Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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)[reply]

• 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,^[1][2][3] and it was not used to "support any of its analytic judgments".^[4]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, to avoid discussing this in multiple locations, that seemed the best thing to do. I only did that after you repeatedly (at least FIVE!! times) refused to clarify yourself, leaving the discussion with no basis for continuation. Dead discussions get archived. That is standard practice. In this case, you abandoned the talk page and improperly started this thread. I clearly advised and explained to you using these words:

You have been pinged, and if you refuse to reply promptly (I'll keep an eye on your activity), I will archive this thread as a disruptive waste of our time. I suggest you make this your top priority here. If it's not, then you should have no objections to an archiving.

No objections were forthcoming, so I followed through:

As advised above, because of the lack of response here, and then the starting of an improper discussion at ANI (rather than here), this thread will be archived now.

Since you improperly chose to use this venue and abandoned the article's talk page, I chose to respect your choice. What else should I have done? That seemed to be the least disruptive way to deal with your bizarre behavior.

Now that you are back here, why don't you just continue here and concede that you are mistaken? Your efforts are based on lies from this administration, conspiracy theories from the DOJ, and unreliable sources.

(Also, yet again, you fail to respect our standard practice of keeping references at the bottom of the thread so they do not interrupt the flow of discussion. I have NOT moved your comment, but (per WP:REFACTOR) moved the instructions and reftalk code back to the bottom where they belong. Try being collegial for once and follow the instructions. It's really not hard to do. Deliberately acting in an uncollegial manner after so many warnings is disruptive.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about the deceptive nature of the current DOJ and the HPSCI report about the Steele dossier, read this excellent analysis by Marcy Wheeler. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC) Valjean's conduct accusations don't belong anywhere but WP:ANI, I ignore them. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing others acknowledge that the dossier excerpt's inclusion in the ICA report is arguably a role. If that doesn't happen, I acknowledge that this attempt to get NPOV notice fails for now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]

The Russians took full control of Mariupol in May.^[2]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

> 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

🙄 jp×g🗯️ 11:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

They have removed the tags twice now.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Andre🚐 22:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

That's a good point, too, Alaexis. The reason why I started that proposed sentence with the Islamic law is because that is how Marmon frames it, and Kloss explicitly creates a similar formulation even though she doesn't use the term chattel explicitly. Probably because Kloss didn't want to muddy the waters with disputable phraseology; her description though is essentially a 1:1 map to the concept of chattel. However, I can see invoking the law, even in an accurate and supportable way, opens a can of worms and maybe a cleaner way to get into it is just talk about physical reality and the historical record, and then talk more about the justifications by stepping further back in the abstract ontological tree once we've situated ourselves in real time. Andre🚐 21:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 slavery".
• 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 slavery" (this is about slavery during the Abassid period).
• Gordon: N he doesn't say anything about "chattel slavery".
• Marmon: N she doesn't say anything about "chattel slavery".

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)[reply]

This message once again misses the difference between acceptable summary and inappropriate synth. Nor apparently what the meaning of chattel slavery is, or the fact that several of the sources do in fact talk about chattel slavery and Islamic law. In fact, Marmon explicitly says chattel slavery twice and Freamon also mentions it a number of times. Kloss mentions the definition, but not by name. That being said, the solution proposed by Xan747 is reasonable. I will compose a much longer and more detailed paragraph about the various views of influential scholars on Islamic jurisprudence pertaining to slavery. That will take some time. The solution that you and Rutebaga argue for is not valid. Islamic views on slavery is a highly problematic article on its own, but that is an article about theology. This article is about history, and writing about the history will not be and is not a POV fork whatsoever. Andre🚐 17:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing remotely acceptable about your so-called "summary", which is neither accurate nor neutral (the blatant WP:CHERRYPICKING alone is more than enough to discredit any claims to the contrary). Your conclusions ("essentially ..." and "i,.e ...") are literally a joke. Frankly, I've had more than enough of this nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: everything between this simple question and this comment pretty much sums up all you need to know.
  . M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I took Rutebega's suggestion to review Islamic_views_on_slavery#Traditional_Islamic_jurisprudence and found: Sources of slaves

Purchasing slaves and receiving slaves as tribute was permitted. Many scholars subjected slave purchases to the condition that slave should have been "rightfully enslaved" in the first place.

Casting a wider net we find: Islamic views on slavery (lede)

Islamic law regarded as legal slaves only those non-Muslims who were imprisoned or bought beyond the borders of Islamic rule, or the sons and daughters of slaves already in captivity. [...] The hadiths [...] regarded slaves as legal only when they were non-Muslims who were imprisoned, bought beyond the borders of Islamic rule, or the sons and daughters of slaves already in captivity. [...] 13th century slave market, Yemen. Slaves and concubines are considered as possessions in Sharia; Masters may sell, bequeath, give away, pledge, share, hire out or compel them to earn money. [...] The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. [...] The Muslim slave trade was most active in West Asia, Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. [...] After the Trans-Atlantic slave trade had been suppressed, the ancient Trans-Saharan slave trade, the Indian Ocean slave trade and the Red Sea slave trade continued to traffic slaves from the African continent to the Middle East. [...] During the 19th and early 20th centuries all large Muslim countries [...] banned the slave trade and/or slavery. [...] The Ottoman Empire banned the African slave trade in 1857 and the Circassian slave trade in 1908.

