Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

A clause in Steele dossier about its role for the ICA assessment

The suggestion is: in Steele dossier, remove it played no role in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election,[38][39][40] and from the lead. PapayaSF first complained about the clause in thread Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2025. I supported removal in thread Dossier role for the ICA assessment, Valjean opposed, and added attribution.

My argument and sources are in the "Dossier role for the ICA assessment" thread in my post that starts with the words "Actually I didn't create this new thread but okay ...". The sources indicate that the intelligence community assessment (ICA) in fact contains a summary of the Steele dossier as an appendix, and that there is a reference to the appendix in the body, as post-2017 declassifications show. So it's one-sided to partial-quote only the old claims that it played no role.

I'm not suggesting adding the information and cites (gov docs + New York Times) for "balance" because adding requires consensus per WP:ONUS and/or WP:BLP. For removal, no-consensus will do. Therefore the suggestion is only to remove the clause, and the attribution.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• I hope someone else can make sense of this effort by Peter. I have made FIVE requests on Talk:Steele dossier to no avail. He refuses to explain himself there and has just decided to open a thread here, which is a breach of conduct as we should first try to figure things out on the article's talk page. This is an unnecessary escalation of a content disagreement.

If I understand his meaning (and because he won't explain himself, I could be wrong), it appears he thinks "played no role" means "no mention of the dossier in the ICA assessement", which is false. The intelligence chiefs are saying they did not "use the dossier as an evidence base" for making assessments about the Russian election interference. In fact, they didn't because they had enough evidence from their own vetted sources. At that time, the dossier's sources were not all vetted, and when Trump came into office, all efforts by the FBI to vet sources was blocked. End of story. That's why we still don't know much about the dossier's sources.

So the CIA and FBI had enough of their own vettede sources (that, BTW, happened to agree with the dossier's most important claims) to make an assessment, but because the dossier was already known by them and under evaluation, they had to mention it. That did not mean it "played a role". The FBI and CIA and intelligence chiefs have all denied using the dossier for evidentiary/assessment purposes, IOW it "played no role" for that purpose. Here is the current content Peter disputes:

... according to James Clapper, John Brennan, and Robert S. Litt, it "played no role" in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election, and it was not used to "support any of its analytic judgments".

That content is accurate and attributed, so I don't understand the problem. Hopefully Peter will finally explain himself. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we have more recent sources that say it did play a part? If yes, I would go with the more recent sources since a lot more information has been released about the report since those articles were released. From what I've heard it seems like it may have played an indirect role and it would be interesting to see what newer sources say. Springee (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legitimate point. I asked for more recent sources that were reliable. There are recent, very official DOJ attempts to rewrite history, all with strong, conspiratorial, and accusatorial language, but no good evidence. It's the same BS we have seen ever since Trump came into office the first time, IOW using lies to control the narrative and deny uncomfortable facts. Trump will never stop with those efforts. Roy Cohn trained him well. He uses the Big Lie technique, IOW repeat, repeat, repeat, and repeat the same lies until MAGA believes them and all right-wing media report nothing but them. Now he's even shutting down mainstream media and getting any critics fired. The control will soon be complete.

We're in a strange situation where the government, and soon all information in the country, is now controlled by MAGA, which means we can't accept government documents as truly "reliable" sources, but we must document what they say because they are official sources. We cannot take what they say at face value because of their dishonest agenda. So far, independent secondary RS have been pushing back and exposing the lies, and they are sources we can use and trust. Wikipedia must not be used to whitewash history. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's a legitimate point. The dossier summary ("Annex A") was released in declassified form in June 2020. copied here. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report was declassified in July 2025. I cited the New York Times about this. But the gov doc is longer. Samples: Oversight investigation and referral 18 September 2020: "Contradicting public claims by the DCIA that the dossier "was not in any way" incorporated into the ICA, the dossier was referenced in the main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex (see box "Fourth Bullet"). .. By devoting nearly two pages of ICA text to summarizing the dossier in a high-profile assessment intended for the President and President-elect, the ICA misrepresented both the significance and credibility of the dossier reports. The ICA referred to the dossier as "Russian plans and intentions," falsely implying to high-level US policymakers that the dossier had intelligence value for understanding Moscow's influence operations. ... By relegating the dossier text to only the highest classified version of the ICA, the authors were better able to shield the assessment from scrutiny, since accesses to that ICA version was so limited. ... Ultimately, the decision of how to handle the dossier was jointly made by the directors of CIA and FBI, who overruled the objections from CIA officers, and agreed to reference it with other text bullets describing Putin's intentions, while placing the details of the dossier in the ICA Appendix A, according to senior CIA officials. The ICA misleadingly described the dossier as coming from "an FBI source." But Mr. Steele was not an FBI source as he had already been fired two months before the ICA was published for lying to the Bureau, critical information that should have been clarified. ... The people quoted in 2017 could not have been checked at the time because this was classified, so I'd say these later quotes are better. NB, however, I'm not saying they're non-partisan and I'm not saying they have to go in the article, I'm only showing more evidence that the old claims are contradicted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC) PS: I'll be off Wikipedia till next Monday. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You realise that the quoted text is 100% consistent with the statements of Brennan, Clapper et al., right? It played no role, but had to be mentioned. "Referenced" does not mean they included anything from it. They namechecked it, because it was one of the many elephants in the room, but they had their own, much more detailed information to draw on. Exactly as Brennan et. al stated.

Also of relevance: Trump tried to sue Steele in London using English privacy law (because English libel law is no longer broken, following the Defamation Act, 2013), and failed. None of this can be viewed in isolation from the documented fact that the Trump regime, and its captive media, have consistently tried to pretend that the sole source of the idea that Russia interfered in 2016, was Steele., That is simply not true. There is simply no way that serious people would have used a private oppo research document, even one wriotten by someone with Steele's intelligence background, as the source of anything. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Those are primary sources. For something controversial like this, where large numbers of high-quality secondary sources have weighed in, we absolutely should not be drawing any conclusions from them ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• The deceptiveness of the current DOJ is evident in this quote from a primary source: "Contradicting public claims by the DCIA that the dossier "was not in any way" incorporated into the ICA... That is cited above by Peter, who says, "These later quotes are better." No, they are not. They are straw man lies. The Director of the CIA never made such a claim. Former CIA Director John Brennan said in 2017 that the Steele dossier "was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done." Nothing has shown that to be false. That is what happened, it's a fact, and he did not lie.

The current DOJ is carrying water for Trump and Putin. They are pushing a conspiracy theory that Factcheck.org picks apart:

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims to have uncovered “overwhelming evidence” that former President Barack Obama and others in his administration manipulated intelligence to “lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.” But the foundation for her case is misleading.

Gabbard’s claim relies heavily on an alleged contradiction between a Jan. 6, 2017, intelligence assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an “influence campaign” in an attempt to help elect Donald Trump and earlier intelligence assessments that concluded Russia did not successfully use cyberattacks on election infrastructure in the 2016 election. But those two assessments are not in contradiction.

“No one ever claimed Russia altered votes, but everyone claims that Russia tried to interfere on Trump’s behalf,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a video message posted on X on July 21. That interference was “well documented” and “well vetted” not only by the Intelligence Community but also by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and as part of then special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report, he said. [Source: Factcheck.org ]

These people are political liars trying to deceive the public, and gullible editors here are carrying their water. Gabbard uses words like: "an Obama administration “conspiracy ... “treasonous conspiracy” and a “yearslong coup” ... seditious conspiracy" Factcheck.org counters with: "But Gabbard’s claim of a “treasonous conspiracy” distorts the facts and relies on a nonexistent contradiction in the 2017 intelligence assessment.

We should not lend credence to conspiracy theories here. We should not attempt to remove (the reason for this thread) properly sourced content that is factual. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• It's incredible that nearly nine years later people are still trying to rewrite the history of the 2016 election. The fact is that the ICA did not use the Steele dossier as the basis for anything substantive, because it was rooted in opposition research and because they have way better sources of their own. The Truth™ is that the Russia-Russia-Russia-Hoax was 100% based on the Steele dossier which was once seen by Hillary and is therefore the work of Satan, personally, and this renders the entire Russia-Russia-Russia-Hoax false, null, void, it never happened, nothing to see here. Meanwhile, lifelong Republican, decorated veteran and former CIA director Robert S. Mueller III laid out the evidence of the Trump campaign's willingness to benefit from Russia's documented interference in the 2016 election, and every credible source supports the fact that it happened. Most conclude it wasn't decisive, but only because it is outweighed by the cumulative effect of Comey and Bannon.

All this should be viewed as of a piece with Trump's relentless attempts to rewrite all of history in his favour, especially the 2020 election which he lost, and to use the full force of the Federal government to punish anyone who dissents.

Wordsmithing the exact extent to which the ICA ignored the Steele dossier belongs on the Talk page, not here. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be a conflation of "included or not included in Annex A and its existence mentioned in the assessment" with "it 'played no role' in making assessments and was not used to 'support any of its analytic judgments'."

That is a deliberate and deceptive conflation made by the DOJ, and it's not a new one. Such deliberate conflations have been made for years, such as conflating "conspiracy" with "collusion", and because "conspiracy" was not proven, claims are made that there was "no collusion", which is a nonsensical claim with no evidence for it and lots of evidence against it. In fact, there is some evidence of conspiracy, going all the way back to 2013 when Trump discussed his election plans with Russians and they publicly promised to help him.

If I were to take apart, line-for-line, all that green block of text (it lights up with multiple red flags), multiple deceptions could be mentioned, some of them of the straw man type, but let's just focus on this one conflation and see what Peter means. What is his real point? This is a conflation that needs sorting out.

