Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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. Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 120, 121, 122 Additional notes: Start a new discussion

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

There is no talk page discussion and i dont actually see any citation with your edit. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the lead section? I found a few areas like the following that could possibly be considered biased without proper citations like the following:

“catapulted thousands of dishwashers, waiters, and hotel housekeepers into the middle class, even though those are poverty-level jobs in many other cities.” Despite Nevada’s status as a “right-to-work” state, around 97% of bargaining units choose to join the Culinary Union and pay dues”

The phrase “poverty level jobs in many other cities” is definitely a generalization without sourcing–also probably a good idea to have what “poverty level” means ie: personal income versus cost of living expenses etc. This is definitely open ended and can be misconstrued. In addition “poverty level” in New York is different than poverty level in Cleveland or Pittsburgh and obviously different than Las Vegas where their headquarters in based. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

“further revert… Let’s not let mediocre, boring writing take the place of engaging prose”

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

Examples:

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

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

Other examples:

In the section entitled “Decline”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concessions –

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

Accuracy, relevance to sources:

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

Overall ettiqute:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive pruning:

In this edit

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

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

It may interest Faketuxedo to note that my reference to “engaging prose” is supported by the requirements for FA status: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says that the FA candidate page should be “well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.” I emphatically do not wish to see a dull, rote delivery of facts replace engaging prose.

I’m not such a shitty writer. I have taken four articles to FA status, three of which I started from scratch.

Faketuxedo, if you had suggestions for how to make the page more engaging to the reader I would have responded positively. Instead, you started out by accusing me of having a conflict of interest, which you couldn’t prove, and is ridiculous. I am a freelance audio engineer working mainly with corporate events in the Silicon Valley tech hub. I don’t have any formal business relationship with HP. I owned an HP calculator in the mid-80s, and I used an HP Inkjet printer in the mid-90s, but that doesn’t constitute a conflict. I have definitely been inside the HP campus in Palo Alto a dozen times while working on corporate events in the 2010s and 2020s, but I was hired by various production companies who are not faithful just to HP. I have also worked for HP competitors, and I have been inside competitors’ buildings, so it’s a wash. I don’t have any respect for the modern HP Inc after seeing the underhanded way they do business with their vendors. Admittedly, I have a soft spot for the old HP of the ’40s through the ’80s (which I never experienced first hand) because so many Silicon Valley oldtimers have related stories about how good it was.

I started the HP Way page after thinking for a year about the topic. I read David Packard’s book The HP Way on airline flights last summer. I looked through national and local news coverage about the topic. I searched through HP alumni writings, and tech magazine pieces. I know the topic now better than I ever have.

It is very hard for me to believe that Faketuxedo has the reader’s best interests in mind. Faketuxedo appears bent on removals rather than expansion of the topic, despite the large amount of description that could yet be added to the topic, drawn from the extensive writings on the topic. The fact that the sources are almost universally positive about the topic is why my summary of the sources is so positive. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for your suggestions – that’s very helpful.

As you mentioned, I think shifting the tone from “glowing reviews” to “proven results” is a reasonable way to resolve this conflict. If there’s any quantitative evidence or academic case studies to support the efficacy of the HP Way, we could keep more of the claims Binksternet included, contingent on them being supported by more verifiable sources (and written in an appropriate tone). I also agree with your proposed omission.

@Binksternet you’ve mentioned a few times that you have prior knowledge and access to several sources on this topic. Would you be interested in researching if there’s a way we can reasonably support the claims in the article with specific data/case studies?

Thank you – Faketuxedo (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that the article could incorporate more quantifiable results is a fine one, if at all possible. I haven’t seen hard business analysis in the sources but maybe it exists somewhere. The absence of quantifiable results is not a POV problem, though. I’m not misrepresenting the sources that are cited, nor am I misrepresenting the field of sources readily available. The POV tag should be removed; it’s a stain on the page.

Note that the HP Way is considered the source of Silicon Valley’s people-oriented culture in its early, foundational days. That makes it a very influential business philosophy for its time. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of quantifiable results is not a POV problem

That’s correct, the absence of quantifiable results alone is not a POV problem. Representing subjective opinions (even if they are popular and mainstream), however, as factual evidence of the HP Way’s efficacy is a POV problem because it violates the tenant of maintaining an impartial tone:

"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view . . . summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone."

Your writing comes off as an endorsement, not a description of an endorsement.

An excellent example of impartiality can be found in The Beatles article. It very consistently refers to the band as almost universally acclaimed and highly influential – the article itself, however, does not attempt to present this viewpoint as its own. It gives due weight to the acclaim without presenting it as an objective fact (it doesn’t state The Beatles are “the best,” for instance), and it describes minority viewpoints with due weight to their mainstream acceptance (for example with critics of the White Album).

Similarly, I don’t have a problem, as you imply, with describing the HP Way as being a “very influential business philosophy.” However, in the examples in my original post, you endorse pointed opinions as facts – for example, regarding Carly Fiornia’s role in changing the business philosophy as “lip service”, speculation on the mass-layoffs in 2001, and the description of the HP Way as contrasting the companies which you described as caring “little for their employees, customers or society,” which is not framed as an opinion but a fact.

In all of these examples, the neutrality is lacking not due to a conflict of interest (as I had erroneously tagged and have since apologized for), but in the use of language serves to endorse a viewpoint rather than present it.

Here are two examples of how these could be implemented (that were reverted either as a correction from a different revision or as a correction from the current revision):

"As CEO of HP, Fiorina "paid lip service to the HP Way", according to the Los Angeles Times. " -:> "This change was controversial, with the Los Angeles Times describing her business philosophy as "lip service to the HP Way"

This goes from presenting the quote as evidence of a fact, to presenting the quote as an example of an opinion in the media.

"It was a form of management by objectives, which focused on teamwork, innovation, fiscal responsibility, and morality ("obligations to society")." -> "According to Hewlett-Packard, the HP Way focused on teamwork, innovation, fiscal responsibility, anticipating future needs and morality"

This edit presents the objectives as corporate goals described by HP, whereas the original presents the objectives as successful outcomes.

I appreciate the small revisions that you have made to your writing based on my suggestions. However, I’ve made my case as clearly as I can. Unless you’re committed to at least meeting me halfway here – all I’m requesting is to back up the claims in the article with data or case studies, and improving the tone where needed – then I’m going to leave this up to the other editors to help us come to a consensus and return when more input has been made.

Other editors – I would really appreciate it I can come back here to find a least a couple agreeable third-party suggestions that myself and Binksternet can implement without edit warring. I’d like to contribute more but I’m quite busy and don’t have time to get into the nitty-gritty anymore than I can.