This mixes law with historical practice, so those excerpts need to be read carefully in context. Elsewhere in the lede we see there were differences in interpretation, The hadiths, which differ between Shia and Sunni, address slavery extensively, assuming its existence as part of society but viewing it as an exceptional condition and restricting its scope. These details (and others) aside, there is clear support from sources that buying and selling of slaves was authorized under Islamic law, at least at some point in time, by at least some schools of thought. Now to the question of whether that authorized slave trade constitutes chattel. Chattel slavery

As a social institution, chattel slavery classes slaves as chattels (personal property) owned by the enslaver; like livestock, they can be bought and sold at will. Chattel slavery was historically the normal form of slavery worldwide and was practiced in places such as classical Greece and the Roman Empire, where it was considered a keystone of society. Other places where it was extensively practiced include the Muslim world such as Medieval Egypt [...]

Emphasis added. Of course in the Muslim world and under Islamic law are two different things and we must not assume the former implies the latter. Now to the question of whether there is direct Quranic support for chattel slavery. Fortunately Freamon is available via Wikipedia Library, so I've been reading it, as well as reviews of it. One review on the publisher's website is unsurprisingly largely positive. Neighborhood of this paragraph is good reading:

Yet if Freamon is engaged in the interpretation of the Qurʾān and what its intended message is regarding slavery, he is not the first. The admirability of his cause is not a license to transcend the history of which he and we all are a part. His conclusions about the Qurʾān’s message may not be as obvious as he thinks, especially since Possessed by the Right Hand addresses only briefly the corpus of ḥadīth (the sayings of the Prophet) that yield much more than the Qurʾān as bases for legal rulings on slavery.

In a largely negative review we find:

[...] Freamon asks, “Is it possible to juridically abolish slavery in communities in the Muslim world that seek to be bound or consider themselves bound by the Sharīʿa?” He acknowledges that “finding a right of freedom from slavery in the traditional Islamic sources is a difficult undertaking,” but insists that “a careful, detailed, and critical examination of the sources,” using “a fresh and dynamic approach,” will result in “a jurisprudential basis for the elimination of slavery and slave trading in Muslim communities … even under a government bound by the Sharīʿa.”

This seems to undermine the contention that Freamon contends Quranic support for slavery of any form, chattel or not. From this little investigation I have the impression that Freamon can be controversial—as any scholarship in this domain is likely to be—but nothing to indicate he is fringe as M. Bitton argues. He's prolific and seems to be generally well-regarded as an authority in his field. @AndreJustAndre, given the content we already have in other articles, could you quickly explain what your sources add to the discussion that isn't already covered? In particular, why the emphasis on the word chattel itself. What sense of that word isn't being addressed in the sources we're already using? (The analagous question to M. Bitton and Rutebega is what sense of that word isn't plainly supported by existing sources.) In general, I'm not moved by Rutebega's argument that you must limit yourself to summarizing existing content from another article. We're not only allowed, but encouraged, to expand articles with novel content based on exiting or new reliable sources. I look forward to reading your draft. Xan747 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xan747, to your insightful questions above, the History of slavery in the Muslim world article had a number of mentions of chattel prior to the edit by the IP and M.Bitton reinstating their same removal[20], and some of those usages were supported by sources already and appropriate (I restored one per Oort1 which was clear-cut), while others were clear from context but could be explained better. That is what prompted me to look into the article and realize it is missing basic background. It is just basic background information obvious from the sources that slavery means, in Umayyad, Abbasid, and Mamluk domains, extrapolated to most of medieval Islamic history by the sources, that slaves from the categories discussed by Gordon were commodities, property to be bought and sold, ie chattel slavery. Despite some Qu'ranic stuff and other material arguing that slaves were human or that manumission was virtuous etc., which can also be mentioned, we need to be realistic and pragmatic in describing the actual history of slavery, which goes beyond the Qu'ran into hadiths and fiqh and so on, that do not all agree, plus the issue of pre-Islamic precedent and whether it continued, such as in Africa etc.

It is complex but also not that complex! This basic fact is evident in sources but not adequately explained in an encyclopedic and informative way, which has become quite clear during these discussions, and a major omission now is just a simple explanation thereof. To your earlier point a better way to improve the article would be to explain the controversies in more depth. So I agree with you largely that many of the senses of chattel are already explained in part just not in name. I also agree that both that article and the Islamic views on slavery need to be improved and expanded to portray that. In terms of Freamon, perhaps Freamon is not the centerpiece of the changes we need to make to improve this coverage, but should be used in conjunction with better and more generalized material. Gordon, Kloss, and Marmon are authoritative mainstream sources, and Freamon is more specialized, but NOT fringe. I think there is a NPOV issue in excluding this, but I am very flexible and have repeatedly insisted that others offer a proposal to compromise on the particulars, which has not been taken up thus far. BTW, I'd summarize Freamon and Marmon's point about the Qu'ran was that despite the emancipatory sentiment in the text, and despite some improvements for slaves versus the pre-Islamic system, in reality that didn't actually have an effect on reducing the prevalence of or the society's reliance on chattel slavery as an institution. I regard the argument that it was not chattel slavery due to an emancipatory sentiment to be specious and ahistorical, and basically the opposite of what Freamon and Marmon say. Andre🚐 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to M. Bitton, he did not say Freamon is fringe, so I should walk back my earlier statement to that effect. The argument was that Freamon's interpretation of the Quran on this point is fringe, and thus far the Internet hasn't given me a direct answer to that question. But I do keep finding reviews of the book, this one attacking its central thesis that "the Qurʾanic approach to slavery would therefore, if human beings shaped their actions according to its prioritarian approach, lead to a world that is slavery-free":