Do any RS show that the dossier was actually used to make "analytic judgments" and "assessments", or do we accept what RS have always said? They said it was not used for that purpose because it was not yet vetted and because the FBI and CIA had their own sources that were vetted. Those sources just happened to confirm some of the major allegations in the dossier, giving the FBI more confidence in it and making them take it seriously, so seriously that Obama and Trump were alerted to its claims. It was not made up, a hoax, or a fiction. Those are Trump's lies. The dossier was what it claimed to be, raw intelligence that needed to be vetted. The dossier made claims six months before the FBI, some of them described as "prescient" because no one else knew or said those claims at the time, but the dossier's sources knew. The dossier was proven correct on those important points. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Correct. And we know the ideology that drives the deliberate conflation of inclusion and reliance. And we should give it exactly no consiederation. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Read the first sentence in this thread. It's not about analytic judgments (the words and it was not used to "support any of its analytic judgments" come after the role clause), nor is it about Satan or prescience or whistleblowing etc. The ICA report contains a summary of the Steele dossier and refers to it. The suggestion is to remove from the lead a clause that suggests otherwise. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Peter Gulutzan: - unfortunately the Trump administration is far from trustworthy. The Federalist is a generally unreliable source per WP:RSP. Do you have any reliable secondary sources reporting that the Steele dossier played a significant role in the ICA? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Read the first sentence in this thread, it's about "role" and your added word "significant" would require a judgment about that word's meaning. I did not suggest adding something citing The Federalist, I said their article was correct about semi-protection of Wikipedia's Steele dossier article. In thread Dossier role for the ICA assessment in my 18 August 2025 post I quoted a gov doc (a press release by the Director of National Intelligence) and The New York Times -- it's the quote in green. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Peter, you seem to be trying to make some sort of weird "point" out of old knowledge, a point that means nothing. We have known for years that there is a summary of the dossier in Annex A, and that it is mentioned in the assessment. So what? If you are surprised by this "new revelation" from unreliable DOJ officials, you haven't been following along with what everyone else has known for years.

Your effort seems to only find backing in unreliable MAGA sources that try to gin up a controversy where there is none. It's just part of Trump's deceptive efforts to undermine the dossier with his lies about it. The statement about "no role" is factual, properly sourced, and backed up by myriad RS (we don't usually remove such comments), and whatever "role" the dossier could have played (in the actual "assessing" made to create that whole ICA document) is what's important.

If the FBI had used it to alter their assessment, that would be an important fact we would document. Instead, it played "no role" because the FBI used their own sources to help shape their conclusions, and those sourced just happened to back up what Steele's sources had reported. Duh! That's the way evidence and facts work. If something is true, then multiple, independent, witnesses will affirm it is true. Yet again, important dossier assertions were proved to be true.

You're trying to create some point that means nothing except as a dot in a false conspiracy theory from unreliable sources that should not be pushed here. Use only RS. If you have something from them, then please present those sources here.

Also, keep your comments above the reftalk code. We don't want references interfering with the flow of comments, and that applies to potential references that might get added after this time. This is pretty standard practice, so your constant and uncollegial refusal to place your comments in the natural flow of the discussion is not appreciated. Proper threading is a behavioral guideline you are violating yet again. Just stop it. If you won't do that, then start a new thread where you can place your comment first when you start it. That's okay. After that, follow proper threading procedure. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Peter, instead of removing the "no role" statement, maybe you should try another approach. Should some wording be added? Should we document this deceptive DOD attempt to change the narrative? Maybe so. There are plenty of RS that mention and debunk this attempt and frame it in more accurate mainstream ways. As this complaint and wordings are coming from unreliable sources, it has no due weight, and that's a major reason it has not been mentioned yet, but when enough RS mention it, it may have enough due weight now to deserve mention. We do document false conspiracy theories here all the time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• As I said above, as far as I can discern from your arguments above, you're saying you want to change the article text based on your personal reading of primary sources. That's not appropriate; primary sources (including congressional records and similar government documents) cannot be used in ways that draw conclusions from them. If you want to dispute the article's statement that it played no role in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election, which is sourced to high-quality secondary sources, you will need secondary sources of comparable quality and weight that directly contradicts that statement, not just your personal readings of the primary sources. And even with such sourcing you wouldn't be able to remove it entirely - at best that would make it a dispute which we would have to discuss and characterize. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, all us non-bots do "personal" reading, but (ignoring that I cited New York Times twice) government documents such as CIA + House Committee commented about what's not being denied here, that the original government document -- the ICA -- referenced and took from the dossier. Dismissing all gov docs is like saying "the ICA is not a reliable source for saying what's in the ICA." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

"referenced and took from the dossier" is not denied because it's something that has been known for years. It's a non-issue as it is unrelated to the fact under dispute, that the dossier was not used in the analysis aspect of the ICA assessment. Other sources were used for that. The dossier was only mentioned (nothing wrong with that), and to avoid accusations (as it was well-known), it was summarized in Annex A.

It was not used to "support any of its analytic judgments", and that's what you are disputing. You have not presented reliable secondary sources that dispute our properly-sourced content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Valjean has hatted a discussion that I referred to in my first post, and archived the talk page. So now to see the discussions one should click Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2025 and Dossier role for the ICA assessment then click "Show". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

List of protests in the United Kingdom

Numerous new editors have been adding extremely dubious figures to this article claiming the 'Unite the Kingdom' protest at the weekend had 3 million attendees, compared with official estimates of 100k - see the sources at 2025_British_anti-immigration_protests#Unite_the_Kingdom_rally_(13_September). I've started a discussion at Talk:List_of_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unite_the_kingdom_attendance but nobody is joining in and I am now at 3RR, so looking for some more experienced eyes to take a look. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

What really bugs me is that the list is now organised so the organiser’s estimate is the criteria for which up is shown as the largest.mmy Robinson estimates 3 million. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a number of really obvious reasons why we would not accept the word of the diminutive fascist for that or anything else. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be relying on self reported figures, organisers are notorious for giving inflated figures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Should infoboxes of Ukrainian cities occupied by Russia say they are "de facto" part of Russia?

See example of Mariupol Raion, where Ukraine is listed as "de jure" (based on their constitution), but Russia is listed as "de facto" (based on the fact they control the region).

The dispute is taking place on the Mariupol article, among others.

Please see related discussions: here and here. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

No. They are not part of Russia unless they are ceded by Ukraine in a peace agreement. In the meantime they are Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine. Occupying territory does not make it belong to the occupying power in any legal respect, including de facto. This is a very straightforward aspect of international law. It could be mentioned that Russia claims them, but not that they are Russian territory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well claims is definitely the wrong word to use. Claims is normally used for territories which are "claimed" or said to be a part of country A by country A but for which country A has no control over. The Philippines still (I think) claims most of Sabah (and indeed there's an infobox about this in our article) but Sabah is not de facto part of the Philippines so the situations are not at all comparable. And de facto has nothing to with any legal respect. The whole point of defacto is it is ignoring legal aspects & is solely looking at what the actual situation is like not what it's well recognised it should be like. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

De facto isn't really a legal thing it's more about who who controls the land. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

De facto makes sense. Wikipedia looks stupid if we ignore the reality on the ground. Per WP:RGW our articles need to reflect the reality and if some area is fully controlled or almost fully controlled by Russia our articles need to reflect this. And de facto is the standard way to reflect this which says zero about any legalities of the situation simply what the actual situation is. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd add I'm open to alternative proposals like the infobox saying occupied. But we definitely have to do something to reflect the reality of the current situation and claims is definitely not it. And we should remember de facto has nothing to do with any legalities or recognition but simple what the actual situation is like. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

No, they are not "de facto part of Russia", they are occupied, so call them that "Occupied by Russia". Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

i support this—blindlynx 21:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Do reliable sources state they are de facto part of Russia? Do other sources deny it? What do the best sources say? And that’s it. Unsourced content doesn’t belong in an encyclopaedia, and the infobox is for showing key facts that appear in the article body. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

We use "de facto" for places like Famagusta which has been occupied by Turkey for a long time and "controlled" for Afrin, Syria which has been occupied for a shorter time, so I think these are legitimate options. Alaexis_¿question? 12:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The measure of legitimacy on this website is whether content is directly supported by reliable secondary sources. Is this? Cambial — foliar❧ 12:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The term "control" and its derivatives are indeed used by RS for the occupied territories

As of September 1, 2022 Russia controls the entire Ukrainian shore of the Sea of Azov, and most of the Ukrainian Black Sea ports in Oblhod. However, Ukraine maintains its control over the main Black Sea ports in Odessa, Chornomorsk, and Pivdennyi as well as a port in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi in the Dniester Estuary, and the ports of Izmail and Reni in the Danube Delta. The port of Mykolaiv is under Ukrainian control, though it can't be operated due to the Russian troops on the Kinburn Peninsula.

The Russians took full control of Mariupol in May.

Alaexis_¿question? 15:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC) Alaexis_¿question? 15:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the location is under Russian control is already cited in the article to the NYT, Guardian and others. It's of no relevance. The parameter proposed was the "subdivision" parameter. As per the template, it's for the country of which the settlement is a subdivision (or part). So to support such a statement (which ought to go in the article body first), secondary sources need to directly support the notion that the subject is a subdivision or part of Russia, de facto or otherwise. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, it would be trivial to find a source produced by the Russian government that describes the administrative division of the occupied territories. Such an official source would be reliable for the viewpoint of the Russian government.

There are also other sources that are critical of Russia but say that Mariupol was annexed as part of DNR, for example this Meduza article [1] which is, again, highly critical of Russia and shows the destruction due to the siege. Alaexis_¿question? 12:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

A source produced by the Russian government is not a reliable source. We are discussing facts here, not the aspirations of the Kremlin.

That's not exactly a mainstream source, is it. It's quite easy to find scholarship that states that Crimea is de facto part of Russia (I mean, it became a popular Russian tourist destination..). That kind of sourcing does not exist for Mariupol and other areas, and for obvious reasons. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between Crimea and Mariupol and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "obvious reasons." Alaexis_¿question? 08:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

What you see is not relevant: what matters is what the sources state. We still have no reliable secondary sources that state these regions, such as Mariupol, are part of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

That article also refers to the Ukrainians as the 'legitimate authority' of Mariupol—blindlynx 21:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No, they are not part of Russia until such time that there is some sort of peace agreement, or international treaty. Until that time Russia is illegally occupying the territory of a sovereign nation state. TarnishedPath^talk 13:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

After looking at sources, it seems that "control" and "de facto part of Russia" are two different things:

• The US President's special envoy added that they then would go back to what they call de facto or de jure. He explained that de facto means physically occupying the territory, and that the Russian occupiers are not going anywhere from it, but de jure does not mean completely annexing it or giving it to Russia as part of its territory. He emphasized that these are the discussions that need to take place. [2]
• [Rutte] quote: "When it comes to this whole issue of territory, when it comes to acknowledging, for example, maybe in a future deal that Russia is controlling de facto, factually some of the territory of Ukraine, it has to be effectual recognition, and not a political de jure recognition." [3]
• The U.S. has privately floated the possibility of Ukraine accepting the de facto loss of some of its territories—especially Crimea—as part of a ceasefire or peace proposal with Russia during negotiations in London, UK [4]

It looks to me as though "de facto" status requires acknowledgement or recognition, which might be part of a future peace deal. So having "de facto" in the infobox is not appropriate, per WP:CRYSTALBALL.