Regards, Faketuxedo (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Faketuxedo is trying to smear the page for some reason. Faketuxedo’s first-ever action at the page was to place a COI tag,[1] which was completely unmerited. Faketuxedo said that the tag was placed for “heavy and persistent use of promotional language” which is not the same as having a conflict of interest. A month later, Faketuxedo placed two more tags: Template:Tone and Template:Peacock.[2] At this point, Faketuxedo had not elaborated about the perceived problems on the page, nor had Faketuxedo made any textual contributions to the page. People here generally call that behavior “drive-by tagging”. The placement of four different tags by Faketuxedo (COI, Tone, Peacock, POV) appears to me to be WP:Tendentious editing, a violation of WP:Responsible tagging. Faketuxedo should be warned against this. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the NPOV tag is appropriate. Some guides to read are WP:NOTADVERT and MOS:FLOWERY, and just the WP:NPOV page in general. I don’t see how the inclusion “Corporate management author James C. Collins described the HP Way as “visionary” for its time” could be seen as neutral even though it’s attributed, it comes across as corporate puff-piece talk. The only thing it tells us is “this person said this new thing is good”. Denaar (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Tendentious editing and don’t understand the motivation. I also think maybe a third party look might clean up faketuxedo’s problems? Or at least reach consensus on if they are actually problems at all. I personally thought their edits were not really needed and the tagging not really logical but I do think other editors might be useful? Could an RFC in the talk page maybe be a good idea? IndrasBet (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1940s, it was not common for a company to care for its employees, customers or society, as was illustrated by Stanford business management professor Paul Eugene Holden, who asserted at a conference in 1942 that a corporation should be concerned only about its shareholders.

These sentences have a WP:TONE issue, if not a WP:NPOV issue, as it looks like the type of claims that one would make to praise HP shortly after. The “components” section definitely looks unencyclopedically appreciative. See WP:MISSION. Kvinnen (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USS Liberty incident has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I first try to engage with you, you did not participate in discussion, yet continued restoring your preferred addition without discussing let alone achieve consensus which goes against WP:ONUS despite concerns about DUE and NPOV, which is why I brought this here. I’m of opinion that specific analytical methods citing DULF or their founder affiliated sources is undue and excess minutiae. Wikipedia articles isn’t intended to be textbook or scientific journal and the scientific details on analytical method is too tangential on the page about the organization article Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make a second article regarding this then–I know from experience that event PhD scientists look at Wikipedia for references like a scientific textbook from time to time–it is actually a very important resource for this purpose. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean these general methods are probably already discussed in appropriate places. You can find various methods of nutritional testing. As an example, The Hershey Company wouldn’t be the appropriate article to detail out the industry standard specific analytical method used in the nutritional lab, or the standards used for testing chocolates simply because the tested item was their product. In the DULF article, I think it’s especially POV and conferring excess importande to what DULF wants to say if it cites Nyx & Kalcium authored essay, especially ScienceDirect WP:RSP on that. Graywalls (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point per The Hershey Company I’m going to take a look at the article in question again and get back to you here in a few minutes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would like to know more about their testing methods after looking at the article in question–specifically when it comes to this statement:

“DULF’s first public drug distribution was in June 2020. On April 14th, 2021, activists associated with DULF gave out boxes of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine that had been tested and labelled with information about their composition.”

I think even a sentence about the methods used matter–I have written investigative stuff about Fentanyl in the past and harm reduction and testing methods can vary and so considering the scrutiny this group is under I think even having a sentence (in a neutral tone of course) about methods–even if it’s just linking to NMR or HPLC may be useful? Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m ok with inclusion… as long as it’s not dependent upon DULF.CA; or the Nyx & Kalicum authored article. The specifics were from the Nyx/Kalicum (which is POV) I think that simply mentioning it’s tested at a university lab, citing independent mainstream source is sufficient. Listing out various test methods citing their own source in stills an air of arrogance with hint of their products being superior, because of the test method they use. Like citing the distillery’s website their vodka is purified through 10x distillation or using some fancy filtration media on a brand/product page. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My only caveat with having the POV sources would be as a comparison with how testing is normally done–as in if they are deviating from standard protocols or standard operating procedures in their testing methods I do think that is notable–BUT that would still require using secondary sources that aren’t tied to their orgs to back up any primary sourcing used and a flat/neutral tone in the writing. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assay is an example of page which we can wikilink to within the article. Methods related to quality testing (which is done to test imported pharmaceuticals and such) can be added there if necessary, but using less inferior, less partisan source than Nyx & Kalicum essay from ScienceDirect or DULF website that passes the scientific rigor in the field of analytical chemistry or forensic chemistry. Graywalls (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern now after looking into Nyx and Kalicum via this CBC source: [[3]] I think Assay is quite frankly too broad of a category–I mean its definitely something they do but all labs from environmental testing to genetics etc use Assays. Let me see what else I can find on the testing methods that may be more neutral. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drug checking would be more directly relevant, but gosh that article is atrociously sourced and some of the sources are heavily biased in support of “harm reduction” philosophy. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: [[4]] Not a study but something that may balance out the page. And I did find one source that is scholarly that mentions DULF but is not a primary source: [[5]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653:, the Northernbeat piece is an op-ed/column. I would say it’s not appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. Its honestly strangely hard to find critical writeups of DULF that are not “opinion.” Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually…you know what would make more sense and looking through the ScienceDirect piece I get your concerns regarding citing it @Graywalls but i do understand why @DERPALERT would want to keep it on the page. @DERPALERT are there any other scholarly articles that Nyx and Kalicum based their project on? Or people that mentored them that can be cited? In addition have there been any scientific studies/scholarly sources that specifically critiqued their work? Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so looking through the paper it looks like it outsourced it’s testing to something called the Vancouver Island Drug Checking project–which does have papers regarding their processes. https://substance.uvic.ca/ I was looking for papers like this: Analytical Chemistry

which is something that can be used as a reference for how their drugs are actually tested. You don’t need to go into the weeds but linking this and connecting it to the Raman spectroscopy page should be enough. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nyx/Kalicum paper cites this UBC lab testing new portable drug-checking device – DATAC. Apparently the professor leading the laboratory is Dr. Jason Hein, whose second year OChem class I actually took. I don’t have a working relationship with him but I could email him or something? Idunno.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that would accomplish. Wikipedia pages can not cite anything that is not reliably published as a source, hard stop. This ensures people don’t just interview each other, put the video up on YouTube in order to push advocacy editing. Similarly, someone posting email correspondence on a blog or a website would fail the reliable publication aspect. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are apparently speculating that DULF never tested their drugs, the mainstream sources say they are and if we dig deeperthey also seem to be. Like the other user was speculating that there was no wet lab they were working with so they couldn’t have tested the drugs. I’m trying to find the wet lab involved.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not 100 percent sure–but that name that lab is what they said they outsourced their testing to essentially Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to go through the sciencedirect Nyx and Kalicum paper again and then pull where I found that reference from give me a few minutes Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok bear with me I am pulling things directly from the Nyx and Kalicum paper but in the first line they state:

“In 2022, the Drug User Liberation Front opened an unsanctioned compassion club in Vancouver where members could purchase illicit drugs that had been rigorously tested to ensure quality and a lack of potentially fatal contaminants. We sought to evaluate the impact of access to this novel safer supply intervention on nonfatal overdose.”

