a conference of company leaders, with Packard in attendance. Packard stood up to say, "I think you’re absolutely wrong. Management has a responsibility to its employees, it has a responsibility to its customers, it has a responsibility to the community at large." Packard recalled later that his peers "almost laughed me out of the room."[ He said, "I was surprised and shocked that not a single person at that meeting agreed with me. While they were reasonably polite in their disagreement, it was quite evident they firmly believed I was not one of them, and obviously not qualified to manage an important enterprise."

    This paragraph demonstrates a theme in other sections the article – tangentially relevant, unverifiable information. It appears to support the HP Way business philosophy in a way that is not especially informative or neutral.

    Other examples:

    In the section entitled "Decline"

    As CEO of HP, Fiorina "paid lip service to the HP Way", according to the Los Angeles Times. She did not practice management by wandering around, nor did she maintain an open door policy. She pushed HP to modernize its corporate policies, importing the profit-seeking style of Lucent Technologies from which she had come.[6] She wrote her own version of the HP Way titled "Rules of the garage". Fiorina battled the HP board, especially the Hewlett and Packard families

    The usage of the quote in this opening sentence gives factual weight to an subjective remark. When I attempted to address this, my revision was removed entirely instead of being discussed.

    Carly Fiorina worked against the HP Way (used as a caption under her photo)

    Other observers point to the 2002 firing of 15,000 HP employees as the end of the HP Way. These workers would have been offered new training and new roles under the HP Way.

    This is another example of WP:NPOV. The claim that they "would've been offered new roles" is unverifiable, and it is unclear as to how it relates to the rest of the passage. This remark seems to serve to support a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective fact.

    While there are several other examples I've attempted to address in my edits, I've included these as particularly relevant to my criticism.

    Concessions -

    It would be unfair and dishonest to ignore that there there were times where I was not always editing or conversing appropriately. While it was not my intention to "stain" the article, I will do my best to recognize these criticisms and will avoid future mistakes to the fullest extent possible. In the spirit of full disclosure, I attempt to accurately address my behavior in this section.

    Accuracy, relevance to sources:

    Some information, like my additions regarding the dot-com bubble, may not have been accurately reflected in the source.

    Overall ettiqute:

    I must emphasize it is my intention to be transparent and admit to errors or transgressions. In the spirit of good faith and relevance, I sincerely wish not to criticize other users unnecessarily.

    However, I still find it necessary to provide context to understand the full scope of the dispute ---

    At no point (that I recognize) were my specific revisions sufficiently given detail for me to work off of and reach consensus. In fact, I encouraged Binksternet to specifically address revisions he reverted in a couple of edit summaries. For example, I wrote in an edit summary ("Clean up/copyedit. tone, detail. . . lets talk on the talk page before you revert, please"), which he subsequently reverted and failed to sufficiently provide the clarification I requested.

    With that being said, my comments were also often too brief, and not given enough detail or context for edits I made. Likely, it would have made the dispute process easier if I specifically addressed my own modifications as well.

    While this is not an excuse, at the time, I did not feel particularly obligated to discuss specific details of revisions - authored by myself or Binksternet - because I instead felt a burden to address his other criticisms, which I found to be unnecessarily broad in scope, long, and occasionally transgressive.

    I will avoid these mistakes in the future to ensure clarity.

    Additionally, my initial revisions were overly incremental with not enough detail in edit summaries to justify the edits.

    Finally, some of my remarks during conversation expressed a passive-aggressive tone that is inappropriate. These remarks were obviously not made in good faith and I sincerely apologize for my behavior.

    Excessive pruning:

    In this edit

    The mention of fiscal responsibility, "customer service, relevance and longevity" were removed entirely instead of being properly revised.

    On occasion, removing the use of the term "HP Way" may have lead to ambiguity, such as in this edit: Faketuxedo (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It may interest Faketuxedo to note that my reference to "engaging prose" is supported by the requirements for FA status: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says that the FA candidate page should be "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard." I emphatically do not wish to see a dull, rote delivery of facts replace engaging prose.
    I'm not such a shitty writer. I have taken four articles to FA status, three of which I started from scratch.
    Faketuxedo, if you had suggestions for how to make the page more engaging to the reader I would have responded positively. Instead, you started out by accusing me of having a conflict of interest, which you couldn't prove, and is ridiculous. I am a freelance audio engineer working mainly with corporate events in the Silicon Valley tech hub. I don't have any formal business relationship with HP. I owned an HP calculator in the mid-80s, and I used an HP Inkjet printer in the mid-90s, but that doesn't constitute a conflict. I have definitely been inside the HP campus in Palo Alto a dozen times while working on corporate events in the 2010s and 2020s, but I was hired by various production companies who are not faithful just to HP. I have also worked for HP competitors, and I have been inside competitors' buildings, so it's a wash. I don't have any respect for the modern HP Inc after seeing the underhanded way they do business with their vendors. Admittedly, I have a soft spot for the old HP of the '40s through the '80s (which I never experienced first hand) because so many Silicon Valley oldtimers have related stories about how good it was.
    I started the HP Way page after thinking for a year about the topic. I read David Packard's book The HP Way on airline flights last summer. I looked through national and local news coverage about the topic. I searched through HP alumni writings, and tech magazine pieces. I know the topic now better than I ever have.
    It is very hard for me to believe that Faketuxedo has the reader's best interests in mind. Faketuxedo appears bent on removals rather than expansion of the topic, despite the large amount of description that could yet be added to the topic, drawn from the extensive writings on the topic. The fact that the sources are almost universally positive about the topic is why my summary of the sources is so positive. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't follow all the edit-warring edits, but I did read both of your above comments: I think this "...visionary for its time.[15] Most other companies in the 1940s cared little for their employees, customers or society. For instance," should be removed because it IMPLIES that the HP way started a new business culture that is widely adopted today; sadly, I think that is not true, and that most of today's companies don't care about their employees anymore than the companies of the 1940's. Yes Kickstarter re-incorporated as benefit corporation, but this is rare overall. If a source talks about the HP way as predecessor to that type of incorporation, than I suppose the statement can be sourced and included, or if the source says that the HP Way kickstarted workplace democracy, than it can be included.

    (I'm a stickler for not claiming facts or results that have not been proven.) I read this whole article back in September, and glancing through again now, overall, while the article does sound like lots of glowing reviews of this business philosophy, I didn't see any claims (other than employee retention) that were claimed to be PROVEN RESULTS of following this method. It seems like a business philosophy that would be well-liked, but whether that translates into better outcomes would be hard to measure. If we could find a business professors' case-studies on the HP Way that would be really helpful.---Avatar317(talk) 06:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your suggestions – that's very helpful.
    As you mentioned, I think shifting the tone from "glowing reviews" to "proven results" is a reasonable way to resolve this conflict. If there's any quantitative evidence or academic case studies to support the efficacy of the HP Way, we could keep more of the claims Binksternet included, contingent on them being supported by more verifiable sources (and written in an appropriate tone). I also agree with your proposed omission.
    @Binksternet you've mentioned a few times that you have prior knowledge and access to several sources on this topic. Would you be interested in researching if there's a way we can reasonably support the claims in the article with specific data/case studies?
    Thank you - Faketuxedo (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion that the article could incorporate more quantifiable results is a fine one, if at all possible. I haven't seen hard business analysis in the sources but maybe it exists somewhere. The absence of quantifiable results is not a POV problem, though. I'm not misrepresenting the sources that are cited, nor am I misrepresenting the field of sources readily available. The POV tag should be removed; it's a stain on the page.
    Note that the HP Way is considered the source of Silicon Valley's people-oriented culture in its early, foundational days. That makes it a very influential business philosophy for its time. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The absence of quantifiable results is not a POV problem
    That's correct, the absence of quantifiable results alone is not a POV problem. Representing subjective opinions (even if they are popular and mainstream), however, as factual evidence of the HP Way's efficacy is a POV problem because it violates the tenant of maintaining an impartial tone:
    "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view . . . summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone."
    Your writing comes off as an endorsement, not a description of an endorsement.
    An excellent example of impartiality can be found in The Beatles article. It very consistently refers to the band as almost universally acclaimed and highly influential – the article itself, however, does not attempt to present this viewpoint as its own. It gives due weight to the acclaim without presenting it as an objective fact (it doesn't state The Beatles are "the best," for instance), and it describes minority viewpoints with due weight to their mainstream acceptance (for example with critics of the White Album).
    Similarly, I don't have a problem, as you imply, with describing the HP Way as being a "very influential business philosophy." However, in the examples in my original post, you endorse pointed opinions as facts – for example, regarding Carly Fiornia's role in changing the business philosophy as "lip service", speculation on the mass-layoffs in 2001, and the description of the HP Way as contrasting the companies which you described as caring "little for their employees, customers or society," which is not framed as an opinion but a fact.
    In all of these examples, the neutrality is lacking not due to a conflict of interest (as I had erroneously tagged and have since apologized for), but in the use of language serves to endorse a viewpoint rather than present it.
    Here are two examples of how these could be implemented (that were reverted either as a correction from a different revision or as a correction from the current revision):
    "As CEO of HP, Fiorina "paid lip service to the HP Way", according to the Los Angeles Times. " -:> "This change was controversial, with the Los Angeles Times describing her business philosophy as "lip service to the HP Way"
    This goes from presenting the quote as evidence of a fact, to presenting the quote as an example of an opinion in the media.
    "It was a form of management by objectives, which focused on teamwork, innovation, fiscal responsibility, and morality ("obligations to society")." -> "According to Hewlett-Packard, the HP Way focused on teamwork, innovation, fiscal responsibility, anticipating future needs and morality"
    This edit presents the objectives as corporate goals described by HP, whereas the original presents the objectives as successful outcomes.
    I appreciate the small revisions that you have made to your writing based on my suggestions. However, I've made my case as clearly as I can. Unless you're committed to at least meeting me halfway here – all I'm requesting is to back up the claims in the article with data or case studies, and improving the tone where needed – then I'm going to leave this up to the other editors to help us come to a consensus and return when more input has been made.
    Other editors – I would really appreciate it I can come back here to find a least a couple agreeable third-party suggestions that myself and Binksternet can implement without edit warring. I'd like to contribute more but I'm quite busy and don't have time to get into the nitty-gritty anymore than I can.
    Regards, Faketuxedo (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove the POV tag