On the other hand, sources do say "control", so that could be included in the infobox, like it is in the Afrin, Syria article where "Control" is used as an infobox parameter. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

To add, I'd also support it saying "Occupied by", if the infobox parameters allow for it. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

To my mind what that’s saying is we all know Russia does de facto control the territory but countries are pretending they don't for political reasons. In particular the US privately acknowledges the territories are de facto Russian since it's the reality of the situation they're just publicly not willing to say what's actually true since they're holding off recognising reality for political reasons. Note the text you quoted doesn't say they will become de facto Russian territories but rather they already are. I don’t see why we would do such things as a reality based encyclopaedia who doesn't hide reality because it's not what we want it to be or for other reasons. IMO instead we should follow what sources say which is that they are currently de facto Russia regardless of who wants to pretend they aren't. for political reasons. We can of course mention countries denying reality in the article.We should of vourse also mention that everyone agrees they should not be part of Russia but that part has never been in dispute or question.. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Franco (ok) 2600:1012:B37D:9D6E:C175:9569:5F6:98FA (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The occupied territories are de facto controlled and administered by Russia, that a statement of fact we should reflect. Also a statement of fact we should reflect is that the attempted annexation has received negligible foreign support or acceptance. Whether someone interprets that to mean "part of" is up to them and their particular interpretations of vocabulary. The replies above suggest mostly disagreeing on that vocabulary, however the infobox at Mariupol Raion does not contain "part of", so the question could perhaps be framed in clearer wording. The whole thing gets a bit WP:DISINFOBOX, but showing both claimed and controlling powers for disputed territories is a common practice on en.wiki that predates the Russia-Ukraine war. CMD (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You struck at the heart of the issue: controlled by ≠ part of. They're not synonyms. "Control" is a reasonable synonym of "govern", though. A statement about Russian de facto control could reasonably be used in the Government_type or Government_body parameters. I note that the de facto and de jure mayors are already indicated. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. Occupied territories are de facto controlled and administered by Russia. Benzekre (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Occupied would be a better term here and more easily supported by reliable secondary sources. When it comes to contested details govermental sources are better used with attribution in the articles body, where they can be put in context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, as its so easy find one RS that says they are part of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Undue Weight Tag

Editors have placed an NPOV tag on International Churches of Christ without articulating exaclty how the article has NPOV violations and have repeately reverted in order to maintain the tag. Experienced editor's participation would be appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This was originally discussed in September/October 2024 (see Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 13#NPOV), and the same editors still haven't been able to articulate which views from reliable sources aren't sufficiently reflected in the article. As Horse Eye's Back noted in that discussion, it may be that the editors are seeking WP:FALSEBALANCE because they don't like the critical stance of the available reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Our Rescue (formerly Operation Underground Railroad)

This anti-trafficking charity formerly known as Operation Underground Railroad drew criticism under the tenure of its former head Tim Ballard. He was later fired for sexual misconduct, and now a COI editor is making talkpage requests to tone down coverage of these previous controversies, which were being rubber stamped by a single editor until I objected. Input from other editors would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Rolfing (Quackery Topics as Editor Soapboxes)

Articles on quackery and quacks appear to be often used as soapboxes for certain wikipedians to inflate the claims in their sources. While it seems meritable to gesture against potentially harmful quackery, this is an encyclopedia, and our task is to write neutrally while referencing potentially non-neutral material.

I've taken the article mentioned in the title to task, and the edits have been reverted on the following given basis:

"profringe"

That's what they gave us. A description fitting of a chat room.

I'm concerned that there might be a growing problem arching over the use of Wikipedia to gesture on the topics. Any advice or discussion can be used. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Changing verbatim quotes is the worst sort of vandalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain who vandalized the article previously? I'm struggling to understand the history of abuse toward this article to which you might be alluding.

24.236.207.173 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Rendering the medical orthodoxy for what it is, is not abuse in any way, shape, or form. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you have your opinion but I don't really think you're talking about something relevant to the discussion. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

"Profringe" means WP:PROFRINGE, which is part of our WP:RULES. Wikipedia sides with mainstream medicine, see WP:QUACKS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the cause for my original post. Wikipedia has stated things that its sources do not. Wikipedia should side with mainstream medicine. The article in its present state does not. Are you sure you understand the topic of this discussion? 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the edit, I would also mention that we should not use WP:VOICE to repeat potentially WP:POV claims without attribution to the source. DN (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

See your edits at Talk:Andrew Wakefield: I understand the topic, you don't. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

> I would also mention that we should not use WP:VOICE to repeat potentially WP:POV claims without attribution to the source.

Which is exactly what my edits fix. It seems clear now that you are confused. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTHERE. DN (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your edit VS. the quote on page 31 leads me to the conclusion that this is already settled. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

🙄 jp×g🗯️ 11:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

2025 British anti-immigration protests

I'm concerned about the neutrality/verifiability of a list of protests in this article. Although the article's title suggests it is only concerned with anti-immigration protests, the list contains protests by local communities who are worried about the impact/danger of having men-only asylum hotels in their neighbourhoods such as ones described in the cited sources as a "asylum hotel protest", an "asylum protest", a protest "against the hotel for asylum seekers", a "protest about asylum seekers", and "a protest about a hotel". I originally added tags to attempt to draw attention to this but they were removed without the problem being fixed. I then started a discussion at Talk:2025 British anti-immigration protests#Safe assumptions?, but I was outnumbered by contributors who seemed to agree that all of these types of protest should be included as "anti-immigration" on the basis that asylum seekers are a type of immigrant, so a protest against asylum seekers is a protest against a type of immigration. I now feel like a persona non grata on the article, so am hoping we can get some NPOV-aware and experienced eyes to take a look at this please. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

After a look through, a large number of citations used in the article refer to them as either "anti-immigration" or "anti-migrant" in nature. Also yes, asylum seekers are, by definition, immigrants. I don't think I understand what the issue is here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

all of these types of protest should be included as "anti-immigration" on the basis that asylum seekers are a type of immigrant, so a protest against asylum seekers is a protest against a type of immigration.

I agree with this. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+, even for the protests by protestors who support all types of immigration but are against the use of a hotel in their village to house part of the small proportion of immigrants who are seeking asylum? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a bit of a grey area. How do we know the protesters "support immigration"?

An alternative name could be "anti-immigrant protests"? Would that be better? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Butterscotch Beluga here. I did a google news search and this BBC article happened to be the first result. The protestors are described as anti-immigrant, so both common sense and RS agree with this label. Alaexis_¿question? 08:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis, that BBC article was about a demonstration in Falkirk in which anti-immigration protestors took part, so was obviously described as being anti-immigration. Did you read any of the sources used to support any of the other types of events/demos/rallies/marches/protests which have taken place in dozens of towns, cities and villages all over the UK and which are also listed in the article as anti-immigrant protests?

Another thing to consider is at what point does an event/demo/rally/march/protest in support of, or in opposition to, something else, but which has been hi-jacked by a group of anti-immigration protestors, become an anti-immigration protest? And should that be detailed in the paragraph about that event/demo/rally/march/protest? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, it's possible that anti-hotel protestors were not against immigration per se. However, even those "anti-immigration protestors" who supposedly hijacked these protests may not be against all migrants as well - apparently even the EDL members have a somewhat nuanced opinion on the subject.

So this label is not perfect but this is what RS use and it's not too misleading. @TurboSuperA+ suggested anti-immigrant protests, I think it can work too and perhaps it's a bit more accurate as these protests were against *some* migrants. Alaexis_¿question? 13:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis, yes, but you say "this label is not perfect but this is what RS use". Well I'm not so sure about that. The article lists more than 50 separate events, each with its own cited source, and of the 9 that I checked, only 4 even mentioned "anti-immigration", the rest characterised the events that they were reporting as: an "asylum hotel protest", an "asylum protest", a protest "against the hotel for asylum seekers", a "protest about asylum seekers", "a protest about a hotel" and similar. So that surely calls into question their inclusion in that article, or at least the title of that article, don't you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose though? Alaexis_¿question? 06:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis, I'm looking for the views of others here on whether they think it is NPOV-compliant to include, in a list of anti-immigration protests, all of the protest events that have occurred in the UK recently without adding the context as to how they qualify and details as to how they qualify as such and regardless of whether the sources that mention those events describe then as anti-immigration protests or as other types of event.

I guess what I would propose is that each of the 50+ events mentioned in the article for which we cannot reliably source a statement in Wiki's voice that it actually was an anti-immigration protest, should be removed from the article. Or maybe to rename the article to match its current content, to something like "2025 public demonstrations, marches, protests and rallies in the United Kingdom". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The renaming would change the scope significantly so I don't think it's a good idea.

Can you share 2-3 links to news articles about protests which weren't described as "anti-immigration"? Alaexis_¿question? 08:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis, here are the 5 five problems in the "Timeline of demonstrations" section of the article that I tagged, and have described elsewhere in this discussion and on the article's talk page (see here the version of the article section with the "clarification needed" tags I added). None of these entries in the article have any context in them relating them to anti-immigration:

• The 13 April event in Paisley - supported by this source from the Morning Star which does not mention immigration at all.
• The 13 July event ("first protest") in Epping - supported by this source from BBC News which does not mention immigration at all and which says the police said it was a "protest about asylum seekers".
• The 17 July ("second protest") in Epping - supported by this source from The Guardian which does mention immigration in saying that the hotel involved was a "flashpoint of anti-immigration protest", but which describes this particular event as a "protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers" and which "passed off peacefully" and that police said that "the far right has been trying to exploit" the event which was "opposition to the housing of asylum seekers in the hotel".
• The 20 July event in Epping - supported by this source from BBC News which does not mention immigration at all and which talks in general only about "controversy over asylum seekers being housed in hotels".
• The 27 July event in Altrincham (in the wrong sub-section) - supported by this source from Sky News which does not mention immigration at all but does say "anti-migration demonstrators and counter-protesters have been gathering".

-- DeFacto (talk). 13:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

which does not mention immigration at all.

Yes, it does: Far-right agitators intent on fabricating paedophile fears to target refugees...

Refugees are immigrants. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+, which one of the 4 with the same summary was that? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The first one, the one in Paisley. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but to be honest this confirms that the RS treat these protests as related. You acknowledge yourself that Sky calls the Altrincham protestors "anti-migrant demonstrators" and regarding Epping, even if the first protests weren't described as anti-migrant we'd have to mention them anyway to give background info.