Stating this in a study requires you divulge what your testing methods are–or if they are outsourced, to whom.

“All substances were tested via paper spray mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and high-performance liquid chromatography prior to sale to ensure quality and a lack of potentially fatal contaminants, and labeled so that participants were aware of the contents”

This is very broad–I get this is more of a qualitative study but still if you are stating that your drugs were tested and then list these methods you usually still need to give PARAMETERS ie in ppm or ppb(s) (parts per million and parts per billion) which is generally how “contaminates” are measured I get it’s Canada and not the US but there are still regulations and naming the methods without naming whom is testing your materials is interesting.

The following above quotes were pulled from this paper: [[6]]

per another paper also authored by them:

“Starting in December of 2021, while awaiting a response from Health Canada and aiming to maintain pressure on provincial and federal governments, DULF initiated a crowd-sourced sustainer donor campaign. This campaign allocated raised funds to consistently provide a tested and labelled supply of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine to drug user groups in Vancouver whenever the BC Coroners Service released data on illicit drug toxicity deaths.”

But they still don’t state after crowd sourcing funds what lab the drugs were sent to.

But here (bolded) is who they cite for testing their product finally:

“Once initially logged into the vault, but before the packaging and final labelling stages, DULF initiated a crucial quality control and testing process. This testing process unfolded in two stages: first, through paper spray ionization mass spectrometry (PS-MS) testing, followed by confirmatory testing using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometry. Initially, samples were couriered to the Vancouver Island Drug Checking Project for PS-MS“

from this source [[7]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and further here:

“Once the PS-MS results were received, indicating a substance was free of fentanyl and benzodiazepines, and its potency was known, a label with the test date, number, and result was affixed over the initial “untested” label. Simultaneously, samples were sent for secondary confirmatory testing at the University of British Columbia via UPLC-MS (Drug and Alcohol Testing Association of Canada, 2023) and NMR (Evans Ogden, 2023). Once results were received from the University of British Columbia, they were also added to the new label. While secondary confirmatory testing took additional time, it played a crucial role in allowing DULF to build confidence in the accuracy of the results obtained.” Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to find specific evidence that DATAC collaborated directly with DULF. DATAC does seem to be posting dulf-related stuff on their website: Vancouver safe supply advocates prepare for a Charter challenge – DATAC. I don’t know what that means exactly but hey it’s a start.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s in the paper–I can find it in a bit Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Nyx/Kalicum paper (Linked above):

“Once the PS-MS results were received, indicating a substance was free of fentanyl and benzodiazepines, and its potency was known, a label with the test date, number, and result was affixed over the initial “untested” label. Simultaneously, samples were sent for secondary confirmatory testing at the University of British Columbia via UPLC-MS (Drug and Alcohol Testing Association of Canada, 2023) and NMR (Evans Ogden, 2023). Once results were received from the University of British Columbia, they were also added to the new label. While secondary confirmatory testing took additional time, it played a crucial role in allowing DULF to build confidence in the accuracy of the results obtained.”

The DATAC citation links direction to UBC lab testing new portable drug-checking device – DATACᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, all that rambling is written by Nyx and Kalicum; which makes it WP:UNDUE emphasis on what the two and DULF want to emphasize. Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked at the Hein Lab website and I couldn’t find anything related to DULF, not in the publications or the news sections. I could still email Jason Hein but I don’t think that could work as a proper source. IdkᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like including the fact that these drugs were tested at UVic/UBC probably does more to sell the drugs than just geeking out about lab equiptment being used in the real world. Idk.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could just omit laboratory services providers names too but simply state they’re tested for composition/purity; as directly verifiable in reliable, independent non Nyx, Kalcium or DULF authorship involved references. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we could–interesting, the more I research the more it actually becomes apparent to me they don’t do any testing it seems they bought “pre tested drugs” off the dark web…oy. So they throw around words like “acetone washed” and “tested with spectroscopy” but it appears there was no “wet lab” or analytical chemistry lab at UBC collaborating with them. I think that’s actually really notable (if I am correct) but I need more secondary sources to verify this. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/12/02/What-Stake-DULF-Constitutional-Challenge/

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

So, in addition to the authors being extremely partisan pro “harm reduction” which makes it a POV issue, this suggests they’re science rookies, which makes it WP:QS even if it was used for things not associated with Nyx, Kalicum or DULF. Graywalls (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you share the specific evidence you found?ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed additional problems with the so called “peer reviewed” journal on ScienceDirect.

When you look at the authorship. Nyx and Kalcum were the two that everything from writing, editing to reviewing. and when you look at citations within the article, there’s a whole lot of circular referencing where they cite plenty of their own work as well as DULF. It has the “scholarly journal” formatting. It’s more like a group paper/essay that’s a tad classier than blogs. Some of the claims like health outcomes require WP:MEDRS which this source most definitely is not.