    [edit]

    The POV tag should be removed from the article as it was placed in error. The tag is reserved for cases in which the sources are not represented neutrally. The POV tag page says:

    An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

    The described problem does not exist at the HP Way page. The sources are drawn from a wide swath of the literature, and each source is represented appropriately and in balance. I did not insert any "personal views".

    Faketuxedo is trying to smear the page for some reason. Faketuxedo's first-ever action at the page was to place a COI tag,[28] which was completely unmerited. Faketuxedo said that the tag was placed for "heavy and persistent use of promotional language" which is not the same as having a conflict of interest. A month later, Faketuxedo placed two more tags: Template:Tone and Template:Peacock.[29] At this point, Faketuxedo had not elaborated about the perceived problems on the page, nor had Faketuxedo made any textual contributions to the page. People here generally call that behavior "drive-by tagging". The placement of four different tags by Faketuxedo (COI, Tone, Peacock, POV) appears to me to be WP:Tendentious editing, a violation of WP:Responsible tagging. Faketuxedo should be warned against this. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the NPOV tag is appropriate. Some guides to read are WP:NOTADVERT and MOS:FLOWERY, and just the WP:NPOV page in general. I don't see how the inclusion "Corporate management author James C. Collins described the HP Way as "visionary" for its time" could be seen as neutral even though it's attributed, it comes across as corporate puff-piece talk. The only thing it tells us is "this person said this new thing is good". Denaar (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about the Tendentious editing and don't understand the motivation. I also think maybe a third party look might clean up faketuxedo's problems? Or at least reach consensus on if they are actually problems at all. I personally thought their edits were not really needed and the tagging not really logical but I do think other editors might be useful? Could an RFC in the talk page maybe be a good idea? IndrasBet (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Same-Sex attracted section of Terminology of Homosexuality

    [edit]

    Both of the users that redirected Same-sex attracted to Terminology of homosexuality have been blocked indefinitely. I was asked to build "consensus" to update this page, so I am asking for assistance.

    WebMD gives us a pretty neutral definition of the term Homosexual: "Homosexuality refers to attraction between people who are the same sex. It comes from the Greek word homos, meaning “the same.” [30]. Variations on the term "Same-sex Attraction" have been used by researchers since at least the 1970's:. "Tested the hypothesis that similarity-dissimilarity of sexually relevant attitudes has a greater effect on opposite-sex than same-sex attraction." [31]. I can pull many citations just like this.

    Even today, APA uses same-sex attraction in a neutral way. [32]

    However, it would be original research for me to write in an article "same-sex attraction is a term used in psychology research since the 1970's" using the above source; I would need a secondary source that actually says that, otherwise, it's original research to use the above citations and describe what is in them. We need a secondary source that analyses those sources.

    GLAAD does warn about "unwanted same-sex attraction", but also gives a whole list of words to watch for which aren't included. [33]

    Unfortunately, that style of citation is currently being used to argue that "same-sex attracted" originates in the 2000/2010s ex-Gay movement and that it didn't begin as a scientific term, and specifically stresses the "religious" nature of the term. Then the term was being added to the articles of Psychologists who are not affiliated with the "ex Gay movement" to bring people to this page.

    People who practice "reparative" or "ex gay" therapy, of course, use scientific terminology in order to make themselves look professional. But that's another obvious statement that is hard to source because it's so obvious no one actually writes it out.

    If you actually read through the sources carefully, you'll see the sentences on the page aren't firmly sourced; it's mostly Original Research and Synthesis. I would say the entire topic fails to be notable, precisely because no one has written anything in depth about it, but it's a "sub page" to dance around being notable.

    I think this subsection of the page isn't notable, is original research, and doesn't meet WP:Due or WP:Balance because it makes up about 1/5 of the article.

    I think a "Terms used by the Ex-gay movement" section might be reasonable; but we actually already have one linked right at the top of the page that discusses terminology used on that page, so a short summary and a link to the other page seems most appropriate to me. Denaar (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Giving a glance at the article and the talk page, it seems like the same sex attraction section serves largely to discuss the marketing of "ex-gay" and conversion therapy movements, with the term SSA (same sex attraction) as an aside and common theme, but not something most of the sources address as a central topic or thesis.
    Clinical terminology is not given enough weight. However, I really do think it has a patently ex-gay association in pop culture even though it retains its clinical definition academically and in research. This is mentioned in two or three sources, though maybe with the evidence used now its use in anti-gay is not enough to keep as more than a brief note. If possible though, its worth looking into as something to go into a bit of depth on. I think this is too nuanced to dismiss reducing just to a footnote or removing entirely.
    Just to give a few options on next steps:
    - If there is a way to find sources without synthesizing them together, I think it's worth including as a shortened version, otherwise remove all together.
    - The section is way too long. The largest it should be is two or three short paragraphs.
    - The sources could be salvaged for citations in the ex-gay movement article, or it could be used as a backbone to create a new section about the modern marketing and terminology of the ex-gay movement article with SSA as a central theme. If the latter ends up happening your suggestion with summary/wikilink is good.
    - The claims about the term originating primarily from the 2010s are not reasonable and should've been removed a while ago.
    Regards, Faketuxedo (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    think this is too nuanced to dismiss reducing just to a footnote or removing entirely. - I meant to add "without looking into it deeply." Those are both possibilities in the longer run Faketuxedo (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean, there's plenty of stuff written by sociologists and others about how religious people avoid terms like gay, etc and promote "same-sex attracted". See [34] for specific application to Mormons. Katzrockso (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think you could directly state that SSA terminology was used in such and such paper(s) and publications in the 1970s: to establish a professional timeline. You might not be able to make a first claim but you could establish the earliest paper up until current papers in this way to set a logical framework which would show the term was used before the Ex-Gay movement without outright making that claim if sources don’t say so. People will see the dates and make the connection. Just stating such and such paper published in this year said this and directly citing the paper isn’t OR. Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    I edited YG (rapper) a few weeks ago (Special:Diff/1318898282/1320600954) to address a strong negative slant and undue focus on controversies. The main change was that I moved content around so there weren't dedicated headings and sections that exist solely to criticize the subject. This was recently reverted by Wikipedious1. I'm posting here so uninvolved editors can weigh in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with moving the content around to avoid a "Controversy" section. I reverted the article and also started a discussion at Talk:YG (rapper)#Controversy section. Woodroar (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I always strive to avoid controversies sections on a BLP, unless that becomes a defining characteristic. They should always be worked into the body of the article. @Thebiguglyalien you worked on Bob Vylan with me iirc, I love to highlight that example, altho its BLP adjacent, but their controversies came to define them somewhat. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Hamburger#Request_for_comment:Variations#Veggie_burgers_should_be_removed_from_the_article.

    [edit]

    If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP-related content dispute

    [edit]

    I would like to ask for advice from experienced editors on how to proceed in a situation where reliably sourced content and a sourced category addition are repeatedly rejected, and normal dispute-resolution steps have not been successful.

    In the article Ekaterina Kotrikadze, I attempted to add information about her legal status in Russia, supported by multiple reliable sources, and to restore the category People listed in Russia as foreign agents, which had previously been removed due to lack of sourcing. After providing the necessary sources, the edit and the category were again reverted.

    I opened a discussion on the article’s talk page, but other editors stated that they consider the matter closed and declined further participation. I then submitted a request to DRN, but it was closed because no other editor chose to participate.

    At this point, I am unsure how to proceed. I do not want to edit war, and normal dispute-resolution steps have been exhausted without any engagement from the opposing editors. I would appreciate guidance on how best to handle situations where sourced content is repeatedly rejected, but other involved editors decline dispute resolution.