I'm in favour of renaming the article "Anti-migrant protests" but I don't think that it makes sense to continue this discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"only 4 mention anti-immigration" - plenty more use the term 'anti-migrant' or 'against immigration'/'against illegal immigration'. These all fall under the umbrella term of anti-immigration Lewishhh (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Alaexis (who on other issues I often disagree with) and BB. If RS are describing protests as anti-immigration then that's what we do. If, you want to change the list inclusion criteria for the page, then it's on you to obtain consensus for your position. TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

We should stop bowdlerising and call them white nationalist protests, because that's what they are. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

While, in my heart of hearts, I agree with Guy, anti-immigrant protests seems best supported by sources. Frankly we don't have a duty of care to people whose anti-immigrant positions are motivated by NIMBYism rather than exterminism if this distinction is not made by sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You say "anti-immigrant protests seems best supported by sources", that's not what I found when at looked at the first 9 of the 50, or so, events listed in the article. See more about this in my reply at 16:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC) above. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. The majority of sources used that describe the protests either directly call them anti-immigration/anti-immigrant/anti-migrant, or relate the protests specifically to issues over immigration.

There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the title is accurate & well sourced, both here & on the talk page.

Also, looking at only 9/50 sources with ~half of those not directly contradicting your conclusion, is not a rigorous examination of sources & unlikely to convince many that existing consensus is incorrect. (There are almost 250 citations on the article & I have no way of knowing which ones you chose to look at, why, or if that would even be accurately representative of the cited sources) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga, as I said in my OP, "I originally added tags to attempt to draw attention to this...". I started working, one-by-one, through the events in the "Timeline of demonstrations" section, and this version shows the "clarification needed" tags on 5 of 9 events that I had checked. That's when all my edits got reverted, and although I restored them once, they were reverted again so I gave up the attempt to tag all the anomalies and went to the talk page. As you say, there are a lot of sources to check, probably at least 1 each for the 50 or so events mentioned in that list. It took me an hour to check those 9, and with more than 50% of them needing attention, at least, it seems likely to me that many of the other 40, or more, will also need clarification too.

Are you happy to sign this article off as 100% NPOV compliant without addressing what I've found so far and without bothering to check the rest of the claims just because some of the claims in some of the sources could be interpreted as anti-immigration in the eyes of some editors? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Can DeFacto stop WP:BLUDGEONing? I think consensus is clear at this point. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Only just seen this discussion, had wondered why the other when quiet. Is it inappropriate to notify the talk page that this discussion exists (in the referenced discussion), or is that not the done thing? Not to encourage further participation here (as it doesn't appear necessary or useful), but for other editors on that talk page to be aware that the discussion has been reviewed/scrutinised elsewhere (which is certainly a good thing), and it appears that consensus is the same. Also should the comment "I was outnumbered by contributors who seemed to agree" not require notifying participants that are being discussed, per the notice at the top of this page, even if not mentioned by name? Or is the loophole that you can just reference a discussion broadly, without notifying editors? Bit confused how this almost went under my radar to be honest. CNC (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The sources seem to combine them all under the category of "anti-immigration protests" and treats them as the same broad topic, so we should do the same and use the same label. The objection that some people at those protests might not consider themselves to be anti-immigration specifically doesn't really matter (and is potentially WP:OR anyway if it's not backed up by other sources raising that concern or trying to draw the distinction you're pushing for here); what matters is how reliable sources describe and categorize the protests. --Aquillion (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion, can you please list the sources that you were referring to that you say list all 50+ events as "anti-immigration protests". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

These sources clearly treat them as all falling under a broad category of "anti-immigration protests":

• [5]: AI-generated images portraying Muslims as a threat are helping to stoke anti-immigration protests outside hotels in Britain, research published by MPs has suggested.
• [6]: A court ruling on Tuesday ordered the removal of asylum seekers from a hotel in Epping, which has become a flashpoint for anti-immigration protests. The government plans to appeal. Protesters gathered there again on Sunday, waving British flags and holding placards that read "Epping says no" and "Stop the boats". On Saturday, anti-immigration protesters gathered in small-scale rallies in towns and cities across England, Scotland and Wales.
• [7]: Anti-immigrant protests have since spread to at least 10 other areas across the UK, focused on places where demonstrators believe immigrants are being housed.
• [8]: Tensions are playing out on the streets, with protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers attracting national attention, including in Epping, Essex, where hundreds of people gathered over several weekends after the arrest of a resident on suspicion of sexual assault. [...] So who is behind the anti-immigration protests, and what’s driving them? And could this weekend become a flashpoint? To explore this further, I spoke to the Guardian’s senior reporter Ben Quinn, who has spent years reporting on the far right.
• [9]: The ruling may lead to more councils seeking to shut down hotels for asylum seekers, which have become the centre of anti-immigration protests in the UK in recent weeks, with those in Epping Forest the most prominent.
• [10]: Anti-immigration protests have surged in recent weeks, with some targeting hotels used to house asylum seekers, sparking violence and prompting multiple arrests.
• [11]: The Home Office says it will seek an appeal against a court ruling blocking the use of an Essex hotel to house asylum seekers – while dozens of anti immigration protests are planned around the UK this weekend.

In the context where these quotes appear, they are clearly referring to the entire wave of protests aimed at hotels in Britain as "anti-immigration protests", and are therefore categorizing all of the protests stemming from this in the way you're requesting. If you want to exclude a specific part of the broader wave of protest from the anti-immigration protesters that the sources say gathered in small-scale rallies in towns and cities across England, Scotland and Wales, you will need a specific rationale beyond desiring sources discussing each of those 50 protests individually, preferably a source specifically contradicting the broader coverage; because the sources, as a whole, aren't really treating them as independent and are clearly describing the entire group as anti-immigration in nature. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion, that argument doesn't hold water as none of those sources say they mean all current protests in the UK, they are only referring to the anti-immigration protests, and we have them independently sourced as such anyway. It's the ones that we have independently sourced as something other than anti-immigrant that we are concerned with here. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately, you've asked your question and gotten an overwhelming response; it's clear that most people here read those sources as talking about the protests as a whole, and describing the protests as a whole as anti-immigration, such that it encompasses eg. the individual ones you tried to object to above. Like, above, you're trying to argue that individual Epping protests aren't anti-immigrantion, when the sources above clearly identify those as the epicenter of the current wave of anti-immigration protests; arguing "ah yes this says the protests in Epping are anti-immigration but it doesn't say the July 13th protest in Epping, specifically, was anti-immigration" isn't a reasonable reading of the sources. If I presented a source saying that the July 13th protest in Epping was anti-immigration (here, because I have time to burn right now; Anti-migrant protests are taking place in Epping once again amid fears that unrest may spread across the country. [...] The latest series of protests began on Sunday, July 13...), are you going to, what, say "yes but that doesn't say it was anti-immigration between the hours of 3 PM to 5 PM? Maybe it only means the northern side of that protest was anti-immigration, we need one specifically describing the southern side as anti-immigration!" At this point, even if you don't accept the way other people are reading and interpreting the sources, WP:SATISFY and WP:DROPTHESTICK applies. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion, I didn't add any of those individual sources to any of those 50+ events, I just checked that the facts they were being used to support were actually supported by them. The outcome was that one of the facts each of 5 of the 9 events that I got around to checking was not supported - the assrtion that they were "anti-immigration protests" and therefore their inclusion in the article with that title was not supported.

You seem to be saying that rather than ensuring that the details of each included event are reliably supported, we can dispense with all the event-specific sources and just use news reports offering broad generalised opinions to tar all the events around asylum hotels with the same brush. Do we think that complies with WP:NPOV or WP:V? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your feeling that those news reports are broad generalized opinions is just your personal opinion. What I see is coverage from a wide range of high quality sourcing stating as clear, uncontested fact that the wave of protests that was sparked by the anti-immigration events in Epping on July 13th were likewise anti-immigration protests; if you are unsatisfied with that sourcing and would personally prefer to see individual coverage for eg. every day of each protest in order to confirm that they didn't suddenly become non-anti-immigration protests on July 17th specifically, that's unfortunate, but your desire for that is not grounded in policy, does not reflect the clear reality of the sources, and has failed to convince people. As a result, ultimately, no one is obliged to satisfy you. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

So after this entire discussion, having requested and gained feedback from the community on the way to characterise these protests, you then changed the MOS:FIRST from "protests against immigration" to "hotels being used to house asylum seekers"? [12] So what was your takeaway from this discussion and what was your reason for making such a bold move? CNC (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Without opening a new topic for the same type of 'not getting it' issue that has occurred above, from the same editor, feedback is appreciated regarding Operation Raise the Colours (a closely related topic) and whether both the category and template Far-right politics in the United Kingdom is relevant for inclusion to the topic. CNC (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's a different issue entirely. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  This dispute is sprawling out to Far-right politics in the United Kingdom, as well as the template Template:Far-right politics in the United Kingdom sidebar, in order to try and legitimise arguments. CNC (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  All of which is off-topic in this discussion about the neutrality and verifiabilty of the '2025 British anti-immigration protests' article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Silly me, I forgot to add the talk page discussion which is the origin of the dispute. CNC (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is misleading to conflate the two independent disagreements. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Age of artificial intelligence

Over at WikiProject AI Cleanup, attention was called to Age of artificial intelligence. It seems to be a WP:POVFORK of AI boom. What's the best way of handling a situation like this? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The best solution is a merge. If nobody is objecting it can be done uncontroversially. If someone objects, send it to Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. It might also be worth considering just sending it to AFD if there's little there worth salvaging or if the content is highly duplicative with AI boom. --Aquillion (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

did the redirect. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Swan

Hello, I am currently editing the article on Jonathan Swan, and have made significant edits since neutrality issues were first brought up. After extensive help from Hipal, I would like to gauge other editors' views on whether more work needs to be done. I originally published this comment on the BLP noticeboard, but an editor suggested that it belongs here. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Predictprotein

This page is literally just an ad for their product. If you look at some of the changes I made they used words such as "we" which is a dead giveaway Biochemwannabe (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Arguably deserves to be deleted. Not really notable, too technical User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I would agree...I am new around here so i am not sure how exactly to do that. Biochemwannabe (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutral point of view problem on Ethnic groups and ethnic percentages in Afghanistan

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.