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

Graywalls (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed this as well. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls the CRediT bit for Writing – review & editing just means that they made revisions to the draft they originally submitted/wrote, typically in response to reviewer comments. Haven’t read the article itself and not familiar with the journal so I can’t say if it’s a good source, but the CRediT isn’t a red flag CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 01:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CambrianCrab: How about the very liberal citations to things they have authored? I’ve lost track of how many times Nyx and Kalicum cited their own papers within that paper. I think that’s an indisputable fail for “independent source” which is a concern of relevance for NPOV even if it could be ok on factual reliability for what they say. Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Kalicum, Nyx and the DULF or those associated with them are the only ones who care enough to talk about it, it should remain omitted, because the article should not consider mention worthy based on what the pair considers important. If it is important, surely it will be discussed in an independent source. Until then, it should remain omitted. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hersheys is known for being the chocolate-making/selling company while DULF is known for being the drug-testing organization. If I were to write an article about how a government agency overseeing water quality, I might think it’d be appropriate to include the specific tests they use as well. Besides, every food company is expected to test their food using whatever obscure lab techniques whereas that expectation does not exist for DULF. At the end of the day, this article shouldn’t be like a Hersheys ad but selling people drugs from DULF instead of chocolate. I don’t think it came off like that but who am I to say.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be equally opposed to rattling off specific analytical test methods used in individual water department pages, particularly if it’s using the department or the city’s own website or items authored by them. This is because they’re likely to emphasize what they want to highlight while de-emphasizing what they do not, rather than impartial unbiased coverage. When it is a contentious topic, this is even more relevant. I would also say the same if a page about coffee purveyor/shop/restaurant talks about ethically sourced, third wave and whatever but the mention is only supported by things authored by involved parties. Companies will of course talk about and emphasize what they think is important, which is not the same as what’s important. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a chemistry degree as well and have actually worked with everything you mentioned above–I would definitely be the niche audience you are referring to here. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat similar discussion I’ve taken part of before is the inclusion of arduous details about various rail cars and train machinery in rail related articles of only interest to rail fans sourced to rail fanning sources. For example, how Union Pacific engine car 4847897815 was taken out of service and had the engine rebuilt.. such and such. Just because something is true doesn’t mean the inclusion is WP:DUE and this is what we’re trying to balance out here. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think we should let the information about this case speak for itself. I don’t think anything about this case points Nyx/Kalicum as having ill intent but it should be up to the reader to decode that for themselves. I’ve been as responsive to comments as I can be, both on the article talk page and here. Sometimes you edit really agressively. Before we had this discussion here, I had no idea why you kept repeatedly trying to remove sourced information, both about the spectroscopic techniques used to characterize the substances and the specific sections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that DULF was trying to challenge the crown on.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the original article before you started editing, I had included both DULF’s stated aim of reducing overdoses and Health Canada’s concerns about street diversion of drugs handed out by DULF, as well as the fact that DULF had ordered off the dark web. I feel like those are the main points of contention about DULF as a phenomenon in the public consciousness. You kept writing stuff about how “DULF” was ordering from people they don’t know (which is a moot point anyway because everything anyone buys is from people they don’t know because that is how the economy works), that they were ordering from a canadian supplier to avoid international drug trafficking charges came off as trying to subconsciously imply that DULF was “dark”/”shadowy” or whatever. There are legitimate reasons to disapprove of buying stuff on the dark web like if you’re concerned about money winding up in the hands of organized crime or whatever. But to me it seemed a bit excessive.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The seller’s identity being anonymous was a specific issue mentioned by health ministry rejecting their selling activity and something the author of the Economist article chose to discuss, which confers more importance than being talked about only in DULF’s page (or their critic’s blog). Here’s the snippet of relevant part. One justification for the compassion club’s model is that it would take money away from organised crime rings by selling medical-grade products from legitimate sources. Buying drugs on the dark web from an anonymous entity undermined that argument, as the health ministry noted in its letter rejecting the pair’s shop. But lacking the necessary permits, DULF would struggle to find a pharmaceutical alternative. “I don’t know, and I don’t want to know,” Eris said of their vendor’s identity. Wikipedia articles are supposed to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, without tainting it with our own thoughts. @DERPALERT:, you still have not answered my reasonable question and that is if you’ve taken the time to read the entire text of The Economist article on DULF. Your concern came off as trying to subconsciously imply that DULF was “dark”/”shadowy” or whatever. is reasonable if I was adding them using WP:QS blogs, primary sources and such. However, the economist is an well established, mainstream source and it has been deemed to be a reliable source with Wikipedia community consensus and they’re clearly a non-invovled, non-partisan source. That can’t be said about some of your sources of choice like Nyx & Kalicum papers and DULF documents. Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the primary sources, I feel like my original use of them adhered to WP:ABOUTSELF. The claim that they were getting the substances tested at UVic/UBC came from a news outlet. The details of which spectroscopic techniques they specifically (PS-MS, UHPLC, NMR) used came from DULF. It’s not an extraordinary claim to go from “DULF tested their drugs at UBC” to “DULF tested their drugs at UBC with UHPLC since UBC has UHPLC machines). Also using DULF’s communiques as a source on their stated aim and the specific sections they were legally challenging the crown on were also seems to me to be in-line with WP:ABOUTSELF. I guess using Nyx and Kalicum’s paper as a source for DULF’s specific internal structure could be self-serving because they obviously have an incentive to present themselves as cleanly and professionally to the outside audience. I’d be fine with doing without that section that was based on the paper, at least until a neutral third party can do an objective analysis for how DULF functioned. As for due weight, I think relocating Justice Murray’s comment of “they were trying to save lives” to the constitutional challenge section while also adding her other comment about how DULF was clearly operating outside the exemptions given to them helped balance the article out. As for the communique, quoting it directly in the article body probably wasn’t the best inclusion on my part. That being said, the fact that their early actions were coordinated with communiques is an important detail about how DULF’s activism worked so I propose something like “At the same time, DULF released their first communique” or something. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say is that as WP:SPS if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. (I added the emphasis). If their early actions being coordinated with communiques is deemed important, mainstream reliable source would have likely talked about it. Embellishing certain test methods can be a form image building for brand development purpose like body shop commercial talking about their shop having computerized laser wheel alignment or computerized high tech test equipment to get customers to perceive that they’ll get better quality work due to those technology.

“All Jonas Tire Shop switched to state of the art laser guided alignment” citing their press release doesn’t raise question about the factual accuracy, but likely undue.

Citing CNN article to say that “Union leaders accuse Jonas tire shops converted to computerized equipment, which provides the same production with half the labor to lower labor cost” would be much more due for inclusion.

So, I remain opposed to listing out specific equipment used unless reliable secondary sources discuss them.

Graywalls (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell:, Would you have a position on this? I’m seeking your input, because there’s not many participants here and I see your past participation about due weight and original research at Talk:Insite, an organization that works with VANDU, which is closely associated with DULF. Thank you Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DERPALERT makes comments suggesting I’m making POV edits like You kept writing stuff about how “DULF” was ordering from people they don’t know which was based on directly verified contents from Economist. I’ve straight up asked them 2-3 times if they read the entirety of the reliable source, but I’ve not gotten a straight forward answer despite them continuing to make edits on the article. Graywalls (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you an answer here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drug_User_Liberation_Front&diff=prev&oldid=1326164249 ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DERPALERT:, I’m not sure why you’re drawing it out long and making it more confusing than needed when all that was needed was a simple, concise response such as “yes, I’ve read it all”, or “I didn’t read it all, but made assumptions”. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No. I see what you mean. Particularly this line:

Pedro II was seen nationwide as a legitimate source of authority, whose position placed him above partisanship and petty disputes. He was, however, still no more than a boy, and a shy, insecure, and immature one. His nature resulted from his broken childhood, when he experienced abandonment, intrigue, and betrayal.