    PS: I am a beginner on enWiki and therefore may not yet know all the specifics of the rules and regulations. If I made a mistake with the choice of the forum, please indicate where my current question can be sent to resolve the situation. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Responded at the talk - I think that the persecution she faces is indeed notable.
    When you request feedback somewhere it's common courtesy to let other editors at the talk page know about it. Alaexis¿question? 12:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I notified the @TylerBurden on his personal page. Unfortunately, I didn't know that I needed to be notified additionally on the article's talk page.
    In the end, what should I do? Can I return my edit to the article, or do I need to wait for someone else's approval? Unfortunately, the only one who was against it does not consider it necessary to take part in the discussion.
    By the way, a similar situation occurs in another article where TylerBurden prevents the publish of verified information by reliable sources. I'm afraid he's going to continue his rollback path without sufficient motivation. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlexeyKhrulev You were shut down for WP:BLUDGEONING already but evidently there is no end to your constant efforts and it feels like I'm receiving a ping from you every other day as you go around different venues seeking for editors to insert your content. I haven't used rollback a single time in these disputes, all reverts have been made either to prevent your edit warring, which has included you declaring fake consensus for a dispute you were directly involved in. What should you do? I would suggest start following Wikipedia policy, as eager as you are to stress how much of a beginner you are, you are equally eager to edit war and generally overstep your boundaries in a WP:CTOP. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to clarify that I only add material that is supported by reliable sources, and nothing I proposed was unsourced or speculative. Another editor has now returned edit that I previously tried to include, and it has not been reverted by you before. This suggests that the issue was not the content itself, but the dispute with you.
    My intention has never been to "bludgeon" or to edit war, but simply to ensure that reliably sourced information is represented in a neutral, attributed manner. I have followed the dispute-resolution steps (talk page, DRN, etc.), and I am fully open to adjustments for tone or weight when needed. My only concern is how you evaluate the source material and prevent it from being included. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You did all these things, you edit warred, declared a consensus yourself (of course in support of your edit) after an actually uninvolved editor intervened, closing the discussion saying you were bludgeoning. Hopefully you're aware that all these things are listed in the history of the articles and I'm not sure why instead of taking responsibility you're pretending to be a careful beginner. TylerBurden (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot agree with your statement. At that moment, I offered a new version of the my previous edit for consideration, but you ignored it. I had to ping you a few times, but you still didn't respond. Due to the fact that you were the only participant in that discussion and did not disagree (your silence is interpreted as agreement here), I have every right to make an edited version of the edit (according to the consensus rule). AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alaexis can you also review this revert by TylerBurden? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Alaexis (who doesn't have a spotless record themselves when it comes to pushing WP:UNDUE Russian narratives) wants to insert a section into a WP:BLP titled "Political position" and make it almost exclusively about how the Russian state is putting the individual on various lists, they'll be following the same poor biographical writing that you initially did on the article brought up here first, which even you eventually admitted was inappropriate, then we'll have to cross that bridge.
    You can stop pinging me. TylerBurden (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained at the talk that the political persecution she faced has been reported by RS such as Meduza and therefore should be mentioned in the article. The section is called Political persecution and not Political position as you wrote. If you have policy-based arguments I'm happy to continue the discussion at the talk page of the article.
    Also, please refrain from personal attacks which is a direct violation of WP:CIVIL policy. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing this I have found sources from Guardian, CBC, and the New York Times regarding her allegations against Slutsky and CNN [[35]] and ABC [[36]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    FBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation

    [edit]

    Can editors who know about US politics look at this article and see if it is sufficiently neutral. I am not even sure if the topic is standalone notable. Sourcing is very weak. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is about an investigation into a white supremacist group that call themselves Groypers. The article does not mention that though. See Nick Fuentes for the missing context. ~2025-36251-63 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it appears Shadowfax33 wrote this while evading a ban. ~2025-36251-63 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about Groypers. This a well-documented controversy about The FBI memo targeted Catholics at Latin Mass. There's a DOJ IG report, congressional hearings, testimony from Wray and Garland, and responses from Catholic organizations. That's what the article covers.
    I'm not evading any ban. This is my only account. Per WP:BRD, concerns about the article should have been raised on the article talk page or my user talk page first.
    Which parts of the article violate NPOV? The article includes FBI's defense, IG findings, congressional criticism, and Catholic responses. Happy to address specific concerns. Bladerunner24 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, user ~2025-36251-63 (account created today) just reverted my edits to J. Kirk Wiebe with no explanation. Timing seems coordinated with these accusations. I posted on that article's talk page asking for explanation. Bladerunner24 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Another new account @2025-36344-18: reverted my edit on FBI Richmond Catholic memo, saying it's "disingenuous to say it's unrelated" regarding Nick Fuentes. That's now two different new accounts reverting my work on two different articles within hours of these accusations being posted. Bladerunner24 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On notability, reporting on the memo spans the two years since it was distributed, there are a handful of GREL sources spanning that time period covering it (NYT, WaPo, CNN, Axios), a few MREL sources (Washington Times, Newsweek), a lot of niche outlets which focus on Catholic news have covered it, a handful of GUNREL have also covered it. Then there are multiple official websites of agencies, government employees, and elected politicians which cover and discuss it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Cdjp1 for the notability assessment. Happy to continue improving sourcing on the article talk page. Bladerunner24 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob from Broccoli probably needs a WP:BOOMERANG for casting aspersions. DarkCrystal24 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute at Russian Armed Forces

    [edit]

    Original edit, revert, most recent edit.