---

There is a persistent dispute over the use of sources for ethnic percentage estimates in the proposed tables.

I have filed a request to find out whether using sources that only show the percentage of one ethnicity and ignore the percentage of other ethnicities, for example, only mentioning the percentage of Pashtuns or only mentioning the percentage of Tajiks, is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view rules?

Involved editors: @Badakhshan ziba . @Asilvering , @SdHb , @Xan747

First, I invite you to compare the numbers in these three proposed tables with each other in order to understand the issue, especially the statistics related to the Pashtun ethnic group.

1- Badakhshan ziba = here . 2- Xan747 = here . 3- Sdhb =here

Editor SdHb is advocating for the inclusion of marginal, poor sources, or incomplete sources that appear to selectively inflate the Pashtun ethnic percentage while omitting or downplaying or minimizing data of other major groups (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks).

forexample here downplaying and minimize the Tajik= 2021 CEIP = here

here inflate pashtuns= 2016 BFA here

here again inflate pashtuns = 1987 Walyan here

here downplaying and minimize the Tajik,hazara.uzbek ethnic together = 1996 NYT = here . In 1996, a newspaperman wrote a report for the New York Times news during the Afghan war the first Taliban terrorist emirate and made a claim that Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks as "one-third" of the population without providing any evidence, methodology, or backing sources. here and now @SdHb insists this is among the "most reliable" sources and wants it treated equally with high-quality sources like the CIA World Factbook or Library of Congress studies, here despite its age and lack of verification, violating WP:UNDUE by giving disproportionate weight to unverified claims.

here again downplaying and minimize the Tajik= 2001 EB = here . These practices seem to involve cherry-picking by selecting incomplete or outdated sources that favor one viewpoint, giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority or unverified estimates.This violates WP:NPOV by creating an im balance representation in the sensitive topic of ethnic demographics.

I have attempted to resolve this problem on the talk page by proposing only high-quality, complete sources , but the insistence on these poor sources and incompelete and cherry-picking sources persists here , potentially violate wikipedia neutrality rules.

Of course, some of these tables still have many problems with the reliability of sources, which should be discussed elsewhere.

I ask the Wikipedia community and wikipedia admins to tell me whether these mentioned cases violate Wikipedia's rules on [|WP:NPOV or not? Many thanks. Regards. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I object to this topic being raised here. First, this dispute was recently closed at DRN since, in the moderator's judgement, progress had been made in article talk. @Badakhshan ziba has filed this report before any further substantive attempts had been made to continue resolving the dispute amongst ourselves. Second, BZ is representing this as a larger problem than it is. There is more agreement about which sources to use at this point than there are disagreements. Third, BZ's post is not neutral. Instead of summarizing the issues neutrally and referring interested editors to article talk for the specifics, they have litigated the dispute from their own perspective here, which may have the effect biasing responding editors. Finally, this is not the first time BZ has appealed to "wikipedia admins" to intervene in what is now solely a content dispute (there had been edit-warring in the beginning of the dispute, which has since ceased). The pattern suggests WP:FORUMSHOPPING, I don't like it and all the rest in that vein. I'm also fed up with the allegations of cherry picking. If anyone here is being motivated by POV, it is the editor making repeated claims about sources that appear to selectively inflate the Pashtun ethnic percentage while omitting or downplaying or minimizing data of other major groups (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks) without providing any evidence of same other than certain sources indeed have higher percentages of Pashtuns than other sources. This is an issue two editors in this in dispute agree (including me) is a real problem that should be discussed in article prose, suitably documented by reliable sources, to illustrate the very real issues BZ is complaining about instead of simply flushing sources which show Pashtun percentages above some threshold BZ personally considers inaccurate. Xan747 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I couldn‘t have summarized it better. Thank you for that. SdHb (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747, this dispute falls under WP:CTOP/SA, and you could raise this at WP:AE if you wanted to. I think this has reached the limits of amiable dispute resolution. -- asilvering (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering thank you. If @Badakhshan ziba is willing to close this topic here, I am willing to return to the table in article talk, with the understanding that our very first goal will be to restore a statistical table using only the sources we all agree are reliable (as I have been suggesting for what has to be a month now). If that fails, then yes, I will consider an escalation. I really do not want to do this. I felt like we were very very close to coming to a mutual resolution, and I hate to waste AE's time with something I still have residual faith we can resolve without that level of intervention. That said, does this smell right to you? Xan747 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC) Post-close comment: A checkuser found no connections between the new user in the diff I linked and any other user, so I have struck my suspicion with apologies. Xan747 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xan747 Okay, I have no problem. How do I close this discussion? But let me also say this. If the discussion gets stuck in the future, I will have to ask questions here again and ask them for help to solve the problem. Please close the discussion if you can. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Badakhshan ziba, Thank you. I will close it on your behalf. Xan747 (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering hello. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia rules. but My goal was to move the discussion forward much more quickly by raising this issue here. I still think that if some of the disagreements were raised here, the discussion and the issue could move forward more quickly. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I am tired of this discussion taking so long.

The discussion has become very long and I think that this problem should be resolved step by step, with the help of the Wikipedia community.

The text I wrote here, if resolved with the help of the Wikipedia community, would solve many of the problems in the table.

I am not very familiar with all Wikipedia rules. @Asilvering I think it would be better for the Wikipedia community to comment on this so that the problem can be resolved more quickly.I was just looking for a faster solution to the issue by stating the problem here. thank you. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

اhello. My goal here is to get impartial opinions on a specific question related to WP:NPOV sourcing, as this place is designed for such disputes.

The DRN case was indeed closed recently, with the moderator noting progress on table format but leaving content/sourcing issues open for further talk page discussion. According to DRN guidelines,i think there is no problem Request for opinion from specialized place boards such as WP:NPOV.

The remaining sourcing disputes - especially around incomplete or selective sources for ethnic percentages - continue to exist and risk creating imbalances, which is why I have structured this post around a narrower question: Does using sources that only list percentages for one ethnicity (and omit others) violate WP:NPOV?

For example, mainstream estimates (e.g., CIA World Factbook's estimate of 42% Pashtuns or Library of Congress studies estimate of 40% Pashtuns ) should not be overshadowed by unverified or partial claims without context.

On the neutrality of the post: You are right that my summary reflects my point of view, but my goal was to provide a factual description of the issue with examples and policy links, and I invited editors to review the linked tables and talk page for the full text.If it seems biased, I welcome suggestions to change the wording for better balance.

WP:NPOV. is explicitly for editors to raise disagreements where they have reached an impasse in impartiality, and posts here often include details that help respondents understand the issue.

I've tagged all involved editors (@Badakhshan ziba [that's me], @Asilvering, @SdHb, @Xan747) to ensure transparency.

On forum shopping and appeals to admins: I respect your view on this pattern, but this is the first time I've brought the sourcing/NPOV angle to a content noticeboard like WP:NPOV—previous efforts were on the article talk page and DRN.

Forum shopping (WP:FORUMSHOP) applies to parallel active threads, not sequential escalation after closure;

I don't think there was an edit war. I believed that the original live article should not be changed until the issues in dispute were discussed.If you feel this violates that, I'm open to community feedback here. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Significant COI

@Tanhouser (Special:Contributions/Tanhouser) appears to be closely linked to the subjects of the 3 articles they created (which in turn appear to have been written by an LLM) -- Thanhauser, Thannhausen Family and Balthasar von Thannhausen.

I have added a number of tags to each article, which the user attempted to remove.

Aesurias (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

They have removed the tags twice now.

Talk:Thannhausen Family Aesurias (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

OH NO A FAMILY MEMBER CREATED A FACTUAL BASED WIKIPEDIA PAGE THAT IS HIGHLY SOURCED AND WAS TYPED BY THEMSELVES AND TOOK HOURS TO DO, LETS CHALLENGE THEM AND THEN CRY ON A BOARD TO FEEL IMPORTANT WHEN THEY CHALLENGE BACK! FOLLOW THE RULES! FOLLOW THE RULES!!! Tanhouser (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an issue that you are a family member -- the issue is that you failed to disclose it and repeatedly tried to cover it up. Having a conflict of interest doesn't immediately disqualify an article from existing. For example, Balthasar von Thannhausen may meet notability standards, but the article needs to be stylized differently.

The articles appear well-researched (albeit mostly original research) but have clearly been summarized by an AI-language model (notice the large amount of unneeded * on sentence headers). If you'd like, I can work with you to rewrite the article and divide it into clearer sections to help meet the manual of style.

Seeing as you've admitted in this message that you are a family member, please consult see WP:DISCLOSE for steps on how to disclose this info on your user page. Aesurias (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, this IP user Special:Contributions/75.97.25.23 appears to be you as well. Don't forget to log in when editing :) Aesurias (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

you need factual evidence to make that claim.. and make sure you cite it! Tanhouser (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, you've both been editing sporadically at similar times on the exact same pages, and have the same manner of writing. Using an IP to edit is not an issue and I'm not criticising you, but logging in to your account to edit saves your edits if you need to view them.