That to me reads with a literary flair-flowery language etc. It is a very compelling paragraph and I commend who wrote these sentences for that. But it is not neutral. Neutral unfortunately also normally means a flatter more “boring” writing style. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that I’ve noticed when reading the article as well. The article feels as though it was written for a story book and not a wikipedia article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can argue on the talk page that this is not in “wikivoice” at least that’s the argument I would make. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of neutrality were discussed at the time this article was nominated for FA status and resolved. That it has been raised since is irrelevant. Most of the subsequent objections turned out to be with the “tone” of the article lead, which does sum up the article accurately. That is not the place to “tone down” the consensus of historians which is reflected in the body of the article. Pedro II is unanimously regarded in favorable, even glowing, terms by every well-regarded scholarly source of which I’m aware. That was also the conclusion of uninvolved editors who bothered to look at sources and/or consult with academics who are familiar with the subject. While Wikipedia requires that editors abstain from inserting their own voice and POV, it also requires that articles reflect the sources used. The article does that, and unless reliable sources are introduced that paint Pedro II in a much more negative light, then changing the language to reflect any editor’s conception of neutrality is unwarranted. • Astynax ^talk 20:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Multiple persistent promotional & uncited edits regarding Vegan Camp Out festival under both the International section and the UK section. (NB the page for Vegan Camp Out itself has suffered persistent promotional vandalism by “volunteers” working for the festival before receiving long term protection). Quite likely a sock puppet of one of those accounts.

RufusLechuga (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page concerning Connecticut State Representative Tony Scott seems to be littered with language in support of him (most notably “As a freshman, Scott helped introduce two bills that will directly help constituents in his district”). It seems to have been edited by supporters of his campaign. RabinoWIN (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Tony Scott talk page and noticed there doesn’t seem to be a discussion over there about these issues. I would post your concerns there first and try to get other editors who work on the page to agree to a writing style that is more neutral in nature. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RabinoWIN, I removed some of the promotional content, and I left a WP:COI notice for the person who added it. For other articles like this, you can add {{Promotional}} to the top of the article so it’s flagged to anyone visiting the page that they can fix it. This will also group it in Category:All articles with a promotional tone. You’re welcome to go through that category and rewrite or remove promotional content in those articles if you’re looking for something to edit. There’s certainly enough for you to find some in a topic you’re interested in! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Armenia#Requested_move_26_November_2025 that may be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. I have set out an argument based on NPOV with respect to the RS on the topic, so input from here would be welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024, Carlos Watson was convicted of fraud related to the bankrupt Ozy Media, which is most famous for having someone on their C-suite impersonate a YouTube executive during a conference call with Goldman Sachs. In March 2025, Watson was pardoned by Donald Trump. Over the past month a single editor has completely rewritten the articles on Watson and Ozy. I invite readers of this noticeboard to check out the changes and confirm if they are NPOV. NotBartEhrman (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you I glanced over it: But I think it sounds better? The arrest and Ozy Media incident are still in the lead (as they should be) but I think this has a much better neutral tone than the previous version. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern comes from the rewritten Ozy Media article. It appears neutral but it does not accurately reflect how major national media such as NYT, WSJ, Axios reported on the incidents which made Ozy infamous. If you look over the major news articles about it, it’s known for manufacturing subscribers, inflating YouTube view counts for The Carlos Watson Show (which was falsely advertised to guests as an A&E cable network show), and eventually for the fraud which caused all its journalists to lose their jobs. I think the “Reception” section of its article, at least, should reflect this, but instead information has been either deleted or moved down to a section called “Allegations,” which was later changed to “Allegations of fraud” (I think a conviction is more than allegations).

The account which rewrote the Ozy article made several large edits in a row this evening, repeatedly doing large rewrites to the article in a short span of time. The account went to the talk page to suggest that the Ozy article needs to resemble the pages of corporations “such as Uber, Vice Media, BuzzFeed, WeWork, Theranos,” jumbling some rather different subjects, which were covered in WP:RS in rather different ways, without apparent irony. I wonder whether reputation management firms have developed a method of sophisticated AI-supported rewrites, using something like the engine that created Grokpedia.

I can’t prove that, but regardless I am posting this here because I am not sure if I have the energy to litigate the article with someone who has the time to write very long talk page messages and do massive rewrites. NotBartEhrman (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha I see what you are saying–and with re-writes the quickly it definitely sounds plausible that an LLM was used. I wouldn’t be surprised if editors with questionable motivations are on these pages like you said. I think though Ozy being described and compared to WeWork and Theranos is apt though. Both of those companies are rightly dumpster fires due to lying inflating numbers and corporate scandal which seems to fit with Ozy (given what I have peripherally read). Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Moscow Financial and Industrial University requires urgent administrator attention due to severe COI/NPOV issues that appears to be be facilitating ongoing fraud:

Ongoing harm:

• Recent investigative reporting (Brian Krebs, December 2025) documents allegations of systematic visa fraud targeting students from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan, Nepal, and India
• Students report paying thousands of dollars in non-refundable advance fees for study visas that are then denied
• The Wikipedia article’s promotional tone (reading like an advertisement) may be lending credibility to these alleged fraudulent operations
• Students from the Global South searching for information about this university may encounter this Wikipedia article and be misled by its promotional content

Evidence of COI/promotional editing:

• ~25% of article devoted to “Protection of reputation in court” section
• Defensive tone throughout, especially regarding controversies
• Extensive positive statistics, awards, and rankings with minimal critical coverage from garbage sources
• The article buries serious allegations under promotional content

Urgent action needed:

• This article may be actively contributing to international fraud targeting vulnerable students
• Requires immediate {{advert}} and {{COI}} tags at minimum
• Should be considered for semi-protection given the potential real-world harm to students from poor nations
• Needs comprehensive NPOV rewrite prioritizing the serious allegations over promotional content

The promotional nature of this article isn’t just a Wikipedia policy violation – it is likely facilitating ongoing financial harm to students from developing nations who rely on Wikipedia for credible information.

DeborahVIII (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m drafting a new article in my sandbox and would like input on neutrality/balance/objectivity before submission. I work for the company that this article is about, but have tried to draft the article in a completely neutral voice and cited all sources appropriately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Willetling/sandbox

Thank you. Willetling (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but I don’t think this article is close to ready. Most sources are database entries, sourced from Swogo, non-notable awards, or information on funding rounds which explicitly cannot provide notability under WP:NCORP. You also may get better feedback on draft creation at WP:AFC or WP:TEAHOUSE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone chime in or take over from here Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network#Discussion concerning Al Jazeera Media Network

I don’t want to deal with this editor. Thanks Cinaroot  💬 07:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They made several contested edits to Al Jazeera English as well Cinaroot  💬 07:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome as many neutral eyes on this whole debacle as possible. I encourage all to read around all of the links that my interlocutor is sending and editorializing around here, and make your own conclusions. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means a perfect editor, I have about one tenth of the edits of this person, and obviously I can and do make mistakes. But they seem completely incapable of having a real discussion in the talk pages (and make some really low-quality and questionable edits which they hail as improvements), and I believe that any neutral and diligent observer will see that.