    Discussion: Talk:Russian Armed Forces#Foreign personnel

    The issue is about whether the addition is WP:DUE and whether attribution is necessary. It would be nice to get more eyes on it. TurboSuperA+[talk] 23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any issue with the latest version. I think it is WP:DUE because the presence of foreign personnel in any country's military is interesting and noteworthy in general, and the recruitment of foreigners to the Russian military has clearly been covered widely in RSes, including the methods of recruitment. The latest version has also been attributed. Can you elaborate on what issues you still see in the latest version?
    I also don't see any issue with including a summary of the allegations that you object to here, as these allegations have been widely reported in RSes, as long as they are attributed to whoever is making the allegations (either soldiers themselves, soldiers' families, soldiers' home countries' governments, or Ukraine). Helpful Cat {talk} 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Armed Forces of Ukraine doesn't have a "Foreign personnel" section, nor a "Forced mobilisation" section, despite both being well-documented. Should they be added? TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That article has the section Armed Forces of Ukraine#Conscription, which can be expanded with material from the Ukrainian conscription crisis article. We also have the International Legion (Ukraine) article, and I don't see why we shouldn't add a "Foreign personnel" section to the Armed Forces of Ukraine article that draws from there.
    Again, can you elaborate on your issue with the current version of the Russian Armed Forces article? If your real issue is with the Armed Forces of Ukraine article, it is inappropriate, WP:POINTy and disruptive to raise a dispute about the Russian Armed Forces article instead. Helpful Cat {talk} 05:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is not with the Armed Forces of Ukraine article, I was simply bringing it up for comparison. The article Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian war already covers both Ukraine and Russia, so if we're going to duplicate content for one of them, then we should similarly duplicate content for the other. That's what neutrality demands.
    I don't appreciate you bringing up WP:POINT. Are we unable to have a content dispute in the RUSUKR area without speculating on the motivations of editors? And we're not even disputing whether the content should be included in Wikipedia, because it already is. This is about whether the content should be duplicated and how it should be presented. And if we have two sides engaged in a conflict, then how we treat the articles of the two sides is a neutrality issue. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked twice if you could elaborate on what issues you have with the current version of the Russian Armed Forces article; both times, you haven't answered, but pointed to a different article instead. If you want to avoid the appearance of WP:POINT, you might want to explain the actual problem you're raising, and why you find the current version problematic (for example, why is it not WP:DUE, or why is the attribution insufficient?) Helpful Cat {talk} 06:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ve asked twice if you could elaborate on what issues you have with the current version of the Russian Armed Forces article
    I've explained it on the article's talk page, but I can repeat it here. And it's not about the whole article, but the addition linked in the opening post of this thread. Also, note that I have not reverted the latest edit, it is still live.
    First of all, the addition is a duplicate of what is already present in the Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. Do we need two full paragraphs in an already long article?
    Second, there are weasel words in the latest addition: several sources have reported and According to experts. That is not sufficient attribution. Which sources, which experts?
    Third, the the edit says: charging them with luring young men to Russia with the promise of lucrative employment or university admissions only to force them to fight in Ukraine. But reading the article, there are important differences in the details. It says the human traffickers promised university admissions and lucrative employment, while the Indian soldiers say they were promised non-combatant roles in the Russian military. So they knew they were joining the Russian military, they just expected different roles within it. The edit makes it sound like they filled out university admission applications in Russia but were sent to the front line. Militaries promising roles to recruits only to pull the rug from under them is standard procedure in pretty much all the world's militaries. Here's the US as an example: [37] [38] [39] [40] TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that explanation, which is a lot clearer.
    • "First of all, the addition is a duplicate of what is already present in the Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. Do we need two full paragraphs in an already long article?" - I don't think this is an argument in itself, because many other sections in this article are condensed versions of separate main articles (e.g. history, budget, nuclear weapons), and this is also the case for other military articles such as United States Armed Forces.
    • Weasel words: "several sources have reported" seems to be a summary of all the sources this section is citing, i.e. CNN, the Atlantic Council, the LA Times, Telegraph India, France 24, and Al Jazeera. I'm not sure how else we would group the attribution together, and WP:WEASEL does say "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." As for "according to experts", that is taken from the subheading of the France 24 article that sentence cites. It might be better and more specific to quote the researcher Yohann Michel from further down in the article about foreign soldiers being used expendably to reveal Ukrainian positions.
    • Al Jazeera article: I do agree that this article is not the best. It's unclear whether the soldiers interviewed in the article (or whose families were interviewed) who were promised non-combatant roles are supposed to be the same people who were promised "lucrative jobs or university admissions", or if they are just other examples of Indians who fought for Russia in general. (Being promised a non-combatant military role and then being sent to the front line is still a form of deception no matter how common it is, but I agree that it's different from being promised a civilian job or university offer and then forced into the military). I suggest adding these other sources:
      • another Al Jazeera article - promised a job as a security guard, but then forced into the Russian military
      • The Guardian article - two more "security guard" cases; tourists being detained and forced to join the military; two cases of men trying to take jobs in Germany or Dubai but being picked up and sent to the military in Russia; one case of a student trying to study medicine in Russia but discovering on arrival that he had been deceived into joining the military
      • SCMP article - two cases of men trying to work in the Middle East, but being tricked or forced into joining the Russian military (one of them was also mentioned in the Guardian article)
      • The Wire article - promised jobs as construction workers but forced into the military
      • There are sufficient examples of these allegations from various RSes to justify the quote you object to, even if the Al Jazeera article is unclear by itself. Clearly, there is a spectrum where some foreign fighters were aware that they were joining the military but believed they would not see combat, while others were deceived under the pretence of civilian jobs or study. Helpful Cat {talk} 08:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coercion and deception
    The claims of coercion and outright deception the articles do qualify with "said", "claims", "told"; for example If we refused, they said we would be killed,” he claimed. (TheWire.in), a video circulated on social media of seven Indians from Punjab who claimed they had travelled to Russia as tourists (The Guardian), where their families claim they have been forced to fight in the Ukraine war (SCMP) So I don't think the coercion can be said in WikiVoice, since the cited RSs choose to attribute the statements.
    The term "security guard" is not explained much. Is the claim that some Random Security Company is advertising jobs but it is actually a front for the Russian army? Seems unlikely. From the Guardian: In India, several cited a YouTube channel, Baba Vlogs, which is run by Faisal Khan – an Indian recruiter operating out of Dubai – as the platform that had duped them. Khan posted a series of videos to his 300,000 followers from the streets of St Petersburg promoting jobs in Russia as military helpers, categorically stating that they would be safe and not sent to the frontlines, and An Indian man working as a translator for the Russian ministry of defence ... said many who arrived from India and Nepal had no clue they were there to work in the conflict zone. From the SCMP: In one video shared on YouTube by Faisal Khan, who runs Baba Vlogs, he can be seen strolling down a street in St Petersburg, inviting viewers to join the Russian army for a monthly salary of US$3,600. Khan explains the job would include clearing demolished buildings and caring for armouries without need for combat duty. What most of these cases seem to have in common is that these people signed up for and were promised non-combatant jobs within the Russian military (security/guarding facilities, clearing demolished buildings, and so on). I agree with you, this is still deception, just not as egregious as being an unwitting tourist or hopeful student and then being carted off to the front line.
    What if the Wikipedia article said something like: There have been cases of Indian and Nepalese nationals who were promised non-combatant roles far from the front line, but ended up serving in combat units along the line of contact. ?
    Manpower shortage
    Reading over the edit again, I saw this in the beginning: Facing manpower shortages amidst casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian war and a lack of Russian recruits Is that even true? United24Media, a decidedly pro-Ukraine source reports the opposite: Russia maintains a high level of personnel availability for its armed forces, with operational reserves and ongoing recruitment efforts supported by financial incentives. This assessment was shared by Major General Vadym Skibitskyi, Deputy Chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, in an interview with Suspilne on August 12. ... "The figures mentioned—30–35,000 people per month, depending on the intensity of hostilities—are used to replenish losses in Russian Armed Forces units.” Here is the Kyiv Independent echoing the same report. So I don't think we can state in WikiVoice that Russia is facing a manpower shortage. TurboSuperA+[talk] 09:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coercion and deception: I agree that the various allegations should be attributed. Re: "security guard", I think it would be WP:OR to assume that that's a military security guard rather than a civilian one.
    You are right to quote sections showing that many people intended to join non-combatant military roles. However, there are also enough examples in the articles where non-military jobs were promised (jobs outside Russia, or jobs as construction workers, domestic workers, or kitchen cleaners) or where employment was not involved (tourists, the medical student) to show that as I mentioned above, foreign soldiers exist on a spectrum of willingness.
    Your proposed sentence only mentions one end of the spectrum. How about something like: "In May 2024, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation said it had arrested four people linked to a human trafficking network that sent men to fight for the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. Al Jazeera Reuters Some Indian and Nepalese and other men and their families have said that they were promised non-combat "helper" roles in the military, but were sent to the front line; others allege that they were promised civilian employment or were in Russia as tourists or students, but were deceived and coerced into joining the military. [all the refs above]"
    (I included "other" because there's also an allegation by a Kenyan man, for example) - on second thought, I struck this and removed "other" because the Kenyan man is saying he was a tourist, not that he was a non-combat military helper, so it wouldn't be correct to include him in the first part of the sentence as I did originally. I edited my comment 11:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
    Manpower shortage: I agree that that is unclear, as there are conflicting reports from RSes. Rather than saying in wikivoice that Russia has a manpower shortage, I think we can just say that they are trying to increase manpower: "Media has reported that to increase manpower amid casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Russian Armed Forces has increasingly turned to foreign recruits..." Helpful Cat {talk} 11:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first suggestion is good, I have no remarks. The second one is also good, except the word "increasingly". I checked the sources you linked and none of them say that Russia is "increasingly turning to foreign recruits", so that part is WP:OR. Thanks fir taking the time to write it. TurboSuperA+[talk] 19:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, thanks for the reply. I don't think "increasingly" is OR as it's supported by the Atlantic Council article and particularly the CNN article the section currently cites:
    • "As Russia continues to struggle to recruit its own people to fight in Ukraine, it is increasingly turning to foreigners to bolster its military."
    • "The rise in the number of foreigners found fighting in Ukraine has recently prompted several countries to issue strongly worded appeals to Russia to stop recruiting their citizens."
    • "The Ukrainian Defense Intelligence told CNN the number of foreigners found on the front lines in Ukraine has been growing year-on-year since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in early 2022 but has increased significantly this year. The number of foreigners taken prisoner by Ukrainian troops in the first nine months of this year was double that of the whole of last year, which was itself five times the 2023 figure, according to Kyiv."
    If you want, we can substantiate the increase more specifically and attribute it: "According to the Ukrainian Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, nearly 200 foreigners from 37 countries who had fought for Russia were being held as prisoners of war by Ukraine in October 2025. Ukrainian Defense Intelligence said that five times as many non-Russian soldiers were captured by Ukraine in 2024 than in 2023, and twice as many as in 2024 had been captured by September 2025." Helpful Cat {talk} 04:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Russia continues to struggle to recruit its own people to fight in Ukraine,
    This is directly contradicted by the United24Media and Kyiv Independent reports on the statement by Ukraine's intelligence services. And just because the number of foreigners increased, that doesn't necessarily mean Russia is "increasingly turning to foreign recruits", it could very well be that more foreigners are joining for their own reasons. The article isn't clear. The recruiters mentioned in the articles, Baba Vlog and those arrested, are
    Your suggestion of substantiating it is good. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said that we can leave out claims about Russia lacking manpower in the military - the point is that the increase is substantiated by sources.
    "And just because the number of foreigners increased, that doesn't necessarily mean Russia is "increasingly turning to foreign recruits", it could very well be that more foreigners are joining for their own reasons." - this would just be OR, because RSes clearly do report that Russia is recruiting foreigners to increase manpower (again, we don't have to state that Russia has a shortage of manpower in the military - by whatever metric would objectively constitute a shortage - to state that they are trying to increase manpower).

    "The revelations come against a backdrop of burgeoning economic cooperation between the two global powerhouses. The Russian economy faces labour shortages because of its ageing population and the significant losses incurred during its war in Ukraine. The youth of the Indian subcontinent are an easy target to make up for this shortfall: Despite rapid economic progress, unemployment in India remains high and prospects are limited. Seeking better lives, young men look for work in Russia – only to find themselves on the battlefield.

    And those who fall into the clutches of the Russian military are often quickly sacrificed on the front line.

    Foreign soldiers “are used to move forward and to help the Russian army solidify its position”, Michel explained. “They move in groups of one to three people. They infiltrate themselves and reveal the positions of Ukrainians simply by getting shot [at].”

    “They are often killed, but it’s still a gain [for the Russians],” he said."