Thank you for quickly adding the conflict of interest note to your user page :))) Aesurias (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This type of response seems to be testing the boundaries of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Not a good look. DN (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

ok darknipples, i understand sarcasm might be hard to detect through a screen but was your input really needed?? Tanhouser (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Receiving a complaint about your immaturity from a user named "Darknipples", I hope, would be the impetus for some self-reflection. jp×g🗯️ 22:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world#Chattel slavery

Extended discussion

I want to flag this discussion. I think that there is an NPOV problem with removing all instances of the word "chattel" from the history of slavery in the Islamic world when at least some sources use that term to describe it. Am I off-base here? Andre🚐 17:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

There is indeed an NPOV problem with sticking the word "chattel" everywhere, regardless of the claim and what the sources say about it (please refer to my initial response as well as my response to the sources that they cited). They even cherry picked the word "chattel" (out of context) from this source to justify what they think is the correct approach. M.Bitton (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That source is by a historian and published under Oxford Islamic Studies, and states: Islamic Africa chattel slavery, mainly female, was more common. How isn't that relevant at least for an attributed mention about slavery in the Muslim world? Also, I already said during the discussion that I was ok to mention it differently than it was mentioned in the prior edit as long as we mention it somehow. Andre🚐 18:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Since there is no point in me repeating what I said (emphasis en "everywhere", "unsourced" and "cherry picking"), I'll just await input from uninvolved editors. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how the given sources are cherry-picked given that two of the authors are already used in the article (Freamon and Marmon) and are well-credentialed and well-published with sources specifically dealing with this topic. Marmon in particular[13] are you claiming she is unreliable? She specializes in this topic and is a tenured faculty member of Princeton, and the article already cites Eunuchs and Sacred Boundaries in Islamic Society and Slavery in the Islamic Middle East. On page 2 and 5 of her other book, Slavery in the Islamic Middle East, she clearly refers to Islamic slavery as chattel slavery contra your claim that it is not. Again, I am open to compromise on specific wording and attribution. Andre🚐 19:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

are you claiming.. please don't do that again. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

So you are agreeing that Marmon is reliable for the claim, or not? Earlier you said, The second says many things, including that in Islam, all humans are slaves (chattel slaves according to the author). That is a misread, but also, you still didn't answer if she is reliable or not. Andre🚐 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't come to this board to persuade you (we're past that). M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to changing my view, but so far you've not provided a single source about Islamic slavery that says it is not chattel slavery. Andre🚐 20:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

in case it is unclear, Marmon is simply discussing the theological view laid out and attributed to Ibn Manzur. Andre🚐 21:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The entry on Slavery of The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (edited by Gerhard Böwering and published by Princeton University Press) starts with Chattel slavery was a well-established reality of political, legal and social life of Pre-Islamic world. The advent of Islam did not change this.... Considering the other sources mentioned in the discussions, it seems like this view is held by many scholars. It doesn't mean that "chattel" should be appended to "slavery" every time but its removal isn't warranted. Alaexis_¿question? 19:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that "chattel" should be appended to "slavery" every time exactly (context and sourced statement are what matters). Hence, what I said in my initial comment. Take the Slavery in ancient Rome article as an example: the word chattel is mentioned there three times and in context. M.Bitton (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I said several times I was open to negotiating specific wording, but you hand-waved away all the sources and claimed that Islamic slavery is not chattel slavery. If we can agree it at least is sometimes described that way we can workshop how to use the sources in the article and which places to work them into, but as we don't have broad agreement that chattel should be mentioned and you've rejected the apparently reliable sources, I brought it to this noticeboard to get other opinions. If you are willing to change or clarify your position vis chattel, that would help I think. Andre🚐 20:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

What I said is written in black and white (it doesn't need an interpretation, much less an inaccurate one). 20:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

In my view few things are black and white. There is often nuance and shades of gray. As you've staked out an intransigent position on the far end of what the article should say, that is why your view for what the article should say has NPOV issues. NPOV means a well-balanced, well-rounded viewpoint. But I hope you will acquiesce if the consensus is that chattel should be mentioned. Andre🚐 20:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Per above comment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally concur with what Alaexis said above. The word chattel should be used when relevant and supported by a reliable source. In my opinion it’s POV and probably OR to invoke “Islamic slavery” as a single institution that invariably is, or invariably is not, chattel slavery. Put simply, it needs to be decided case-by-case. —Rutebega (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said, while highlighting how it's done in similar articles (I gave Slavery in ancient Rome as an example). M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

You removed all mentions of chattel, even ones that are obviously about chattel slavery, and have rejected all reliable sources provided. Do you now concede that we should mention it? Andre🚐 15:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The IP did (I just have happen to agree with them). I'm fairly certain that what I wrote (in the edit summary as well as my initial comment) is in plain English (it goes without saying that the approach will have to be compliant with all policies, and not just WP:V). Why was it sidelined with a tangential comment? I don't know. All I know is that the tangential comment bred more of the same, and ultimately, to a fruitless discussion that wasn't even needed to begin with. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• My view:

• At WP we primarily go as per RS. Let us continue to prioritize the same.
• Chattel means basically movable property.
• Other than hired labour who is free to leave the job, Debt bondage, Indentured servitude, Serfdom rest of slavery/ slaves which was property to some one basically amounts to Chattel only.

Following is my over all understanding subject to correction as per RS wherever applicable.

• In relation to slavery it used more often with a shade of dehumanizing condition but meaning of the word Chattel is movable property then that won't change irrespective of actual better agency if any slave have had with any slave master at any particular time.
• In the context of Islamic and Muslim world if a male slave gets chance in military service and could achieve some good rank then his agency would improve even though his official designation of a slave continues. But for rest of men it was a fluid condition if the same slave gets resold as a galley slave his agency will get compromised.
• Until a slave gets manumitted s/he used to remain as a property i.e. chattel and most men slaves were available for resale if Master wished so.

Bookku (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• I tried what I thought was a pretty modest attempt at adding appropriate text and it was reverted[14][15] Andre🚐 21:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Your recent edit is about something else entirely. It was reverted with a valid explanation, as well as questions that you are yet to answer. M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have just responded, but to be clear, that text is not about something else. It is about the dispute about whether the article should describe chattel, or not. I say it should and am open to compromise on specific text, attribution, or balancing a source that claims otherwise. Andre🚐 21:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is about something else: your attempt to reduce Islamic law on slavery (a complicated subject that we have an article about) into a sentence. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm open to making it longer, or changing it altogether, do you say it should not be included in the article at all, which is a major omission? Andre🚐 21:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  What's "it"? M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Text explaining the basic background that under Islamic law slaves were property to be bought and sold, with their submission and labor owned by the master, i.e. chattel slavery. Andre🚐 21:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  We have an article about that. You reducing it to a sentence (through some weird cherry picking and WP:SYNTH) is not acceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY Andre🚐 21:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't apply, since what you did is indeed good old fashioned SYNTH (as explained in that discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  If you don't like my summary, propose some alternative text based on the sources that summarizes and explains this essential background information. Andre🚐 21:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  A summary of Islamic views on slavery? M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, if you want to think of it that way. It's essential to understanding the history of slavery in the Islamic world. Andre🚐 21:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, short of linking to it (which is what I suggested), one can use Template:Excerpt (to avoid possible POV forks). M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a good approach. I think we need one or two well-sourced sentences that explain the Islamic jurisprudence and the status of slaves in the medieval sphere of influence of the Abbasids. Andre🚐 21:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's your opinion. For me, the idea of reducing a complicated subject into a sentence or two is not something that I would entertain (it also defeat the purpose of having an article about it). M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  So far, there are several other editors that agree in principle the article should say something about it. We can wait and see if anyone else has a comment on the specific issues at hand. We can prep an RFC if we need to although, I think there is already probably enough of a consensus that we should write about this in this article. but maybe that will become clearer. Andre🚐 22:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  about it. is a meaningless and highly misleading claim. Nobody suggested what you did (reducing Islamic law on slavery into a sentence). M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have asked you for an alternative text. Linking or excerpting the article is not an alternative proposed text for this article about the history of slavery. Some things changed about slavery and some things stayed the same. What were they, and why? Andre🚐 22:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have answered. The fact that we don't agree is pretty clear, so no need to repeat our views. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  You didn't propose a text that would address the growing consensus that the article should explain how slavery worked. Andre🚐 22:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  I proposed a solution. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

  AndreJustAndre, my earlier comment should not be construed as endorsing any specific language in the article, only explaining how to resolve the dispute. All that is needed is to summarize what reliable sources say, which should not require an RFC. So far the only source I have seen that mentions chattel slavery in a pertinent way is Ze’evi, and that is in a specific and narrow context. I could not verify your recent addition and your rationales sound like SYNTH to me. Please provide quotations or at least specific page numbers (not entire chapters) to support the language you want to add. See also MOS:EDITORIAL. —Rutebega (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Rutebaga, I never claimed you endorsed specific language. An RFC might be needed if this dispute is so intractable and it's difficult to make headway on a compromise. Chattel slavery is mentioned explicitly in Marmon, Keadmon, and Ze'evi, as well as the Böwering encyclopedia entry. are you able to access those sources. I gave page numbers for Marmon, p. 2 and 5. Andre🚐 17:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Chattel slavery is mentioned explicitly is a meaningless statement: you added a claim (a sentence) that according to you is a summary of Islamic law on slavery.

  You added six sources. Luckily, two of them as easily accessible.[16][17]

  How exactly do they support the statement about Islamic law that you added to the article? M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  The sources are all accessible either through WP:TWL, Google Books preview, or are accessible period. That is a paraphrase of what is contained in the sources which do say that. All statements are supported by sources. I am happy to change or workshop the text. So far you have declined to offer alternative text and proposed instead linking to Islamic views on slavery. That article has its own problems and that is not a valid compromise for the problem here. Andre🚐 19:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Would you mind answering the simple question (about what you added to the article)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have answered the question. The sources explictly talk about Islamic jurisprudence. If you haven't read Marmon p. 2 and 5 it would explain why you can't figure out what I mean. I don't know how else to work with you if you won't offer your own version of the text, it would seem that we should proceed to an RFC. No point in starting dispute resolution because that also ends in an RFC. I think an RFC will find that chattel is a key concept to this article and must be explained. Andre🚐 19:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  You know as well as I do that content that doesn't comply with our policies doesn't belong in any article (a RfC won't change that).

  I asked you a very explicit question that shouldn't take you long to answer (the sources that you added are easily accessible, so it's a matter of copying and pasting the relevant quotes).

  Can you please answer it? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  The Google Book preview doesn't allow copy pasting, so I would have to re-transcribe it. It would be easier if you would simply review p.2 and p.5. It is very clearly outlined on those pages. On p.5 there is a paragraph that goes from "chattel slavery" to "Muslim jurists...commodity...humanity." Andre🚐 19:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  I explicitly listed the two sources that are easily accessible.

  How hard is it to answer that question? M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  I refer to the Marmon source. But the Kloss Springer source also contains a similar quote, According to medieval Islamic law, slaves could be bought and sold like any other property Andre🚐 19:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Repeating the same question, only to have a non-answer is very tiring.

  Address above (whenever you're ready). M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is exhausting because I already answered your question. In fact in my last message I provided an explicit quote from Springer. What is your problem with that quote? Honestly, my proposed text is not controversial or at least it shouldn't be. These are well-supported facts. The article as it stands has a major deficiency in explaining this. Andre🚐 19:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Still waiting for an answer to a very simple question. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe you could rephrase or restate the question because as far as I can tell I answered it. Marmon support my text directly. I just quoted a similar quote from Springer. Your repeated non-content messages are honestly starting to be frustrating. This is not how to collaborate. Andre🚐 19:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  You want me to repeat it? Sure.

  You added six sources to support a claim (a sentence) that according to you is a summary of Islamic law on slavery.