Whether or not Freamon’s reading of the Qurʾanic text is compelling in ethical and theological terms, it leads to a book which is almost completely antithetical to a history of slavery in Islamic law. The geographic focus is the Indian Ocean world, very broadly understood. Freamon consistently discusses the post-Qurʾanic development of Islamic legal frameworks for dealing with slavery and slave trading as having been wrong. As such we learn very little about the place of slavery in Muslim substantive law despite it being a major topic in the compendia of every “legal school” touching on everything from the regulation of commerce, marriage and divorce, zakat, hudud punishments, property, war, raiding, booty, and the patronate.

Further down the reviewer answers one of my initial questions in the negative: "It is important to emphasize that Freamon is not an apologist for slavery in Muslim contexts." From what I'm reading, he does seem to be walking a fine line though, and one which is drawing criticism. TL;DR: as the book has drawn many reviews, I agree it pretty clearly deserves a citation or two, but not with the same emphasis as mainstream scholars. Xan747 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and to be clear, I'm proposing to use Freamon for a much less controversial claim, simply that slavery in the Islamic world existed for all intents and purposes as chattel slavery and what that means. M.Bitton has offered as a source the Encyclopedia of the Qu'ran[21] which also argues that slaves were "not mere chattel," in the eyes of the Qu'ran. I would say this makes the opposite point that he claims. The point isn't what the Qu'ran says, but what people did despite it. Andre🚐 22:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

less controversial claim utter nonsense.

M.Bitton has offered as a source the Encyclopedia of the Qu'ran offered in a different discussion (not here), and if I recall, you rejected it by saying Islamic law is not equal to the Qu'ran, only to turn around and cite a passage about the Qu'uran (Freamon). Sigh. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fine source to use. I think that source and Freamon are basically in alignment. But that isn't the question (what does the Qu'ran text say), the question was about Islamic law. Islamic law is not equal to the Qu'ran. Islamic law is a large body of extra-Qu'ranic things. I made that the question with my text, but I offered to remove that or change the text to something else, but you do not want the text at all. The point of my text is the claim that slavery was effectively chattel slavery. Something that Marmon explicitly says. So Freamon is not alone. Andre🚐 23:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in alignment. It's not a question of what I want, it's about our policies and the fact that your addition violates multiple ones (as explained above by Rutebega and myself). M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that are not FRINGE tend to be repeated elsewhere. M.Bitton (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources other than Freamon say that trading in slaves was regulated under Islamic law, varying by time, place and school of thought. If you don't agree with that much, then our difficulties here are truly unlikely to be resolved to mutual satisfaction. If the only sticking point is whether to call the practice of buying and selling people "chattel slavery" then I suggest everyone simply erase the word from their vocabulary for the duration of this discussion, and especially leave it out of any draft text for the article. It just isn't needed to illustrate the practice, and definitely isn't worth all the ink spilt contesting it. Xan747 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to thus far the Internet hasn't given me a direct answer to that question. Your suggestion is fine by me. M.Bitton (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I didn't look very hard as I was more interested in vetting Freamon's overall reputation, as well as the fact that what I did find moved me beyond that specific question. The fact that you say his interpretation of the Quran on this point is fringe carries weight with me because you are evidently well read in this area. In case it wasn't clear, the balance of my comment to drop the word we're not saying anymore was more directed at @AndreJustAndre. Xan747 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I'm not just fixated on the semantics, that just happens to be the standard academic term for the system of human beings being bought and sold as property on the market. And I think there are clearly sources that say that this is what happened in the medieval Islamic world under several different time periods, geographical locations, and Muslim imperial domains. But, I am more than happy to sit down with these sources or a few others and sculpt some text that explains these important and relevant aspects of the article in more specific attributed sentences and without using that specific term that is leading to sensitivity, as an exercise and in good will, and because it will still improve the article more than not doing that. Though I do think any high school world history class in the US would impart this information, and because it is relatively well-known that may be why a lot of contemporary sources don't bother saying it because they don't want to waste words on stuff that the whole audience probably already knows. Anyway, I haven't written a new proposal yet because I need to think about it, sleep, function as a human in society for a bit, and do some more research. I plan to look at Bashir, Urban, Grasso, Lydon, Gakunzi, Alexander (Two different types of "XxxCENSOREDxxX" slavery, those permitted by the Christian and Islamic religions, were introduced into Africa but only the Christian slave trade to the Americas has been studied by archaeologists), Perry, Cronin, Philips, Esseissah and Wink tomorrow or in the next few days, and I'll come back with a new draft. Andre🚐 04:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having bound myself to forget the word even exists, I officially have no comment. Enjoy your research and time in meatspace. Xan747 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[22]: "The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers." Source[23].