    • again, all the examples above from various sources where foreigners allege that they were coerced or deceived into joining and therefore didn't "join for their own reasons"
    RSes clearly draw the link that Russia is intentionally recruiting foreigners, and that the purpose of this is to increase their manpower. This is not mutually exclusive with some foreigners joining for reasons such as citizenship or payment, because Russia attracting those foreigners with those benefits is still an intentional Russian tactic.
    To ignore this because "what if they spontaneously joined for their own reasons without Russia intending to attract them at all?" would be OR on our part. Helpful Cat {talk} 06:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeking better lives, young men look for work in Russia
    It's not OR. Your source says that they are going to Russia to look for work. The CNN article bases a lot of it on the premise that Russia is facing a lack of recruits, when they are actually gaining 30-35.000 new ones every month.
    The way you're saying it makes it sound like Russia is sending people to India and Nepal to recruit people, when actually people from those places are wanting to go to Russia to seek employment. That's not OR, that's what most of the articles you posted say.
    It was the dream of a new start that made Prince and his fishermen cousins, Vineeth Silva and Tinu Paniadiam, all in their early 20s, decide to migrate to Russia in January. (AlJazeera)
    When Hemil Mangukiya left his small village in the Indian state of Gujarat last December, he told his family he was off to Russia to make a better living than was possible at home in India. (The Guardian)
    Reaching out to Baba Vlogs, a renowned employment agency based in Dubai, Aazad thought he was closer to his dream of providing his loved ones financial security when he received a job offer in the Middle Eastern city. (SCMP) TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The way you're saying it makes it sound like Russia is sending people to India and Nepal to recruit people, when actually people from those places are wanting to go to Russia to seek employment" - you are assuming that recruiters cannot work across borders. Not only is that OR, it's frankly not very logical. Of course people can be recruited for jobs in different countries.
    Let's look at the examples you're citing where people went to Russia voluntarily:

    "The offer of a job as a security guard in Russia, which came through a recruiter, proved irresistible for Prince and his cousins. In freezing January, they arrived in Moscow after each paying $8,000 to the recruiter, only to be separated on landing by the recruiter’s Indian representative in Moscow.

    Prince was taken away to an apartment, where he was confined for four days. He got food, but no answers to the gnawing doubts that were growing by the hour: What was going on?

    “Finally, the truth emerged – we weren’t there for the advertised position; we were expected to join the Russian army as helpers,” Prince said.

    The recruiter, whom the cousins had already paid in full, was no longer reachable. “We had no choice but to follow the representative’s orders,” Prince added."

    Hmmm, does he sound like he joined the Russian military for his own reasons?

    "When Hemil Mangukiya left his small village in the Indian state of Gujarat last December, he told his family he was off to Russia to make a better living than was possible at home in India.

    Lured by a recruitment video he had seen on YouTube, the 23-year-old had thought he was going for a secure security job far from the war in Ukraine. But in strained phone calls home from Russia, he told his family he was instead sent to a month-long military training camp and then taken to the frontlines, where he was made to dig trenches, carry ammunition and operate rifles and machine guns. Then, in late February, his calls abruptly stopped."

    Nope, this one doesn't sound like he signed up to fight for his own reasons either.

    "Reaching out to Baba Vlogs, a renowned employment agency based in Dubai, Aazad thought he was closer to his dream of providing his loved ones financial security when he received a job offer in the Middle Eastern city.

    Arriving in Dubai in December, however, he was told there were no jobs and sent to work as a kitchen cleaner in Russia – where his family claims he was forcibly brought to the border to fight for Moscow in the ongoing war with Ukraine.

    “The agent charged him 300,000 rupees (US$3,600) to arrange the job. But when Aazad reached Moscow, his phone and passport were taken away,” said his brother, Sajad Yousuf Kumar. “We are worried he will be sent to the front line.”"

    Wait, this guy wasn't even trying to go to Russia at all. And when he did go to Russia, he thought he would be a kitchen cleaner. Does it sound like he joined the Russian military for his own reasons?
    Sorry, but let's not grasp at straws. Helpful Cat {talk} 07:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're suggesting that these people don't have agency and can't make decisions. If I write an ad offering $100 to dig a hole and someone shows up, digs a hole and I pay him $20. Did I force him to dig the hole? No. There was deception, a scam, sure, but not coercion. It's different than if I grabbed a random person off the street, put a gun to their head and told them to dig a hole.
    you are assuming that recruiters cannot work across borders. Not only is that OR, it's frankly not very logical.
    According to the sources, they were deceived by third-party and Indian recruiters. If you want to say these are Russian military recruiters, then you'll need a source for that.
    A group of seven men who had travelled to Moscow on study and business visas said they were deceived by a third-party agent (TheWire.in)
    after it was estimated that thousands had ended up in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine. Some went voluntarily, but others say they have been trapped.Many of the Nepali were from impoverished villages where employment is scarce, and travelled under the false promises of high-earning jobs (The Guardian)
    Reaching out to Baba Vlogs, a renowned employment agency based in Dubai (SCMP)
    There is nothing in the sources that suggests these recruiting agencies are operated by the Russian military. The sources do not say it is the Russian military in India who are coercing people to go.
    An Indian man working as a translator for the Russian ministry of defence, who is posted in a Moscow facility that recruits foreign fighters, said many who arrived from India and Nepal had no clue they were there to work in the conflict zone.“The agents persuade them that no harm will come to them. Given that these people come from poor backgrounds and spend a lot of money to reach Russia, they sign the contracts,” he said, requesting anonymity. “After that, they can’t back out.” (The Guardian)
    Again, they were deceived by "agents" with false promises, and then travelled to the recruiting office in Moscow. The Russian militaty doesn't have its own recruiters in India actively forcing them to go to Russia.
    Indian security officials, who, in recent weeks, have made arrests and conducted raids against recruiters accused of luring people to Russia on false pretexts. (AlJazeera)
    Nothing suggesting these recruiters are part of the Russian military. In fact, these scammers aren't only recruiting people for Russia: But the pattern of vulnerable Indians finding themselves trapped in job scams overseas is not limited to Russia’s war in Ukraine, experts say. (AlJazeera) TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "You're suggesting that these people don't have agency and can't make decisions. If I write an ad offering $100 to dig a hole and someone shows up, digs a hole and I pay him $20. Did I force him to dig the hole? No. There was deception, a scam, sure, but not coercion. It's different than if I grabbed a random person off the street, put a gun to their head and told them to dig a hole."
    This is ridiculous and irrelevant. Your example is about underpayment. If I offer someone $100 to dig a hole, physically confine them when they show up and force them onto the front line instead, yes, I am taking away their agency. Deception and coercion are exactly how human trafficking works. All you are doing here is second-guessing the allegations reported in RSes based on your own POV, and that is unconstructive, disruptive, and blatant OR.
    Anyway, no one has ever said that all foreigners fighting for Russia were forced into doing so. As I have said twice, they exist on a spectrum of willingness. What you are denying now is that Russia is recruiting them at all, consensually or otherwise, and that is clearly indisputable.
    "The sources do not say it is the Russian military in India who are coercing people to go."
    "The Russian militaty doesn't have its own recruiters in India actively forcing them to go to Russia."
    I have already said that it is possible to recruit people for jobs across borders. Of course the Russian military is not in India.
    Where do the sources say that the Russian military is directly involved (apart from the obvious fact that these recruiters are recruiting people into the Russian military, and doing so without the Russian military's involvement or awareness would be fairly WP:EXTRAORDINARY)? Let's see:
    (and yes, some of these examples are of people who chose to join the military voluntarily. Again, foreign fighters exist on a spectrum)
    • LA Times:
      • "But days after signing a 17-page army contract that Hammad couldn’t read — he was denied a Russian translator and wasn’t given access to WiFi to translate using his phone, according to his wife — he found himself bunkered in a drone-stalked forward position somewhere in Russian-occupied southeastern Ukraine." Hmm, who provided the army contract? Maybe the army?