  Luckily, two of them as easily accessible.[18][19]

  How exactly do they support the statement about Islamic law that you added to the article? Those sources are easily accessible, so it's a matter of copying and pasting the relevant quotes. M.Bitton (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  OK, I didn't mean just say the same thing again. That is unhelpful, and I answered that already. I explained why I can't easily copypaste Marmon, but you should review it and tell me what is the objection to it. This is a quote from Kloss. "According to medieval Islamic law, slaves could be bought and sold like any other property" It is a summary on Islamic law. The term "chattel" is what that means, and is used explicitly in the other sources. Synonyms and summary are not synth. I explained elsewhere what I used Ze'evi for. Andre🚐 19:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  At this stage, I have no choice but to conclude that you refuse to answer a simple question because you are aware that those sources don't support what you added. M.Bitton (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is ridiculous. I just answered your request for a direct quote from the linked sources with a direct quote. Andre🚐 19:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  the master owned the slave's labor and property and was entitled to his or her sexual submission - Ze'evi.

  According to medieval Islamic law, slaves could be bought and sold like any other property - Kloss Andre🚐 20:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  None of which supports the statement that you added. In simple words, you engaged in plain old WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to create your so-called "summary" (that's without mentioning the blatant WP:CHERRYPICKING).

  Frankly, I don't expect this from an experienced editor. M.Bitton (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Not at all. It is supported by the sources, with some simple summary. If you disagree, be more specific. Nor is it cherrypicking at all. These are all good sources, and Marmon and Keadmon are already used. Andre🚐 20:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  You modified your comment after I responded to it. There is nothing not-policy-compliant about my proposal. Andre🚐 19:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear as there is a lot of text above, this is the text I proposed adding. Please propose an alternative text.

Under medieval Islamic law, slaves, while still viewed as human, were essentially a commodity, property that could be bought and sold, i.e chattel slavery, and the master owned the slave's labor and submission, including domestic slaves, eunuchs, slave soldiers, concubines (sex slaves), and courtesans.

Andre🚐 22:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Addressed here, and the discussion continued above (starting from this comment). M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

About half of the disputed uses of "chattel" are supported explicitly by sources. For example, The Sulu Zone, James Francis Warren: "A distinction was drawn by Taosug between chattel slaves (banyaga.... and bond-slaves (kiapangdilihan)".

"Slavery in the Twentieth Century: The Evolution of a Global Problem", By Suzanne Miers: "The 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s saw the virtual eradication of slave raiding, a great decline in the slave trade, and an end to the legal status of chattel slavery everywhere, except in parts of Arabia".

I'd suggest leaving the word 'chattel' for those claims and removing the rest, and using the quote= field when citing. Hi! (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems very much like a two person convo right now. MBitton and Andre have done about 62 out of 67 of the replies here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I would love for some more other editors to weigh in. As far as I can tell, everything in my above text is supported by the sources. M.Bitton has claimed it is SYNTH without giving any rationale as to why that is, and a baseless accusation of cherrypicking. I also asked him to propose his own text, but he instead proposed linking to another article. Let's review how the sources explicitly support my text:

the master owned the slave's labor and property and was entitled to his or her sexual submission - Ze'evi

According to medieval Islamic law, slaves could be bought and sold like any other property - Kloss

p.2 and 5 of Marmon, "chattel slavery" to "Muslim jurists...commodity...humanity."

Chattel slavery was a well-established reality of political, legal and social life of Pre-Islamic world. The advent of Islam did not change this. Böwering

Muslims considered the likelihood of such events and participation in such behaviors to be juridical and social impossibilities in the modern world, given the worldwide assumption of abolition and the effective disappearance of de jure chattel slavery and slave trading in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Keadmon

There are at least four legally significant instances in the Qur’an where the ’abd usage clearly connotes the context of chattel slavery. ... parable describing two men, one a chattel slave who has ‘no power of any sort’, ... the Quranic legislation permitting slaves to marry and its exhortation for marriage between enslaved and free persons also tended to humanize the face of chattel slavery. ... the slave, like the horse or other non-pastured animal and goods and tools not placed in commerce, is chattel but just not a ‘zakatable’ chattel. Ibn Rushd agreed Keadmon

Much evidence – textual, material and documentary – points to slavery in the early and medieval Islamic Middle East (c. 600-1000 CE) as a social fact, persistent and multivalent. ... But reading such accounts of the early Islamic period is to confront head-on the challenge of historicizing Middle Eastern slavery. Modern scholars quarrel over the question of the reliance of Muslim exegetes and jurists on pre-Islamic legal and intellectual traditions... the Quran and hadith were not always a principal source of guidance for Muslim scholars, who often looked elsewhere in shaping precepts pertaining to slaves and slavery. There is no question that, from a very early point, they were determined to give shape to a properly Islamic legal framework.... What follows is a consideration of four categories of ʿAbbasid-era urban slavery,...Future research should parse medieval Arabic slave vocabulary: Muslim scholars wielded a variety of terms for enslaved and freed persons, and, when possible, each term, with reference to specific individuals and groupings, deserves discussion. A greater requirement still is a close study of Islamic slave law, though considerable ground for such a project has been carried out. .... Legal texts produced in the early ʿAbbasid period also make frequent reference to slavery. Following their lead, the first generations of Muslim jurists (seventh–tenth century) developed a body of slave law to which successive generations of scholars closely adhered. .... devote long comments to slaves in their chapters on marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other areas, as well as discrete chapters on emancipation and concubinage. These count as indications, in other words, of an extensive ʿAbbasid-era reliance on slave labor. Gordon Andre🚐 21:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I will indulge you and go line by line.

Ze'evi: this quote makes no mention of chattel slavery. He mentions it elsewhere but I don't think it supports your argument.

Kloss: again, no mention of chattel slavery.

Marmon: Chattel slavery appears in a separate sentence that is about slavery in general and does not mention islamic law.

Böwering: general statement that chattel slavery continued to exist in the Islamic world. This is not an interpretation of islamic law.

Keadmon 1: referring to the de jure end of chattel slavery globally, nothing said about medieval islamic law.

Keadmon 2: I cannot find this passage and you did not cite it in the article. What is the full citation? The Quran and medieval islamic law are not exactly coextensive.

Gordon: no mention of chattel slavery

I don't want to belabor the point but we can't say one thing "essentially" is (i.e.) something else if no source explicitly uses that language. That is what WP:SYNTH means.

If such a passage is warranted, it should only summarize Islamic views on slavery#Traditional Islamic jurisprudence or similar to prevent forking. —Rutebega (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, even from summary of multiple sources.

I would ask you propose your own summary text. This is not a fork. This article is history, and not theology. Please tell me what you think is a fair summary of this history.

As far as your analysis, it is flawed.

Ze'evi mentions chattel slavery and he also defines aspects of it, which supports the usage as I outlined. I explained what I was using him for. Not every source has to support every part of the sentence as long it is a fair summary of multiple sources that reaches no conclusion not found in the sources.

Kloss defines aspects of slavery without using the term chattel, but her definition was used in my text. It's a synonym. "Essentially" is not necessary, but simply a summary word. That word could be cut without changing the meaning, so I'm not wedded to that. Marmon does in fact mention Islamic jurists and the commodity aspect, so you are incorrect on saying she doesn't mention law; jurists and law are effectively synonymous.

My apologies on writing Keadmon. That is an error. The author is Bernard K. Freamon, and his name is not Keadmon. Somehow I combined the K and the Freamon into Keadmon. There is no Keadmon. The link is Definitions and Conceptions of Slave Ownership in Islamic Law It is not one passage (note the ellipses) and it goes from the section "Slavery in the Qur’an" to 'Zakat" and the full cite indeed was in my edit. Andre🚐 01:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, with the caveat that this is not my "field" Gordon has the most interesting things to say, notably, that modern scholars quarrel over whether jurists used pre-Islamic legal traditions or the Quran and hadith. Your proposal doesn't include any mention of those disagreements. Once you have established that scholars disagree, that opens the door to present different views attributed to individual scholars, e.g. Böwering noting that under pre-Islamic laws, slaves were considered chattel, and the arrival of Islam didn't change that. You can then also get into Freamon noting that there are instances in the Quran which clearly [connote] the context of chattel slavery, and that one I would quote directly to make it abundantly clear it is the source's interpretation and not a literal translation. You could also simply quote Kloss directly. Finally, if it were me, I'd go out of my way to find scholarship disputing your selected sources since Gordon indicates there is a debate. Xan747 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I'll buy that. A better version would portray the debates and the range of opinions in this field, as many scholars do not agree about the views of medieval Islamic jurists. That is a very good point. That will be a significantly longer and maybe less clear, but ultimately better version of this text. Andre🚐 01:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Glad I could help, happy editing! Xan747 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre, as an alternative, perhaps you don't need to start with the *law*. It's more important to describe what existed on the ground than what what was the legislative framework. So I'd start with Böwering and then discuss the scholarly debates. Alaexis_¿question? 09:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your claims:

• Ze'evi mentions chattel slavery N not in the context of Islamic law (in fact, you ignored what they said about Islamic law).
• Kloss defines aspects of slavery without using the term chattel N nothing about "chattel".
• Böwering: N nothing about "Islamic law".
• Bernard K. Freamon (Keadmon) 1: N putting aside the fact that it's a FRINGE interpretation of the Qu'ran, you said Islamic law is not equal to the Qu'ran (when I mentioned what the Encyclopedia of the Qu'ran says), i.e., you agree with Rutebega on this point.
• Bernard K. Freamon (Keadmon) 2: N nothing about chattel (this is about the slavery during the Abassid period).
• Gordon: N he doesn't say anything about "chattel".
• Marmon: N she doesn't say anything about "chattel".

In other words, your so-called "summary" is not just WP:SYNTH, it's one of the worst cases of SYNTH and misrepresentation of the sources that I have ever come across. It literally beggars belief that an experienced editor would do such a thing, much less waste so much time and energy arguing about it.

The solution that was proposed by Rutebega is the only way to avoid POV forks of this kind. M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: everything between this simple question and this comment pretty much sums up all you need to know.
  For context, as well the proposed solution that has been refused for no valid reason: you can start from this comment. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  The reason why there are so many replies to this thread is comments like this one, which contribute nothing to achieving a compromise and are simply a form of repetition. M.Bitton claims the above text is SYNTH. But I have provided sources that clearly demonstrate all of the conclusion components of the proposed text, and M.Bitton simply repeats himself instead of explaining his objection. The core components are all sourced in detail.