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[24] "After the Teutonic Order rebuilt the town following the massacre, Gdańsk became almost entirely German." Source[25]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PJK 1993 was recently blocked for edit warring on this very topic (see block log) and warned by an admin to stop. [26] 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.^[1] The town saw a rapid rise in population and became almost completely German; it would become primarily known by its German name, Danzig.^[2]
• 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.^[1] 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.^[3] JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[4]; Błażej Śliwiński & Beata Możejko (2020)^[5]; and Marek Smoliński (2021)^[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alaexis, the original and longstanding statement going back to at least 2024 stated: "The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers." has this source[27], which reads: "Teutonic Knights gained a foothold in the region and in 1308, 10,000 mostly Kaszubs were massacred and replaced with ethnic Germans.", also the second source[28] also says similar, that the massacre and the Teutonic takeover resulted in a major population shift where the town became mostly German. JeanClaudeN1 needs to accept this and allow for at least the second/revised statement to be included. --PJK 1993 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quote from the second book as I requested earlier? The first one has less weigh as its author is not an expert in this area. Alaexis_¿question? 18:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(To Alaexis) For verification:

• Danzig in German and Gdańsk in Polish. While both Germanic and Slavic groups inhabited the area, it is clear that the city entered written history as a Slavic settlement near the end of the first millennium. see link ^[7]

Another relevant quotation

• As the Teutonic Order rebuilt the city following the "Gdańsk Bloodbath" the population increased rapidly and became almost entirely German. see link ^[8]

Apologies, I have limited time right now due to academic commitments but I may return later to provide more input. Thanks and good luck! 5.173.178.153 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, this is the second source, here [29], which summarizes the event in this way: "As the Teutonic Order rebuilt the city following the “Gdańsk Bloodbath,” the population increased rapidly and became almost entirely German. This would remain so for over seven centuries, during which the city would be known primarily by its German name of Danzig." So, it is clear that the massacre and subsequent Teutonic takeover of the city resulted in a major population shift. Many of the inhabitants were killed and the rest expelled. This event decimated and uprooted the Lehitic population of the city, not to be restored to its original size before 1308. --PJK 1993 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing quotations. I think they don't quite support the statement you've mentioned above ("The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers"). Loew tells us that Gdansk was repopulated mostly by Germans following the massacre and it's already mentioned in the article. However, saying that the knights "replaced" local Kashubians and Poles is WP:OR. Let the sources speak for themselves: if there are sources that say that the city was mostly or partially Slavic before the massacre, simply add them to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two quotes in no way refer to the ethnic composition of the city before the 1308 takeover. Your first quote merely shows that the city originally traces back to a Slavic settlement. As the Wikipedia article itself states, around the year 1180 German settlers began arriving.^[9] The settlement received German town rights in the 13th century (Lübeck law). The majority of the inhabitants were German at the time of the massacre — the sources are very clear (see above). JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, I think the second statement, which I included to replace the original, does say that and holds true to the second source: "After the Teutonic Order rebuilt the town following the massacre, Gdańsk became almost entirely German." The revised text omits some of the gray area, however it clearly notes that the Teutonic massacre and takeover resulted in a major population shift in favor of the Germans. Also, I think the IP editor just provided additional sources in the above comment regarding the ethnic make up of Gdańsk before the massacre, please also consider those as well. "While both Germanic and Slavic groups inhabited the area, it is clear that the city entered written history as a Slavic settlement near the end of the first millennium." --PJK 1993 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reading only the extremely condensed chapter abstracts and mixing them with your personal opinion. If you actually read the book, you’d see that Loew is very clear about the city’s ethnic composition at the time of the massacre, for example here:

• 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 […].

It may have been the German merchants, who mostly aligned with Brandenburg, however the town was mostly Lechitic in makeup, even the leaders who initiated the rebellion against the Polish monarch were Lechitic from the Swienca family. --PJK 1993 (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, also, there are other sources that say similar, but for now we are just discussing these two references. However, other historians such as Raphael Lemkin, Kazimierz Jaśinski, James Minahan, Stefan Maria Kuczyński basically state that Gdańsk in 1308 was either mostly Lechitic or mixed, however after the events in question it became mostly German. I'll try to provide some additional quotes on that. --PJK 1993 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term "genocide" in his book here [30] wrote: "The port of Danzig, founded by the Poles, was for centuries a goal in the German Drang nach Osten. In 1308 it was conquered from Poland by the Teutonic Knights, who carried out a mass slaughter of the Polish population. --PJK 1993 (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to cite a 1944 (!) source on Axis rule in occupied Europe during World War II, that doesn’t exactly support your point. Would a literature review in an academic journal summarizing the current state of research include this source? No, it wouldn't. Why don’t you stick to more recent sources, let's say, for example, from the past 20 years, that actually deal with the history of Gdańsk? See also WP:AGE MATTERS. We just have two completely different approaches: I review recent secondary literature from experts and look at the current state of research on the topic. My comments are based on these findings. You take the opposite approach: you start with your own POV and try to back it up with whatever you can find, while completely ignoring the current state of research. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Assuming the sources in the footnote are being accurately represented I'd say wikivoice is neutral here for that specific claim. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing "studies analyzing..." immediately takes the statement out of Wikivoice and makes it an attributed one, so meets NPOV. Masem (t) 12:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the “studies”, but otherwise OK. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the studies are cited directly. If other sources use that wording or something similar, we can use it. Cortador (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replies Cortador, Blueboar, Masem, Simonm223. I should’ve added: other sources “demonstrate” the opposite but they are fewer and lower quality and no longer cited here, so in using the word “demonstrated” in our voice we’ve taken a side, which may be justified but only if the opposing sources can be dismissed. Does that make a difference to your answer? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add in "some" or "certain" before studies to be clear that it does not encompass all studies. I presume the next immediate sentences discuss the specifics of those studies. Masem (t) 03:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the peer reviewed studies that unequivocally demonstrate a bias against Palestine and in favor of Israel:

• Viser, Matt (September 2003). "Attempted Objectivity: An Analysis of the New York Times and Ha'aretz and their Portrayals of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 8 (4): 114–120. doi:10.1177/1081180X03256999. S2CID 145209853.
• Zelizer, Barbie; Park, David; Gudelunas, David (December 2002). "How Bias Shapes the News: Challenging the New York Times' Status as a Newspaper of Record on the Middle East". Journalism. 3 (3): 283–307. doi:10.1177/146488490200300305. S2CID 15153383.
• Jackson, Holly M (2023). "The New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in US news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas". Media, War & Conflict. 17 (1): 116–135. doi:10.1177/17506352231178148.

A lone article published by Israel Affairs concludes that the NYT has made errors and omissions in its coverage of the Gaza war, but it does not make any explicit statement to the effect that NYT coverage is biased against Israel:

• Gilboa, Eytan; Sigan, Lilac (2024-09-02). "The New York Times coverage of the Israel-Hamas war: errors, omissions, and poor editorial supervision". Israel Affairs. 30 (5): 939–957. doi:10.1080/13537121.2024.2394292. ISSN 1353-7121.

إيان (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a link to the discussion, by the way: Talk:The New York Times#false balance: obfuscation, minimization, and erasure of Palestinian grievances إيان (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question would be whether there are any studies with contradictory findings? Simonm223 (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the scholarly-ish stuff I could find in ten minutes of looking:

[...] the net result of these imbalances and others is to create a depiction of events that is imbalanced toward creating sympathy for the Palestinian side, places most of the agency in the hands of Israel, is often at odds with actual events, and fails to give readers an understanding of how Israelis are experiencing the war.[31]

This article demonstrates serious errors, inadequate corrections, serious omissions and poor editorial supervision in the Times’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. These were not just sporadic failures. They seem to represent an endemic malaise. [32] It's not even pretending to be impartial: On 7 October 2023, the Palestinian terror organisation Hamas massacred some 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and abducted about 240 people including babies, children, women and elderly persons. This was the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Hamas terrorists raped, mutilated and dismembered bodies, and abused the hostages they kidnapped and imprisoned in tunnels under Gaza. (I'm not saying those things didn't happen or are excusable, only that I would expect a serious academic work to not give a summary with such loaded language.)

I haven't cracked open the other papers above to compare. Xan747 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of peer-reviewed studies, the sources provided above are the ones I have found and been able to review. There is no manifest contradiction among the peer-reviewed studies.

As I mentioned, there is a discussion at Talk:The New York Times#false balance: obfuscation, minimization, and erasure of Palestinian grievances where sources such as those mentioned by Xan747—particularly the first one, a POV source by a business school prof writing outside of his field and without peer review—have been thoroughly discussed. إيان (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was not saying the papers I found were any "good". I missed it that you had already cited Gilboa (2024), which is clearly a bad paper. I also missed it that Pinker (2025) is not peer-reviewed, not immediately recognizing that SSRN is a preprint repository—I only saw Elsevier as the publisher. In any case, his methodology doesn't seem terrible, but being out of his field and not peer-reviewed this is not suitable for use in an article. Of the three other papers concluding a bias against Palestinians by the NYT, Jackson (2023) may be the most impressive to my non-expert eyes because it is the most quantitative of the three. I liked her discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative vs. qualitative textual analysis. The whole thing seems well-done, and not incredible to me. (I don't have trouble believing that any US news company would have a pro-Israel bias.) No objections to the other two papers apart from them being old, which is particularly key since much has changed in the political landscape since the turn of the century. There is my standard wariness of all social sciences studies; I tend to think of them as thought-provoking guides for what to watch out for as opposed to the natural ("hard") sciences which I trust a little more to tell me about reality. All that said, I wouldn't have any issue including these in a Wikipedia article as attributed opinion. The main question for me would be how much weight to give them. I hope this feedback is of some help. Xan747 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-critical feminism is a controversial subject and a controversial term. I would appreciate some more eyes on this page where the very first main section appears to have some POV issues, even though it is equally clear that some academic sources have questioned the framing of the matter, arguing that Gender-critical feminism is a self description chosen by its proponents that may be chosen to legitimise its views. We should follow that academic framing, but I am concerned that the terminology section is going beyond the evidence and is not neutral. I am particularly concerned by analogies to white supremacists, but I think there may be other issues. See also Talk:Gender-critical_feminism#Terminology_section. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attributed statement from a lawyer writing in a legitimate legal journal. I'm not sure why you think that is non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. TERF was a term long before they rebranded as "gender critical". Guy (help! - typo?) 16:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is it I don't like? Absolutely agree that TERF was there first and Gender-critical is an attempt to rebrand. Why do you think I don't agree? I said we should follow that academic framing which is in Thurlow (2022). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, but that's not the impression you gave at the Talk page. For the record: I oppose bowdlerising the article to pretend that GC is anything other than what it is: bigotry.