    • The Wire:
      • "“She told us it was a Russian government site. We fell for the promise of high salaries. We all come from humble backgrounds and felt that moving out of Moscow for better money was a good idea,” he said. But upon arrival, they were taken straight to a Russian Army camp and given 15 days of basic training. Then they were dispatched to the frontline. “Officials threatened us with pistols and forced us to sign contracts in Russian. If we refused, they said we would be killed,” he claimed." Hmm, do you think the Russian army might have been involved in this?
    • SCMP:
      • "Delhi has acknowledged some Indian nationals have been recruited by Russia for military support roles, such as military helpers and loaders, and stationed in Ukrainian territory now under Russian control."
    • Al Jazeera:
      • "“Finally, the truth emerged – we weren’t there for the advertised position; we were expected to join the Russian army as helpers,” Prince said. The recruiter, whom the cousins had already paid in full, was no longer reachable. “We had no choice but to follow the representative’s orders,” Prince added. A Russian official took Prince to an army camp in Rostov, the southern Russian city that is the headquarters of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. The officers spoke to Prince in English, but he had to sign several documents in Russian – which he couldn’t understand. “I realised we had been cheated. But I had no other option but to obey the barking orders of the Russian commanders. I braced myself to adjust,” Prince said." Do you sense any Russian involvement?
    • The Guardian:
      • "This week, a video circulated on social media of seven Indians from Punjab who claimed they had travelled to Russia as tourists for New Year but had been taken by an agent to Belarus and detained. “The police handed us over to Russian authorities, who made us sign documents,” said one of the men in the video, identified as Gagandeep Singh. “Now they are forcing us to fight in the war against Ukraine.”" Do you think maybe Russian authorities were involved in this? (These people weren't even seeking employment - so much for agency)
    Once again: being recruited and choosing to join for benefits are not mutually exclusive. Any employer may try to recruit staff by promising benefits, and staff probably take the job for their own reasons, but that doesn't mean the employer wasn't trying to recruit them. And there is a spectrum of cases where some foreign fighters chose to join the military for benefits, while others were deceived or coerced; all these cases fall under recruitment, which RSes clearly show Russia is doing. Helpful Cat {talk} 08:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the paragraphs you quoted suggest coercion. Deception, yes, but not coercion.
    Hmm, who provided the army contract?
    Where was the contract provided, on the astral plane? He had to have traveled to the recruitment office to sign the contract. The article doesn't say he was taken there a prisoner, so the logical assumption here is that he traveled there willingly. They didn't go to a bakery posing as a front for a Russian recruiting office, like in a cartoon, ordered bread and were then sent to fight. These people went to the Russian military recruitment office, in Russia, willingly. Or are you disputing that? I don't know why you're so dead set on thete being forceful coercion. Is deception not bad enough? TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good that you have at least stopped disputing Russian involvement.
    Regarding coercion: I don't know how many times I have to say that there is a spectrum of cases, and not all foreign fighters were coerced. This is approaching WP:IDHT levels.
    I have no idea what you are disputing at this point, because the wording I suggested above already covered this full spectrum, and you already accepted my suggestion: "In May 2024, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation said it had arrested four people linked to a human trafficking network that sent men to fight for the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. Some Indian and Nepalese men and their families have said that they were promised non-combat "helper" roles in the military, but were sent to the front line; others allege that they were promised civilian employment or were in Russia as tourists or students, but were deceived and coerced into joining the military." Please try to maintain a clear and consistent stance, as it is very difficult to hold constructive discussions otherwise. Helpful Cat {talk} 09:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good that you have at least stopped disputing Russian involvement.
    I have never disputed it.
    This is approaching WP:IDHT levels.
    In a two person discussion? I don't think you can WP:CRYIDHT to "win" an argument, or at least shouldn't.
    Speaking from an army hospital somewhere in Russia, Nandaram Pun..., On February 7, Prince woke to the sterile confines of a hospital room. Doctors, their faces etched with haunted concern, extracted a bullet lodged in his skull. ... In all, he spent 10 days in five hospitals, starting in Luhansk and ending in Rostov. Finally, he was released and ordered to return to Luhansk for his commander’s signature on his injury leave request. Prince, defying orders to remain at his camp in Luhansk, returned to Moscow. He fabricated a story about visiting relatives in Moscow for a day and, remarkably, secured permission., they were coerced into signing contracts written in Russian (which have been viewed by the Guardian)
    So these coerced, "expendable" recruits forced to fight are treated in hospitals, their leave requests are approved, and they're allowed to talk to journalists from The Guardian and even show them their military contracts. Seems legit.
    were in Russia as tourists or students, but were deceived and coerced into joining the military.
    Re: medicine student
    Dhakal, a committed student, had travelled to Russia to study medicine, but found on his arrival that he had been tricked and that his only option was to join the military. “He is our only one son, our only hope,” sobbed his father, Biru Dhakal. “Please bring him home.”
    How does that make sense? How was his only option to join the military? He couldn't fly back home? We don't need to include it just because The Guardian quoted him. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.
    Their statements are not verifiable. Of course a father who wishes to get his son home is going to say whatever it takes to accomplish that. Do people just go to countries to "study medicine" without letters of admission? Which university did he apply to? Why hasn't the university said "Hey, where is our student?! He didn't show up for admission day." Because the story is an obvious lie. I don't think such extraordinary claims belong in the article: Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest.
    You can include your edit as is. Perhaps more editors will give their opinion. I am tired of this discussion and want to focus on other things for a while. TurboSuperA+[talk] 10:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have never disputed it."
    Yes, you did, and it's bizarre that you retcon your own statements within three hours (and unconstructive and disruptive).
    "So these coerced, "expendable" recruits forced to fight are treated in hospitals, their leave requests are approved, and they're allowed to talk to journalists from The Guardian and even show them their military contracts. Seems legit."
    This is ridiculous moving of the goalposts. Just because someone is coerced or trafficked does not mean they will be denied all medical treatment, or that traffickers are always successful in cutting off victims' access to the outside world.
    "How does that make sense? How was his only option to join the military? He couldn't fly back home?" ... "Do people just go to countries to "study medicine" without letters of admission? Which university did he apply to? Why hasn't the university said "Hey, where is our student?! He didn't show up for admission day.""
    This is OR on your part. For example, you are assuming the university and/or letter of admission was real. There are ways to stop people from flying home; I have cited many cases above where people's passports were confiscated. Without more information on this case, it is purely your POV that this is an "obvious lie", and it is not an extraordinary claim.
    "Their statements are not verifiable. Of course a father who wishes to get his son home is going to say whatever it takes to accomplish that."
    That is why the allegations should be attributed, as we have agreed from the start.
    "You can include your edit as is."
    Sure.
    "I am tired of this discussion"
    So am I. Helpful Cat {talk} 10:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The presence of foreign fighters is notable and should be mentioned. I agree with comments by @Helpful Cat and @TurboSuperA+ that it should be attributed. We shouldn't use an offhand remark about manpower shortage to state it in wikivoice.
    We should also be mindful of the bias of our sources. The captured soldiers have every reason to claim that they were deceived and actually didn't plan to fight. Alaexis¿question? 12:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The captured soldiers have every reason to claim that they were deceived and actually didn't plan to fight." True - this is a good reason to attribute the allegations. Helpful Cat {talk} 13:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Book of Mosiah