No sources brought to the discussions (accept for sources which I showed were either irrelevant or supported my points, which they never addressed).

Misrepresented sources.

Unacceptable use of Wiki Voice.

Constantly casting aspersions then gaslighting about it.

I’ve never encountered anything like this in my time on Wikipedia before.

I’m too tired to add links to all of this right now, but honestly just follow the links they are providing and then read a little bit around them, as I mentioned. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just so depressing and silly. This was a really fun hobby until now with mostly reasonable people, even when topics were pretty controversial. This one person just seems hell-bent on avoiding any factual and logical discussion with me and then goes over here and tries lynching me. Whatever. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinaroot lmao I just looked through your edit history and saw you begging for your life to a bunch of mods or admins or whatever about some arbitration case against you. I wonder what they’d think of this entire stupid situation.

@Newslinger @Metallurgist @Valereee

I’m fing done for now maybe in a couple days I’ll have it in me to look at this again. I hope to have my faith in this site being a place for actual intellectual discussion and truth-seeking restored. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping. Cinaroot and غوّاص العلم, this noticeboard discussion would go much more smoothly if both of you focused on content instead of on each other. There should ideally be more context here on what the content dispute is about and how that relates to the neutrality policy. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I better disengage. I tried to apologize twice now on their talk and mine to clam them down. Multiple editors have told them about the issues with their edits. But they cant seem to accept it. I posted this notice so that i can take this out of my hand. Cinaroot  💬 18:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add more context on this particular proposal – highlighted is their proposal to lede

is officially a private media conglomerate vs is a private-media conglomerate

the Founder” (i.e. the emir) ultimate power to approve the annual budget, appoint the board, assign it tasks and more

but still biased on issues important to the royal family and Qatari foreign policy

is seen by many as mostly editorially independent vs Al Jazeera English is seen as editorially independent

mentioning organisation structure change in lede opening para

Originally founded in 1996 by then-emir of Qatar Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani as a state-funded “independent public corporation”, in 2011 it was changed by law into a “private foundation for public benefit”. The articles of association of the new foundation, posted as part an Emiri Decision, give “the Founder” (i.e. the emir) ultimate power to approve the annual budget, appoint the board, assign it tasks and more Cinaroot  💬 19:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to have a discussion about the content, extensively, and Cinaroot kept avoiding the content discussion and casting aspersions of bias and agenda.

1. Our very first interaction was a revert by Cinaroot, described as “no mention of al jazeera + no need for source in lede”. The first part was false, the second part was nonsense.
2. They said I can’t use the state department source, so I gave an alternative source and asked if they found it acceptable. They gave 5 “sources to counter”, of which I showed 2 were be Al Jazeera, 1 was from 2001, 1 was the same state department doc that I originally used but trying to use only one part of it out of context, and one completely supported my arguments, not theirs.
3. They proceeded to ignore all of my points, say things are “inappropriate” or “not needed” without good explanation, and said “You are trying to cast doubt to its editorial independence – which is not appropriate. We report based on reliable sources. We do not try to influence editors judgment. Please revert it.”
4. Despite the uncalled for aspersions, I self reverted to try and have a discussion of content, which is what I wanted to begin with. They then tagged 2 editors they chose out of the recent editors in the article. I’ll let you decide how they picked who to ping and who not to.
5. I gave a very detailed list explaining my positions.
6. They chose to only reply to very little of my arguments. Of course, replete with obvious untruths and misrepresentations, such as: “We don’t typically mention who founded a network. See CNN BBC etc” (see CNN second sentence “Founded on June 1, 1980, by American media proprietor Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld“); the attempt to equate with BBC, and more.
7. I fully debunked their arguments, which they fully ignored.
8. (Meanwhile one of the people they tagged was constantly trying to poke holes into me [and I thanked them and corrected myself where appropriate initially] while completely laying off Cinaroot, as detailed here.)
9. They later repeated the same nonsense point about the BBC which I already debunked, accusing me again of editing with an agenda, and also adding the CBC into it. I repeated my debunking of the BBC point.
10. They fully ignored my arguments on the BBC, pivoting instead to CBC, and adding some other points without really making arguments for them.
11. I showed in detail why their points about BBC and CBC are false and misleading. No response.
12. They made ridiculous edits to a well-sourced section I wrote, as detailed here.
13. They reverted me again, accusing me of being “disruptive” for updating an essentially unsourced text with several well-sourced citations, claiming that the unsourced text is “consensus by default” since it is “long standing”. I argued against that. They refused to engage, instead making this thread on this page with several concentrated attacks against me editorialized and out of context. Presumably calling their long time buddies to weigh in, if I had to guess.

P.S.

This is only a sampling of the stuff I can think of right now. I believe that the more you read around all of these messages, the more you’ll see that they consistently refused to engage in an actual content discussion; that they were casting aspersions for a while before I decided I had to start addressing that; etc. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note how another user, presumably a buddy of Cinaroot, tried to delete my comment here, then Cinaroot asked them to only delete one comment (presumably meaning mine?), because “I still need eyes on those discussion“, which their buddy immediately did. Looking through their history you can easily find that they do indeed know each other and have been on the same side in previous discussions.

This after this buddy “weighed in” on the content discussion by saying: “i support the current lede and phrasing as well. that sentence was well supported by a few sources.” The sentence, in fact, only had one citation on it, which, as clearly mentioned, is from 2001 and doesn’t and cannot support the claim it makes about AJE, which was founded in 2006. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that as part of my work on WikiProject Qatar I’ve unwittingly stumbled into some Israel-Palestine warfront, and my edits on Al Jazeera were perceived as some attack on that front, which is crazy because I’m pro-Palestine, and setting things straight on Al Jazeera and its relation to the Al Thani government is not meant as some attack against Palestine. But it looks like instead of trying to have a real discussion both sides are just throwing things out there, including those that kinda weighed in on my side at the beginning there, who didn’t engage in a continued meaningful discussion either. Pretty depressing. A part of me now wants to just stay away from any possible intersection between WP Qatar and I/P to avoid this madness. As mentioned, my experience before this was mostly great despite working on some contentious stuff. But it’s just depressing to think that I have to stop my truth-seeking and setting records straight if it risks upsetting some Zionist or anti-Zionist. idk, I guess we’ll see where it goes. Maybe what I need to do is just be way more patient even when the other side is being unreasonable, trying to block everything and refusing to have a real discussion. That’s probably what I should do going forward. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting another discussion Talk:Al_Jazeera_Media_Network#This_is_consensus? where they want to say Al-jazeera english is biased on issues important to the royal family and Qatari foreign policy