I know that it is sincere bigotry, at least in some cases. I have lost friends because of it. But it remains bigotry, and a moral panic founded on the mistaken belief that removing the social stigma from something somehow conjures it into existence, rather than merely unleashing suppressed demand.

Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s "gay agenda" moral panic are very familiar with this problem. Laws were passed banning the "promotion" of homosexuality, when in fact the only thing that had changed was that gay people no longer felt the need to stay in the closet. Gay people have always existed. So have trans people. The first gender reassignment surgeries were over a century ago. Sweden recognised change of gender markers on passports over half a century ago.

Homophobes were bigots even when they branded themselves as protecting children, or promoting traditional values. It's just psychological framing to reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by criticism of a lizard-brain opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are making assumptions again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Save the personal analysis for your substack. Follow the sources, WP:FOC to improve the article, and leave the incoherent drivel somewhere else. Just10A (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:I want to point out - there are 9 pages of archived discussion on that page, so it's been the subject of much debate. The way they are listed on the page, it's easy to miss the archives. Because Gender and Sex are controversial outside of Wikipedia; they are also controversial here. Check the article Modern flat Earth beliefs. I used to use "Flat Earth" as an extreme example of a silly point of view, and then at some point people came out and said they believe it (around 2015, according to the article), and... people really have a sincerely held belief in flat earth. When I think of a neutral point of view, I also think of a non-judgmental point of view: we aren't writing persuasive essays, rather, we are writing on a book report on what other people think, and letting the reader make their own judgement. So, I'd prefer an article that recognizes it's a "sincerely held belief based on faith" and not in line with a modern understanding of science, but you can see it takes a judgmental hard line, from the get go, telling you what to think about the subject before even telling you what it is. I see this as a problem, but many editors strongly believe it is morally right to approach articles this way. Denaar (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

an article that recognizes it's a "sincerely held belief based on faith". This is a misleading summary of the viewpoint in question, and modern flat Earth beliefs are not the right comparison to make here. As the many sources which are cited in the article point out, it can be viewed (and is certainly viewed as) a dog whistle and a cover for anti-trans politics and hate speech. See this video for a comedic, deliberately exaggerated illustration of the issue. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Edited 17:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I read your comment, it sounds like you're saying "Modern Flat Earth beliefs are a dog whistle", I don't think that's what you meant, but I do think your comment relies upon an Appeal to emotion. I believe in the Wise Mind: If you use emotional reasoning it will lead you to make poor decisions. Relying of pure logic leads you to decisions that are inhumane. Correct reasoning is the wise mind: Balancing logic with an understanding of human emotions. So, I don't find your argument convincing; because it's emotional, and neither logical nor balanced - which is what Neutral Point of View should be all about. Denaar (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the religious pretext is exactly that: a pretext. Every single person I have ever seen claiming a sincerely-held religious objection to trans people, bases that opinion on selective quotations from the Old Testament. No Christian I have ever encountered has provided any support for bigotry - of any form - from the Gospels. It's not the Bible that denounces trans people or makes up nonsense terms like "trans ideology" to erect a wall between them and anyone who doesn't think we get to veto decisions made between a person and their physicians. It's not the Bible, it's Conservative-Christian¹ preachers. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

¹Related to Christianity in much the same way that National-Socialsim is related to socialism.

Per WP:TALK - Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject. Denaar (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy is correct, we should follow the academics here. There's no reason to be citing a law review article for a sociology page when better sources are available anyway. Further, I find there's some confusion with law review articles but FYI law reviews are not like scientific journals. Professors/scholars do write in them but most of time its just written by 2L/3L law students, so if you're citing a law review you need to check the author. This was legit written by a random non-scholar law student who even now is a 1st-year associate at a firm. Not appropriate RS for this at all. Just10A (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize, I looked at your history and read it wrong, thinking you were a newer user. My response wasn't understood well because it was too indirect; I was hinting in a polite way that it's not something a new user wants to get too tangled into. I have not looked into this topic deeply, but generally, if an article really needs to be updated/rewritten, after the dust settles on a topic, the best place to start is collecting the strongest sources, and instead of "writing the article, finding sources that support what I write" - you've got to go with "these are the best sources, and these are what they report". That generates the best articles. Denaar (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I took your contribution as genuine and helpful. I think I even thanked you for it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to request a neutrality review of the article Murder of Jong-Ok Shin.

I have opened a detailed discussion on the article’s Talk page outlining several issues, including:

• Over-reliance on advocacy and campaign sources
• Disproportionate coverage of alternative suspect theories
• Minimal information about the victim herself
• Possible breaches of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP (by overemphasising speculation and conjecture)
• A general imbalance in tone (the article reads more like a campaign document or documentary transcript than a neutral encyclopedic summary)

The article appears to require a comprehensive neutrality and sourcing review.

Any input or assistance from editors experienced with neutrality, sourcing, or criminal biography topics would be appreciated.

Thank you.

66.54.123.6 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major NPOV issue with user @TheNewMinistry re: Michael Gainer, a candidate in the election, who appears to either be or know him very well.