    [edit]

    There's a discussion (after lots of reverts) about the article about the Mormon Book of Mosiah. I want to mention the author, others think that is not necessary. The article has in the lead things like " The title refers to Mosiah II, a king of the Nephites at Zarahemla. The book covers the time period between c. 130 BC and 91 BC, except for when the book has a flashback into the Record of Zeniff, which starts at c. 200 BC, according to footnotes. " without making it clear in any way that this is fictional or completely unscientific pseudohistory or whatever you want to call it. Counterargument is that authorship isn't given in many other articles about religious books or chapters either. All input is welcome at Talk:Book of Mosiah#Authorship in the lead section. Fram (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Monarch butterfly migration

    [edit]

    There is a dispute at Talk:Monarch butterfly migration#Project Monarch about whether listing specific members of "Project Monarch" is undue. Your input is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:2020s Revival of Christianity in the Western world

    [edit]

    Additional input is welcome at Draft talk:2020s Revival of Christianity in the Western world#POV. Fram (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    USS Liberty incident has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    USS Liberty incident 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. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Drug Users Liberation Front

    [edit]

    Disagreement is about Special:Diff/1325362350 where the other major contributor repeatedly adds what I believe is excessively detailed about the point of legal battle the organization is launching, citing the organization's own website. I believe lending that much voice to their actions, citing the group's own website is non-neutral. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm the other editor here. My position is that details of the case like what the plaintiffs (DULF) are challenging the crown on are not "excessive details", but essential for the reader to get the gist of what the court case is about.In fact, the court case and the subsequent precident it may set is one of the most notable things about DULF. I am ok with trimming out POV, like including sections from a DULF communique was probably not the most neutral inclusion on my part. But we've already trimmed that out. I have added a second source (The Tyee) on the sections that the DULF founders are challenging Canadian laws on.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, there were disputes over the inclusion of the spectroscopic techniques used by DULF to characterize the substances (mass spectroscopy, HPLC, NMR, FT-IR. I believe this may be of interest to a niche audience. For example, I am a third year chemistry student and we use the same techniques in our labs. I believe that this can be included in the article if it is kept short so it does not distract readers who do not care about this stuff, however the other editor repeatedly removes this information.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I first try to engage with you, you did not participate in discussion, yet continued restoring your preferred addition without discussing let alone achieve consensus which goes against WP:ONUS despite concerns about DUE and NPOV, which is why I brought this here. I'm of opinion that specific analytical methods citing DULF or their founder affiliated sources is undue and excess minutiae. Wikipedia articles isn't intended to be textbook or scientific journal and the scientific details on analytical method is too tangential on the page about the organization article Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to make a second article regarding this then--I know from experience that event PhD scientists look at Wikipedia for references like a scientific textbook from time to time--it is actually a very important resource for this purpose. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean these general methods are probably already discussed in appropriate places. You can find various methods of nutritional testing. As an example, The Hershey Company wouldn't be the appropriate article to detail out the industry standard specific analytical method used in the nutritional lab, or the standards used for testing chocolates simply because the tested item was their product. In the DULF article, I think it's especially POV and conferring excess importande to what DULF wants to say if it cites Nyx & Kalcium authored essay, especially ScienceDirect WP:RSP on that. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a fair point per The Hershey Company I'm going to take a look at the article in question again and get back to you here in a few minutes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally would like to know more about their testing methods after looking at the article in question--specifically when it comes to this statement:
    "DULF's first public drug distribution was in June 2020. On April 14th, 2021, activists associated with DULF gave out boxes of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine that had been tested and labelled with information about their composition."
    I think even a sentence about the methods used matter--I have written investigative stuff about Fentanyl in the past and harm reduction and testing methods can vary and so considering the scrutiny this group is under I think even having a sentence (in a neutral tone of course) about methods--even if it's just linking to NMR or HPLC may be useful? Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with inclusion... as long as it's not dependent upon DULF.CA; or the Nyx & Kalicum authored article. The specifics were from the Nyx/Kalicum (which is POV) I think that simply mentioning it's tested at a university lab, citing independent mainstream source is sufficient. Listing out various test methods citing their own source in stills an air of arrogance with hint of their products being superior, because of the test method they use. Like citing the distillery's website their vodka is purified through 10x distillation or using some fancy filtration media on a brand/product page. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. My only caveat with having the POV sources would be as a comparison with how testing is normally done--as in if they are deviating from standard protocols or standard operating procedures in their testing methods I do think that is notable--BUT that would still require using secondary sources that aren't tied to their orgs to back up any primary sourcing used and a flat/neutral tone in the writing. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assay is an example of page which we can wikilink to within the article. Methods related to quality testing (which is done to test imported pharmaceuticals and such) can be added there if necessary, but using less inferior, less partisan source than Nyx & Kalicum essay from ScienceDirect or DULF website that passes the scientific rigor in the field of analytical chemistry or forensic chemistry. Graywalls (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern now after looking into Nyx and Kalicum via this CBC source: [[41]] I think Assay is quite frankly too broad of a category--I mean its definitely something they do but all labs from environmental testing to genetics etc use Assays. Let me see what else I can find on the testing methods that may be more neutral. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Drug checking would be more directly relevant, but gosh that article is atrociously sourced and some of the sources are heavily biased in support of "harm reduction" philosophy. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this: [[42]] Not a study but something that may balance out the page. And I did find one source that is scholarly that mentions DULF but is not a primary source: [[43]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Agnieszka653:, the Northernbeat piece is an op-ed/column. I would say it's not appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know. Its honestly strangely hard to find critical writeups of DULF that are not "opinion." Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually...you know what would make more sense and looking through the ScienceDirect piece I get your concerns regarding citing it @Graywalls but i do understand why @DERPALERT would want to keep it on the page. @DERPALERT are there any other scholarly articles that Nyx and Kalicum based their project on? Or people that mentored them that can be cited? In addition have there been any scientific studies/scholarly sources that specifically critiqued their work? Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so looking through the paper it looks like it outsourced it's testing to something called the Vancouver Island Drug Checking project--which does have papers regarding their processes. https://substance.uvic.ca/ I was looking for papers like this: Analytical Chemistry
    which is something that can be used as a reference for how their drugs are actually tested. You don't need to go into the weeds but linking this and connecting it to the Raman spectroscopy page should be enough. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nyx/Kalicum paper cites this UBC lab testing new portable drug-checking device - DATAC. Apparently the professor leading the laboratory is Dr. Jason Hein, whose second year OChem class I actually took. I don't have a working relationship with him but I could email him or something? Idunno.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what that would accomplish. Wikipedia pages can not cite anything that is not reliably published as a source, hard stop. This ensures people don't just interview each other, put the video up on YouTube in order to push advocacy editing. Similarly, someone posting email correspondence on a blog or a website would fail the reliable publication aspect. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we are apparently speculating that DULF never tested their drugs, the mainstream sources say they are and if we dig deeperthey also seem to be. Like the other user was speculating that there was no wet lab they were working with so they couldn't have tested the drugs. I'm trying to find the wet lab involved.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100 percent sure--but that name that lab is what they said they outsourced their testing to essentially Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go through the sciencedirect Nyx and Kalicum paper again and then pull where I found that reference from give me a few minutes Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok bear with me I am pulling things directly from the Nyx and Kalicum paper but in the first line they state:
    "In 2022, the Drug User Liberation Front opened an unsanctioned compassion club in Vancouver where members could purchase illicit drugs that had been rigorously tested to ensure quality and a lack of potentially fatal contaminants. We sought to evaluate the impact of access to this novel safer supply intervention on nonfatal overdose."
    Stating this in a study requires you divulge what your testing methods are--or if they are outsourced, to whom.
    "All substances were tested via paper spray mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and high-performance liquid chromatography prior to sale to ensure quality and a lack of potentially fatal contaminants, and labeled so that participants were aware of the contents"
    This is very broad--I get this is more of a qualitative study but still if you are stating that your drugs were tested and then list these methods you usually still need to give PARAMETERS ie in ppm or ppb(s) (parts per million and parts per billion) which is generally how "contaminates" are measured I get it's Canada and not the US but there are still regulations and naming the methods without naming whom is testing your materials is interesting.
    The following above quotes were pulled from this paper: [[44]]
    per another paper also authored by them:
    "Starting in December of 2021, while awaiting a response from Health Canada and aiming to maintain pressure on provincial and federal governments, DULF initiated a crowd-sourced sustainer donor campaign. This campaign allocated raised funds to consistently provide a tested and labelled supply of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine to drug user groups in Vancouver whenever the BC Coroners Service released data on illicit drug toxicity deaths."
    But they still don't state after crowd sourcing funds what lab the drugs were sent to.
    But here (bolded) is who they cite for testing their product finally:
    "Once initially logged into the vault, but before the packaging and final labelling stages, DULF initiated a crucial quality control and testing process. This testing process unfolded in two stages: first, through paper spray ionization mass spectrometry (PS-MS) testing, followed by confirmatory testing using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometry. Initially, samples were couriered to the Vancouver Island Drug Checking Project for PS-MS"
    from this source [[45]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and further here:
    "Once the PS-MS results were received, indicating a substance was free of fentanyl and benzodiazepines, and its potency was known, a label with the test date, number, and result was affixed over the initial “untested” label. Simultaneously, samples were sent for secondary confirmatory testing at the University of British Columbia via UPLC-MS (Drug and Alcohol Testing Association of Canada, 2023) and NMR (Evans Ogden, 2023). Once results were received from the University of British Columbia, they were also added to the new label. While secondary confirmatory testing took additional time, it played a crucial role in allowing DULF to build confidence in the accuracy of the results obtained." Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to find specific evidence that DATAC collaborated directly with DULF. DATAC does seem to be posting dulf-related stuff on their website: Vancouver safe supply advocates prepare for a Charter challenge - DATAC. I don't know what that means exactly but hey it's a start.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in the paper--I can find it in a bit Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From Nyx/Kalicum paper (Linked above):
    "Once the PS-MS results were received, indicating a substance was free of fentanyl and benzodiazepines, and its potency was known, a label with the test date, number, and result was affixed over the initial “untested” label. Simultaneously, samples were sent for secondary confirmatory testing at the University of British Columbia via UPLC-MS (Drug and Alcohol Testing Association of Canada, 2023) and NMR (Evans Ogden, 2023). Once results were received from the University of British Columbia, they were also added to the new label. While secondary confirmatory testing took additional time, it played a crucial role in allowing DULF to build confidence in the accuracy of the results obtained."
    The DATAC citation links direction to UBC lab testing new portable drug-checking device - DATACᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless, all that rambling is written by Nyx and Kalicum; which makes it WP:UNDUE emphasis on what the two and DULF want to emphasize. Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I looked at the Hein Lab website and I couldn't find anything related to DULF, not in the publications or the news sections. I could still email Jason Hein but I don't think that could work as a proper source. IdkᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like including the fact that these drugs were tested at UVic/UBC probably does more to sell the drugs than just geeking out about lab equiptment being used in the real world. Idk.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We could just omit laboratory services providers names too but simply state they're tested for composition/purity; as directly verifiable in reliable, independent non Nyx, Kalcium or DULF authorship involved references. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we could--interesting, the more I research the more it actually becomes apparent to me they don't do any testing it seems they bought "pre tested drugs" off the dark web...oy. So they throw around words like "acetone washed" and "tested with spectroscopy" but it appears there was no "wet lab" or analytical chemistry lab at UBC collaborating with them. I think that's actually really notable (if I am correct) but I need more secondary sources to verify this. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/12/02/What-Stake-DULF-Constitutional-Challenge/

    Crown counsel also pointed to small flaws in the study DULF produced that found its compassion club reduced harms, crime and death related to the unregulated drug supply.Nyx told the court that this was the first academic study she’d ever written. She said she thought the peer review process would have flagged those small flaws. Nyx said she is in the process of completing a master of science at the University of British Columbia and is learning more about how to write academic papers.

    So, in addition to the authors being extremely partisan pro "harm reduction" which makes it a POV issue, this suggests they're science rookies, which makes it WP:QS even if it was used for things not associated with Nyx, Kalicum or DULF. Graywalls (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    can you share the specific evidence you found?ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed additional problems with the so called "peer reviewed" journal on ScienceDirect.
    When you look at the authorship. Nyx and Kalcum were the two that everything from writing, editing to reviewing. and when you look at citations within the article, there's a whole lot of circular referencing where they cite plenty of their own work as well as DULF. It has the "scholarly journal" formatting. It's more like a group paper/essay that's a tad classier than blogs. Some of the claims like health outcomes require WP:MEDRS which this source most definitely is not.