Saying a network is biased in lede is totally UNDUE Cinaroot  💬 21:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another edit of theirs that i improved. They are saying i lack competency. Discussion is here Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network#What a restructuring. I made some mistakes initially because it was late at night. But i corrected them – but they are still not happy Cinaroot  💬 14:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another troubling edit – that violated WP:SYNTH Cinaroot  💬 14:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They copied that to lede section of different article as well Cinaroot  💬 14:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit they add the word some – which sources do not use. They also added and provides only sparse and uncritical coverage of domestic Qatari affairs – but in later para it is already mentioned, It has been alleged that in its domestic Arabic-language coverage, criticism of the ruling Qatari regime is censored. Cinaroot  💬 14:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Ghawwas is neither contextualizing the sources he uses nor paying attention to the existing text of the article, but simply rewriting freely according to his own personal opinion. It’s a NPOV issue but also a total disregard for consensus, while making personal attacks on the many people disagreeing. I cannot find anyone on the talk page agreeing with the opinions of Ghawwas. The one nice thing I can say about him is that he sometimes self-reverts while he “discusses towards consensus.” NotBartEhrman (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you pointing to where I’m “not contextualizing sources”, “not paying attention to the existing text”, etc. Genuinely. I’m not saying my edits are perfect, they’ve been improved by many people since I’ve started here. But wherever I edited in this article, it was generally where there was already bad sourcing, bad phrasing, inappropriate use of Wiki Voice, lacking crucial info, etc. Wherever I edited, I added sources, which I tried to make sure were acceptable and of high quality. I have no issue contextualizing them if requested.

Regarding “total disregard for consensus”: what exactly are you referring to here? This bit of unsourced info which is supposedly consensus because it is long standing? Or other edits I made, which were all with good sources? I would have happily self reverted anything where requested and had a genuine content discussion. But you can easily see that all my attempts of content discussion arrive at a dead end where Cinaroot refuses to actually address the issues, as detailed partially here.

I would also appreciate receipts on “while making personal attacks on the many people disagreeing”. I started responding to Cinaroot’s personal attacks long after they started attacking me. When it comes to Todd1, I initially thanked them for corrections, then pointed out that they were only poking holes into me while ignoring Cinaroot’s conduct, giving them an opportunity to do so (which they did not take), and eventually I lost my civility when they joined the gaslighting efforts telling me “no one is attacking” me while Cinaroot was clearly attacking me. I would appreciate you pointing to the “many people disagreeing” with me and how I made unjustified “personal attacks” against them.

Also, I understand you have nothing of note to say about Cinaroot’s conduct, then? Speaking of contextualizing sources, do you have any thoughts about this? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

غوّاص العلم, please note that other editors are not obligated to address all of the points you bring in a discussion, especially when you have already posted 28 comments on Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network. Editors are allowed to support or oppose a proposed edit based on their own rationales. This noticeboard is not the ideal location to resolve conduct disputes that are not directly related to article neutrality, such as a complaint about the proportion of your comments that Cinaroot is responding to. Despite this, I have to address a couple of conduct issues that have been raised. Cinaroot, please avoid making negative comments about what you perceive غوّاص العلم’s motivations to be. غوّاص العلم, your comment Special:Diff/1327480805 pinged three editors who supported a sanction against Cinaroot at arbitration enforcement (me, another administrator, and an editor who was in another content dispute with Cinaroot); this is improper canvassing and should not have been done.Because resolving this content dispute will require evaluating a considerable number of sources, including academic sources, غوّاص العلم, I recommend focusing on one specific change at a time that you would like to propose for the article. Discuss that change on the article talk page in its own discussion section, wait for other editors to respond, and if the consensus is unclear, then start a properly formulated request for comment. Posting multiple comments in a row that form a wall of text (e.g. in Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network § Selective use of sources) only discourages others from examining your concerns and responding to all of them. — Newslinger talk 14:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I understand what you’re saying.

Regarding Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network § Selective use of sources and wall of text: currently, it seems that the article is uniquely replete with misrepresentation of sources, etc, in favor of the article’s subject.

I tried to clearly give the details regarding these things. In any other article, I would just make the edits to correct this obviously bad encyclopedia work, but it seems that there is a strong presence dedicated to defending it.

Should I make one topic addressing one of very many issues each time, wait until the person who would revert me responds and refuses to have a real discussion, then go to 3O of RfC? It would take a year. Should I just start making the edits to rectify the issues I pointed to in that topic one by one, and if someone wants me to self-revert and have a discussion on any of them do so?

I recall that there’s some policy which says that mistakes don’t have to be rectified quickly, but I feel like these at least are so obviously misrepresentations of sources that I should be able to just rectify them, and if someone wants to return to how it is like now they just need to show that the source does actually support what it’s supposed to, and why the other things it contains should not be used.

Many thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) would be the most effective way to implement the changes you would like to make. Please ensure that your changes are broken down to edits of appropriate size, and that each edit is supplemented by a descriptive edit summary to make it easier for others to review. If another editor objects to one or more of your edits, they will revert them, and you can then proceed to discuss the edits that were objected to on the talk page. You do not need to discuss any of your edits that are not disputed (by reversion or discussion), which reduces the number of discussions you need to take part in. Before making any edits, please check the talk page for any discussions that are relevant to the content of your edit. — Newslinger talk 15:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I tagged here>? I dont think Ive even edited this page. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s my bad, I got too heated in an altercation and made a mistake. Apologies. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and patience. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all.

See this sentence in the lead of Al Jazeera Media Network:

While critics often view Al Jazeera Arabic as being influenced by Qatar’s foreign policy,^[1][2][3] Al Jazeera English is seen as editorially independent.^[4][5][6][7]

Clearly, this means that while critics say AJA (Al Jazeera Arabic) is influenced by the state, AJE (Al Jazeera English) is “seen” (by whom? everyone? WP:WIKIVOICE?) as editorially independent from the state of Qatar.

This whole sentence was only supported by a source from 2001, which is five years before AJE even came to exist. My attempts to add proper sources to it and change it accordingly were harshly rejected.

One user added two sources to the second part of the statement. I clearly demonstrated that these articles do not support AJE being editorially independent from the government of Qatar, but just distinct from each other. I also showed that the quote they added to one of the citation templates was extremely misleading, and that the text in fact argued the exact opposite implied by the quote they chose.

I replaced these 2 sources plus the original one from 2001 with a citation needed template, and said: You may revert me or as[k] me to self-revert to the “consensus” version of only the HRW report [the source from 2001], but I will contest it.

Again editing without any comment in the talk page, said user replaced the citation needed template with another new source.