@BottleOfChocolateMilk, another active elections editor, has also had disputes with this user before (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gainer), which resulted in the user being blocked from multiple pages, including Gainer's (now-deleted) article, his business' article, and the Erie County Democratic Committee. They were even blocked from the AfD discussion itself by @Star Mississippi.

The user has made extensive edits to the 2025 Buffalo mayoral election that severely contradict set precedent for the way an election article is meant to be written -- it's overcomplicated and muddled. He seems to have given an inordinate amount of focus to Gainer's small independent campaign (one could argue it's because he is Gainer).

The user has been blocked/partially blocked about half a dozen times, including for harassment (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ATheNewMinistry&type=block) When I added a thumb map for the Democratic primary (common practice for such elections, I was surprised it hadn't been added before), he said "there were more candidates in the primary than Ryan and Scanlon - if you're going to wreck the entire article's layout, make a better map" -- although Ryan and Scanlon (two other candidates) were the only ones to win any districts, hence the reason they were the only 2 on the map, and the image's 'thumb' format is quite literally so it wouldn't wreck the article.

The image used for Gainer's campaign on the election page (2025 Buffalo mayoral election#/media/File:MichaelGainer (cropped).jpg) says it is the "own work" of @TheNewMinistry. Why would this user have their own photo of Gainer from 2007 if they were not closely connected to him?

Given that he is already banned from articles relating to Gainer, I'm requesting he be banned from this one too as there is a clear CoI that he has failed to declare. Aesurias (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I've seen this. Confirming what @Aesurias said that I'd been the one to block @TheNewMinistry from the AfD but haven't followed this since TNM requested an unblock and do not have the on wiki time to look through the issues presented. Courtesy ping to @Daniel Case whose block remains in place. Star Mississippi 21:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image you created was already put back into the article (by me, in a section where it doesn't break the layout) before you opened this discussion. You know, in an infobox with the two other candidates (Whitfield and Wyatt - not Michael Gainer) who broke 5% in the primary and therefore should be included in said infobox. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Sorry I wasn't more kind when I asked you to not break the layout? I just spent three hours restructuring the layout so it isn't broken. Thank you for starting a talk page discussion and then escalating it to a NPOV case without pinging me and giving me a chance to respond - you are a swell person of high character. TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recommending an additional partial ban on your account from the 2025 Buffalo mayoral election, in line with the other bans placed on it relating to articles about Michael Gainer. I pinged you in a talk page discussion and escalated it here when I learnt of your many previous bans and undeclared conflict of interests.

I did not write the Democratic primary section of the article, so I don't need to put an infobox and am not responsible if one was not there. Primary elections typically don't use infoboxes either, by the way, they just have thumb images with election result maps and a smaller module with the results (no images of the candidates for example), which is what I did.

It's all great that you 'restructured the layout', but it's now wrong. There should be a candidate section for the Democratic primary, rather than just a bunch of separate lines. There is no reason for every minor party to have their own section, nor should they each have their own 'list' of endorsements thats just the party name itself.

That is not the primary issue here -- lets not detract from the clear connection you have to Michael Gainer. Aesurias (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no undisclosed Conflict of Interest, and accusing me of one is in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please note for the record that I reverted the image at 11:09, reinserted the image at 12:57. Aesurias started a Talk Page discussion at 17:19, and finally started this NPOV case at 17:30. Please learn to scroll down before losing your mind and retaliating against a wrong that never occurred, my friend. TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware the image was reinstated -- the issue is not the image, its the fact that you should have no involvement in the article period. Your connection to Michael Gainer has already been discussed many times and the high probability that you know him resulted in you being banned from editing any of the articles related to him.

Are you seriously trying to claim that you do not know this random non-public figure from Albany, New York, but have 1) tried to make a Wiki article about him, 2) created a Wiki article about his business, 3) created a Wiki article about a regional affiliate of the Democratic party so you could fill it with information about a scandal that paints Gainer as a martyr, and 4) have an image of him on a job site from 2007 (your explanation for this one was "it's from my archives")? Aesurias (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "own work" on a Wiki image would indicate that you took the photo. Are you suggesting you took a photo of Gainer in 2007 and kept the image so 18 years later you could write Wiki articles about his life, but do not know him? Aesurias (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNewMinistry, could you please answer this question? Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doxxing myself because Aesurias messaged you and asked you to do so. Sorry. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to dox yourself. I am asking you to affirm that the photograph is your own work. This is required for licensing reasons. Is it or is it not your own work? -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevin Hayes, the co-founder of Michael Gainer's company Buffalo ReUse, confirmed that I am not tied to the organization and did not perform edits or uploads on their behalf. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNewMinistry, that does not answer the question. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Aesurius should explain why he's uploading copyrighted logos and tagging them as public domain when he did not create them? This whole thing seems like weird projection on his part. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a 'he', and the CCFP logo is public domain, expressly permitted by the group after I sent them an email asking for permission (the previous logo on the Wiki page was outdated).

Your attempts to detract from the significant and credible allegations against you are not slick... Aesurias (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's...not how image uploading works. Condolences for your logo that's about to get deleted since there's no evidence of your correspondence. Read up on policy and VRTS: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind. The logo can just go back to the old one, it's not my article.