  • Under medieval Islamic law, - verbatim Kloss and in Gordon and Keadmon and Marmon

  slaves, while still viewed as human, - Marmon and also talked about by other sources and proposed by M. Bitton as well.

  • were essentially a commodity, property that could be bought and sold, - verbatim Kloss, and close to verbatim Marmon.
  • i.e chattel slavery. Marmon, Keadmon, and Böwering
  • , and the master owned the slave's labor and submission, Ze'evi
  • including domestic slaves, eunuchs, slave soldiers, concubines (sex slaves), and courtesans. This is discussed in Gordon.

  If M. Bitton claims that I am doing improper SYNTH, he must explain what conclusion is in no source, and which disparate facts are not related or suitably being naturally summarized, and he must explain how to rectify that - either by removing some component of the text or by refactoring it to either state what is defensible in text according to him, or otherwise make a new statement summarizing what are honestly, in this field, basic, background knowledge anyway. Andre🚐 22:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Observation @AndreJustAndre Since you apparently want to insert the word chattel multiple places in the article, I suggest that you write out proposed text for each instance you want to add, and give a single citation which supports that text. You might also consider providing a direct quote from the source. If you and @M.Bitton both agree, we might also consider hatting the entire discussion above to also improve the odds of obtaining a community review. Xan747 (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm proposing one specific addition. There were previously multiple mentions but I am focusing on one. Andre🚐 01:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok now I see your comment, and @Rutebega has responded. I will be bold and hat everything above that. If anyone objects they can always revert me. Xan747 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Request for wider input – balance concerns on David and Stephen Flynn article

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some input on the David and Stephen Flynn article. The current version focuses quite heavily on controversies but doesn’t reflect other well-sourced coverage about their work and public profile — for example, business milestones and bestselling books that have been reported by The Irish Times and Irish Independent.

I’ve tried to add a short, neutral sentence about their first cookbook (2014) and its place on the Irish nonfiction bestseller list, fully supported by reliable sources. However, these edits have repeatedly been reverted as “WP:PROMO,” which has made it difficult to achieve balance on the page.

Here’s the Talk section for context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_and_Stephen_Flynn#New_section:Books_and_Media_Appearances%E2%80%93_Wave_1

I’d appreciate if a few uninvolved editors could have a look and share views on whether a short, factual “Books and Media Appearances” section would be appropriate to bring the article more in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

Thanks for taking the time to read,

Calmsea123456 (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Gdańsk

There appears to be an effort on the part of JeanClaudeN1 to remove text and reliable reference sources in the Gdańsk article, which state that the Gdańsk massacre of 1308 that was carried out by the Teutonic Knights caused a major population shift, were the city went from being majority Lechitic to majority German.

Below are the two statements and reliable reference sources in question, which were removed:

1. Longstanding text that was initially removed, here[20]: "The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers." Source[21].

2. Revised text that was added by me in an effort to present more neutral wording and provided an alternate source, which also makes the same claim, here[22] "After the Teutonic Order rebuilt the town following the massacre, Gdańsk became almost entirely German." Source[23]

I view the removal of these statements as impacting the overall balance and objective neutrality of the article. If the article clearly states that post-WWII expulsion of the German population resulted in a major population shift of the city then the article also clearly needs to say that the Teutonic massacre also resulted in a major population shift. However, it appears that JeanClaudeN1 continually objects to having such statements in the article and uses a variety of arguments to remove the text in question.

However, in the end, such actions can give the impression that the article is being Wikipedia:Sanitized for whatever reason because the guidelines clearly says that "articles must include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The view that the massacre resulted in a major population shift is a legitimate fact that's backed up by reliable reference sources. Omitting the inclusion of this for whatever reason creates issues concerning the balance, objectivity, and neutrality of the article. The second/revised statement, along with the reliable reference source should remain despite continued objections by JeanClaudeN1, and I ask that the legitimacy of it is reviewed and confirmed. PJK 1993 (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The second source you've added is certainly a RS and I believe you that it indeed makes this claim. However the content you've added wasn't removed, it was just rephrased a bit, and the main point remained in the article The town saw a rapid rise in population and became almost completely German. The massacre is described in the previous paragraph.

Can you clarify why you believe that the changed version violates NPOV? Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

PJK 1993 was recently blocked for edit warring on this very topic (see block log) and warned by an admin to stop. [24] They keep mentioning “ethnic population shifts” and that "the city went from being majority Lechitic to majority German", but haven't been able to provide a reliable secondary source for their claims. The reasons why the use of their first-mentioned source was problematic have been explained to them multiple times, including on their talk page. It should also be noted that the article falls within a contentious topic area (Balkans or Eastern Europe). Since their block has expired, they are now trying to interpret another (generally reliable) source in a way that fits their POV. However, several reliable secondary sources from experts, including the source they themselves cite, demonstrate that the city was already predominantly inhabited by Germans before the 1308 massacre:

• Loew, Peter Oliver (2024). Gdańsk: Portrait of a City. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 9780197603864. After all, it was not the Polish citizens who were fighting for their "Polishness," but rather predominantly German townspeople, alongside Brandenburg's troops and Pomerelian knights […].
• Śliwiński, Błazej; Możejko, Beata (2020). "Exile and Return?: Gdańsk in the Aftermath of the Teutonic Order's Actions in Pomerelia during the First Half of the Fourteenth Century". East Central Europe. 47 (1): 29–38. Most of the burgher families who lived in Gdańsk came from Westphalia, Lower Saxony, and the Rhineland, though before reaching Gdańsk, the majority of them had settled earlier in Lübeck. […] Only a minority of the burghers came from the local Pomeranian (Slavic) population […]. In 1307 some of Pomerelia's knights, headed by the wealthy Święc family, rebeled against the Polish duke Władysław Łokietek.
• Smoliński, Marek (2021). "The Gdańsk Massacre in the Medieval Historical Narrative". Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae. 2021: 91–128. Thanks to the favour of the Gdańsk townspeople, mostly of German origin, the Ascanians managed to capture the city of Gdańsk during this expedition.

I'd also like to point out that PJK 1993 is once again misrepresenting facts. No one deleted the information or the reference; only the problematic parts of their edit were adjusted. The reasons were explained to them on their talk page.

To demonstrate the small differences we're actually discussing here, I'll list the two versions here:

• My version which fixes the issues listed here:
  The Order did not rebuild the town until the mid-1320s, when some of its former inhabitants—primarily Lübeckers, who also brought back the pre-1308 town seal—returned, alongside settlers from other German regions. The town saw a rapid rise in population and became almost completely German; it would become primarily known by its German name, Danzig.
• PJK 1993‘s version:
  The town was not rebuilt until the mid-1320s, when some of its former inhabitants — primarily Lübeckers, who also brought back the pre-1308 town seal — returned, alongside settlers from other German regions. After the Teutonic Order rebuilt the town following the massacre, Gdańsk became almost entirely German, and the town would become primarily known by its German name, Danzig. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. It’s important to be clear that the post 1308 demographic changes in Gdańsk are well documented and supported by multiple reliable sources. The Teutonic Knight's massacre killed and displaced a huge portion of the local Pomerelian Slavic population and when the city was later rebuilt in the 1320s, the German settlers from Lübeck but also other regions became the overwhelming majority, shifting the city from a primarily Lechitic/Slavic population to a German speaking one. Per multiple sources (Loew 2024, pages 24–44 and Śliwiński & Możejko 2020 pages 29–38 or Smoliński 2021 pages 91–128). Repeatedly objecting to the inclusion of this fact, despite clear source support, risks giving the impression of selective historical sanitization. Including this information is essential for presenting a complete and balanced account of Gdańsk’s history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.164.81 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

That is obviously an attempt to mislead others. The "sources" mentioned by the IP are the ones I provided above to refute PJK 1993’s statements. None of these sources support "a primarily Lechitic/Slavic population" (see above). The wording ("sanitization") and POV ("primarily Lechitic/Slavic population") are suspiciously similar to those of PJK 1993. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that my comment was “an attempt to mislead others.” My statements are directly supported by reputable scholarly sources. The sources I'm referring, to such as Peter Oliver Loew (2024), Gdańsk: Portrait of a City; Błażej Śliwiński & Beata Możejko (2020); and Marek Smoliński (2021) provide substantial evidence that Gdańsk's population was predominantly Slavic prior to the 1308 massacre. Loew says that the city’s demographic composition changed dramatically after the Teutonic takeover, with German settlers from Lübeck and other regions becoming the overwhelming majority in the rebuilt city. Śliwiński & Możejko say the deaths and displacement of a large portion of the local Slavic population and the subsequent influx of German speaking settlers. Smoliński also emphasizes the demographic shift, detailing both the human toll of the massacre and the resulting German settlement. These sources directly support the statement that Gdańsk transitioned from a primarily Lechitic population to a German speaking following 1308 massacres. Now, the use of the term “sanitization” in my previous comment refers to the selective omission of well documented historical facts, this is a standard academic concept and is intended to stress the importance of presenting a complete and balanced account. Including this information reflects the scholarly consensus and ensures that the history of Gdańsk is accurately represented.

Quotes from sources:

Śliwiński & Możejko - "The events of 1308–1309 in Gdańsk led to significant demographic changes, with many local inhabitants killed or displaced, paving the way for German settlement"

Marek Smoliński (2021) - "As the Teutonic Order rebuilt the city following the 'Gdańsk Bloodbath, the population increased rapidly and became almost entirely German"

I can continue but I’ll stop here, since you referenced these sources yourself, so you should have access to them and can verify what I’m saying.

Again, these sources directly support the statement that Gdańsk transitioned from a primarily Lechitic (or Slavic if you prefer) population to a German speaking majority following 1308 events. 5.173.164.81 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I cannot access the sources you've mentioned unfortunately. Do they explicitly state that Slavs made up the majority of Gdansk residents before 1308? Could you provide quotations? Alaexis_¿question? 06:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have access to both sources (Śliwiński & Możejko 2020 and Smoliński 2021) and didn't find either of the quotations mentioned by the IP in them. Both say exactly the opposite (see the quotations I provided above). JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

New York Times

In the “Controversies” section of this article the following sentence has been added: “Since 2003, studies analyzing coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in the New York Times have demonstrated a bias against Palestinians and in favor of Israel”. This is discussed in a talk page section entitled “False balance…” I’d be grateful if other editors could comment there on if that is a claim we can make in our own voice abiding by NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)