I clearly demonstrated that this source also does not support AJE being editorially independent from the government of Qatar, and said: I am reverting this change. I would welcome additional good faith attempts to find sources which actually support the statement, if you are so inclined.

Their response was to tag everyone which has opposed my changes to the article, without making any substantive argument, and then edit the article to include all 4 sources, none of which actually support the statement:

1. The HRW source from 2001, fully irrelevant.
2. The Satti article, which never claims AJE is independent from Qatar, just distinct from AJA, and in fact argues that AJE and AJA just set agendas customized to their target audences in accordance with the overall “agenda-setting strategies” of the network as a whole. It also clarifies the limited scope of its examination and findings.
3. The linguistics-oriented Abdul-Magid and Herring article from 2008 which mainly concluded that AJA and AJE are distinct, and makes no serious investigation of AJE being independent from Qatar (only looking at some linguistic differences in titles on the websites and making comments in passing about pro-West biases and an attempt to appear balanced in AJE).
4. The Samuel-Azran source from 2013, which, again, argues for a distinction between AJA and AJE, but again only examines the English and Arabic websites, only between 2002-2007, and only regarding the specific matter of the coverage of Saudi-related issues. Its conclusion, at any rate, is that any neutrality in AJE is in service of Qatari state goal. See how the article summarizes itself on page 1307: Overall, the article illustrates that Qatar effectively promotes its public diplomacy goals by operating Al-Jazeera as a hybrid network whose independence is limited by the boundaries of Qatar’s crucial interests. This is currently used to “support” that AJE is “independent” from from the state. It clearly argues the opposite.

Meanwhile, as I showed here, all three of the sources which my interlocutors have added to the first part of the statement (While critics often view Al Jazeera Arabic as being influenced by Qatar’s foreign policy), actually point towards AJE being “biased” for the Qatari government, a “political instrument” of the Qatari government, etc., painting an even worse image of AJE than the statement they are meant to support is painting of AJA, which we all agree is in reality worse than AJE.

Please, someone give me back my hope that volunteers on this website actually care about the truth, proper discussion and proper citations. Should I just start an RfC on this already?

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s currently a discussion at Talk:Animal welfare and rights in Russia#Neutrality about whether certain content is undue or if its removal is censorship. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Between March and May 2020, Wikipedianuhai added a massive amount of content related to human trafficking and sex trafficking that has some significant problems across many articles. I discovered the issue at Women in Taiwan, where they created a section and the entire content was Taiwanese and foreign women and girls are sex trafficked in Taiwan. They are raped and harmed in brothels, hotel rooms, and other locations throughout the country. There are many edits with similar brazen but uninformative statements, including the creation of many “sex trafficking in [country]” articles. I believe these edits were made in good faith, but there are enough significant generalizations about different nations’ trafficking activity and it would be helpful to get additional opinions, especially given the subject matter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a user by the name of the tittle that has been pushing a bias of some sort agaisnt morocco and it is apparent that he does not like morocco. Can anybody please just check into his account and see what I am talking about i have compiled many screenshots to support my point ~2025-40343-15 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Care to give an example? Just link to an edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you know how to link an edit im sorry for bother ~2025-40343-15 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the edit history click on Preview, and just copy the link (and no that is not the best way, but it’s the quickest and easiest to explain). Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest posting to the related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Brigading,_Bias,_and_Revert_Abusing_on_the_MAK_article_by_Skitash_and_M.Bitton. Some1 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its closed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed 16 mins after I made my comment. Maybe the OP can start a new thread at ANI or even start an arbcom case request, if they have strong evidence for their claims that is. I don’t think the NPOV Noticeboard is the right place for user conduct reports? Some1 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment M Bitton is one of the major contributers to our Maghrebi and Afrique du Nord articles, and has been for a long time. We should perhaps award him a Barnstar for excellence in editing, and also being a nice chap. Just a drive-by comment cos I noticed his name. – Walter Ego 18:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seems like an ANI matter. also entirely inappropriate to keep name dropping m. bitton. if you saw the similar approach taken by the other, temp account is following same path towards a block User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengal Files has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s currently an NPOV dispute at Talk:Genetically modified food in Ghana#Food Sovereignty Section that could use additional input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kabyles hadra has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A brand-new account and a couple of IPs have disputed the neutrality of an article on a civil rights era travesty called the Kissing Case, where two black boys were convicted of molestation after being kissed by a white girl in 1958.

The matter is being discussed at Talk:Kissing Case#Contrary views but I am having trouble taking the discussion seriously, given that those who dispute the neutrality of the article rely on the self-serving memoir of the state’s governor at the time of the incident. I would typically ignore an argument like this, but the new account is insisting on maintaining a “factual accuracy is disputed” tag at the top of the article until they are satisfied.

Experienced editors are invited to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My account was created over three months ago. Furthermore, challenging differing points of view is the basis of the scientific method and to a lesser extent, sites like Wikipedia. You do yourself no favors by dismissing my concerns something “you would typically ignore,” a conclusion you only came to because you disagreed with my sentiments on a separate article talk page. Bluelight2000 (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was your 12th edit. Generalrelative (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to make personal attacks and failing to show good faith. This isn’t helping you. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the wiki article is sourced primarily to the NPR article “‘The Kissing Case’ And The Lives It Shattered” (https://www.npr.org/2011/04/29/135815465/the-kissing-case-and-the-lives-it-shattered) and Allida M. Black’s book “Casting Her Own Shadow” (https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Roosevelt_Eleanor/Championing_ER_CHOS.html).

The summary of the NPR article is misleading; NPR quotes James, and the article takes Jame’s statements as fact and reports them in wikivoice.

Allida Black does report the boy’s claims as fact. I’m not familiar with her or Gov. Hodge. Neither appear to have firsthand knowledge of the case; it’s not clear to me one is more due than the other. Hi! (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other reliable secondary sources on the incident, notably this piece by Equal Justice Initiative: “The Kiss”. Yes it’s from an advocacy organization but it’s also clearly well researched reporting. There is also this 2016 doctoral dissertation from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Generalrelative (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of sources not based on the NPR article as they are earlier. I don’t think the tag is justified. Doug Weller talk 11:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two wikilinked references to the Gaza War in this article have become subject to a revert war between two NPOV editors, one from each side of the Israel/Palestine conflict – one altering the link to read “Gaza genocide”, the other adding details of the events of October 7, 2023. I have reverted back to the original unmasked neutral “Gaza War” link but expect further disruption from either or both parties or likeminded souls. Can any further protection be given to the page? What more can be done in the event of subsequent disruption from either party? Romomusicfan (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a thread on this on the article talk page. Establishing a consensus through that should be the first step. You could also give them a WP:CT notice presumably. One of the paragraphs where this is happening has no cited source. So I’ve deleted it per WP:BLPSOURCES. DeCausa (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]