    CRediT authorship contribution statement Eris Nyx: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization. Jeremy Kalicum: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Data curation

    Graywalls (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have noticed this as well. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls the CRediT bit for Writing – review & editing just means that they made revisions to the draft they originally submitted/wrote, typically in response to reviewer comments. Haven't read the article itself and not familiar with the journal so I can't say if it's a good source, but the CRediT isn't a red flag CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 01:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CambrianCrab: How about the very liberal citations to things they have authored? I've lost track of how many times Nyx and Kalicum cited their own papers within that paper. I think that's an indisputable fail for "independent source" which is a concern of relevance for NPOV even if it could be ok on factual reliability for what they say. Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Kalicum, Nyx and the DULF or those associated with them are the only ones who care enough to talk about it, it should remain omitted, because the article should not consider mention worthy based on what the pair considers important. If it is important, surely it will be discussed in an independent source. Until then, it should remain omitted. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hersheys is known for being the chocolate-making/selling company while DULF is known for being the drug-testing organization. If I were to write an article about how a government agency overseeing water quality, I might think it'd be appropriate to include the specific tests they use as well. Besides, every food company is expected to test their food using whatever obscure lab techniques whereas that expectation does not exist for DULF. At the end of the day, this article shouldn't be like a Hersheys ad but selling people drugs from DULF instead of chocolate. I don't think it came off like that but who am I to say.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be equally opposed to rattling off specific analytical test methods used in individual water department pages, particularly if it's using the department or the city's own website or items authored by them. This is because they're likely to emphasize what they want to highlight while de-emphasizing what they do not, rather than impartial unbiased coverage. When it is a contentious topic, this is even more relevant. I would also say the same if a page about coffee purveyor/shop/restaurant talks about ethically sourced, third wave and whatever but the mention is only supported by things authored by involved parties. Companies will of course talk about and emphasize what they think is important, which is not the same as what's important. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a chemistry degree as well and have actually worked with everything you mentioned above--I would definitely be the niche audience you are referring to here. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat similar discussion I've taken part of before is the inclusion of arduous details about various rail cars and train machinery in rail related articles of only interest to rail fans sourced to rail fanning sources. For example, how Union Pacific engine car 4847897815 was taken out of service and had the engine rebuilt.. such and such. Just because something is true doesn't mean the inclusion is WP:DUE and this is what we're trying to balance out here. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (arbitrary break)
    [edit]

    @DERPALERT:, You created this article, then brought this into article space yourself without going through AFC process. You have a fair level of experience with Wikipedia, yet kept re-inserting primary sources and weren't responsive to comments until this noticeboard thread was opened up. Additionally, the comment you made here, I'm not saying unregulated safe supply is good policy (my personal opinion is that the Portuguese model of harm reduction that is tied with manditory psychological help is the best model but that has nothing to do with the article) but the people involved with DULF are good people and they believe in what they believe in. If you keep doing immature shit I will invoke WP:AN3 inshallah. suggests that you explicitly hold a non-neutral view. I would like to WP:AGF but are you trying to cast them in a positive light, or are you trying to create a dispassionate informative page? Graywalls (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should let the information about this case speak for itself. I don't think anything about this case points Nyx/Kalicum as having ill intent but it should be up to the reader to decode that for themselves. I've been as responsive to comments as I can be, both on the article talk page and here. Sometimes you edit really agressively. Before we had this discussion here, I had no idea why you kept repeatedly trying to remove sourced information, both about the spectroscopic techniques used to characterize the substances and the specific sections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that DULF was trying to challenge the crown on.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the original article before you started editing, I had included both DULF's stated aim of reducing overdoses and Health Canada's concerns about street diversion of drugs handed out by DULF, as well as the fact that DULF had ordered off the dark web. I feel like those are the main points of contention about DULF as a phenomenon in the public consciousness. You kept writing stuff about how "DULF" was ordering from people they don't know (which is a moot point anyway because everything anyone buys is from people they don't know because that is how the economy works), that they were ordering from a canadian supplier to avoid international drug trafficking charges came off as trying to subconsciously imply that DULF was "dark"/"shadowy" or whatever. There are legitimate reasons to disapprove of buying stuff on the dark web like if you're concerned about money winding up in the hands of organized crime or whatever. But to me it seemed a bit excessive.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The seller's identity being anonymous was a specific issue mentioned by health ministry rejecting their selling activity and something the author of the Economist article chose to discuss, which confers more importance than being talked about only in DULF's page (or their critic's blog). Here's the snippet of relevant part. One justification for the compassion club’s model is that it would take money away from organised crime rings by selling medical-grade products from legitimate sources. Buying drugs on the dark web from an anonymous entity undermined that argument, as the health ministry noted in its letter rejecting the pair’s shop. But lacking the necessary permits, DULF would struggle to find a pharmaceutical alternative. “I don’t know, and I don’t want to know,” Eris said of their vendor’s identity. Wikipedia articles are supposed to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, without tainting it with our own thoughts. @DERPALERT:, you still have not answered my reasonable question and that is if you've taken the time to read the entire text of The Economist article on DULF. Your concern came off as trying to subconsciously imply that DULF was "dark"/"shadowy" or whatever. is reasonable if I was adding them using WP:QS blogs, primary sources and such. However, the economist is an well established, mainstream source and it has been deemed to be a reliable source with Wikipedia community consensus and they're clearly a non-invovled, non-partisan source. That can't be said about some of your sources of choice like Nyx & Kalicum papers and DULF documents. (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the primary sources, I feel like my original use of them adhered to WP:ABOUTSELF. The claim that they were getting the substances tested at UVic/UBC came from a news outlet. The details of which spectroscopic techniques they specifically (PS-MS, UHPLC, NMR) used came from DULF. It's not an extraordinary claim to go from "DULF tested their drugs at UBC" to "DULF tested their drugs at UBC with UHPLC since UBC has UHPLC machines). Also using DULF's communiques as a source on their stated aim and the specific sections they were legally challenging the crown on were also seems to me to be in-line with WP:ABOUTSELF. I guess using Nyx and Kalicum's paper as a source for DULF's specific internal structure could be self-serving because they obviously have an incentive to present themselves as cleanly and professionally to the outside audience. I'd be fine with doing without that section that was based on the paper, at least until a neutral third party can do an objective analysis for how DULF functioned. As for due weight, I think relocating Justice Murray's comment of "they were trying to save lives" to the constitutional challenge section while also adding her other comment about how DULF was clearly operating outside the exemptions given to them helped balance the article out. As for the communique, quoting it directly in the article body probably wasn't the best inclusion on my part. That being said, the fact that their early actions were coordinated with communiques is an important detail about how DULF's activism worked so I propose something like "At the same time, DULF released their first communique" or something. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was trying to say is that as WP:SPS if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. (I added the emphasis). If their early actions being coordinated with communiques is deemed important, mainstream reliable source would have likely talked about it. Embellishing certain test methods can be a form image building for brand development purpose like body shop commercial talking about their shop having computerized laser wheel alignment or computerized high tech test equipment to get customers to perceive that they'll get better quality work due to those technology.
    "All Jonas Tire Shop switched to state of the art laser guided alignment" citing their press release doesn't raise question about the factual accuracy, but likely undue.
    Citing CNN article to say that "Union leaders accuse Jonas tire shops converted to computerized equipment, which provides the same production with half the labor to lower labor cost" would be much more due for inclusion.
    So, I remain opposed to listing out specific equipment used unless reliable secondary sources discuss them.
    Graywalls (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutrality concerns relating to Pedro II of Brazil

    [edit]

    So i just want more opinions on the neutrality of Pedro II's article. I saw this article listed on Featured Picture and read the article for a bit and I genuinely think this is one of, if not, the most supportive and hyped up article about an individual that I've ever seen on this entire website. Even the featured picture blurb shows what I'm talking about. However, I've seen many people dispute the idea that the article contains neutrality issues. Such as recently when I tried to add a neutrality concern warning to the top of the article only for it to be removed around an hour later. So I don't know if I might be wrong on this. The initial talk page complaint is Talk:Pedro II of Brazil#Neutrality Concerns? for some background. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No. I see what you mean. Particularly this line:
    Pedro II was seen nationwide as a legitimate source of authority, whose position placed him above partisanship and petty disputes. He was, however, still no more than a boy, and a shy, insecure, and immature one. His nature resulted from his broken childhood, when he experienced abandonment, intrigue, and betrayal.
    That to me reads with a literary flair-flowery language etc. It is a very compelling paragraph and I commend who wrote these sentences for that. But it is not neutral. Neutral unfortunately also normally means a flatter more "boring" writing style. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something that I've noticed when reading the article as well. The article feels as though it was written for a story book and not a wikipedia article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can argue on the talk page that this is not in "wikivoice" at least that's the argument I would make. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutrality concerns about the paternity of Jochi

    [edit]

    So I have a disagreement with the persistence with the rumor surrounding Jochi's alleged paternity. I think it's important to agree upon that social and official paternity should take note as well as biological paternity, with Jochi's case it remains unclear about who was Jochi's biological father, but the primary sources and most historians on the subject can agree that Genghis Khan was widely regarded as Jochi's official father regardless of biological paternity, and I think elevating two individuals to both being Jochi's "father" or it was either between them can obfuscate well-documented history. I have already included the neutral wording to Jochi's father as Genghis Khan (officially) Chilger-Bökö (allegedly) which explains his unique situation more clearly. TheChosenOne26 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would including this paternal dispute violate WP:NPOV? Is there a talk page discussion regarding this rumor/discussion? Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny De Hek article manipulation

    [edit]

    We're going to need some help here enforcing neutrality. Danny continues to manipulate the article by deleting legitimate revisions intended to provide the reader with unbiased, neutral coverage. Its turned into an edit war. Please see article's talk page.


    ~2025-37469-59 (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny de Hek ~2025-37469-59 (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to elaborate the concerns here. Graywalls (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So Danny himeslf is going on the page and deleting things? Have you posted this in on the WP:BLP Noticeboard page? This sounds like a BLP dispute. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1325951088"