This is not the place to correspond about the logo -- I will once again say:

"Please note that "own work" on a Wiki image would indicate that you took the photo. Are you suggesting you took a photo of Gainer in 2007 and kept the image so 18 years later you could write Wiki articles about his life, but do not know him?"

This should be a simple yes/no question but you seem unable to answer it, which is concerning. It seems you've trapped yourself -- because if you say you don't know Gainer, then you wrongfully uploaded a photo of a living person (and we have to ask ourselves how you got the photo in the first place!). If you say you do know Gainer (much likelier), then you're admitting you lied beforehand.

It would be easier for everyone if you just declared a conflict of interest on your page and continued to work on the article -- having a connection to one of the candidates is not punishable but trying to hide said connection is. Aesurias (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You started a "neutral point of view" case accusing me of being unable to edit 2025 Buffalo mayoral election without bias. Where in that article am I showing bias towards one candidate over another? There is no evidence for whatever you're trying to do prove here in retaliation for our disagreement over the formatting of that article. I sincerely appreciate the map you made, and I eventually found a home for it in the article. All of this could have been hashed out on said article's talk page, but to know you wasted your entire day calling for my head is adorable. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer, and if anything, is more of an admission that you do know Gainer. If not, then you falsely claimed the image was your own work, and given that the image is of a living person, that is equally concerning... Aesurias (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buffalo_ReUse&action=history&offset=&limit=500, just hours after the Buffalo ReUse page was created by you, an IP address begun to remove excessive amounts of personal info about Gainer that was poorly sourced (maybe the IP of one of the people who ran Buffalo ReUse from 2012 to 2022?). How did you know all of this information??? Aesurias (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything they removed was properly cited (and those deletions were later reverted by an admin). Maybe you should actually try reading the article and not trusting the anonymous IPs who kept blanking the page. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, what I said is not a violation of WP:GF , but accusing me of 'wrecking the layout' (I fixed it to be in line with other articles) is borderline! These conflict of interests have been discussed many times, including by administrators, and there is clear evidence that there is a COI.

I am unsure why you refuse to disclose the existence of such a conflict because it is beyond clear that you know or are Michael Gainer -- there is a ridiculous amount of evidence. If you had just disclosed this, you wouldn't have been banned from the articles (having a CoI does not immediately prohibit you from writing an article about the related thing) Aesurias (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take your witch-hunt elsewhere. The layout of the article is largely decided by User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, who I agree with on most things. You complained on the Talk Page about terminology like "Eliminated in Primary" and the various sections for third-party endorsements - that's his phrasing and layout style. I just maintain the article to standards he agrees with to avoid conflict. Go talk with him if you want something changed. TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember commenting on "Eliminated in primary", that is standard. It's the candidate layout that is the issue.

Once again, this is not the topic of this discussion. Your efforts to distract from the COI issues are not working Aesurias (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevin Hayes, the co-founder of Michael Gainer's company Buffalo ReUse, confirmed that I am not tied to the organization and did not perform edits on their behalf. You must have missed that. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as another account said it...I guess it must be true...

How did you take an image of Michael Gainer in 2007 (according to what you uploaded to Wikimedia at least) if you don't know him? Aesurias (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to directly answer the question about the photo. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup!!! Aesurias (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request follows the recent Talk page discussion (October 2025), where multiple editors refused to address verifiable sourcing and engaged in personal disparagement of scholars and introduction of false claims (e.g., the alleged Jehoash Tablet sale in the Talk). The situation has reached a point where neutral administrative review is needed to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s core content policies. The current James Ossuary article gives disproportionate weight to early (2002 - 2004) allegations of forgery while minimizing the decisive scientific and legal findings accepted by the Jerusalem District Court in 2012 and by subsequent peer-reviewed research. As presently written, the article conveys the misleading impression that a genuine scholarly dispute still exists regarding the authenticity of the inscription. In reality, no qualified expert or peer reviewed scientific publication in the past decade has argued that the inscription is modern, whereas multiple geological, epigraphic, and archaeometric studies have confirmed that it is ancient. This violates WP:UNDUE, since no peer-reviewed publication since 2012 has argued for modern forgery. The purpose of this request is to restore neutrality and verifiability in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Key issues: The lead emphasizes early accusations of forgery twenty-years ago (2002 - 2004) and omits the Jerusalem District Court’s 2012 findings after seven years of multidisciplinary expert testimony (approx. 60 experts). The court concluded that no evidence of modern forgery was found, and that natural patina had developed "over hundreds, if not thousands, of years" within the engraved letters (§143). 2. While the judge noted that the court was not empowered to make scientific determinations, this was a procedural clarification. The verdict’s factual findings explicitly state that the prosecution failed to prove any forgery and that genuine ancient patina consistent with antiquity was present. Several editors have deleted or downplayed peer-reviewed and institutional publications (e.g., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, Vol. I, Israel Academy of Sciences, 2012), which lists the inscription as authentic and 1st-century. Introduction of defamatory and false material: Leading epigraphers Prof. André Lemaire and Dr. Ada Yardeni have been described as "controversial scholars." This is inaccurate, unsourced, and defamatory. Both are internationally recognized specialists whose testimony under oath was accepted by the court. Misrepresentation of the scholarly record - Editors assert that “the debate continues,” yet have not cited a single post-2012 peer-reviewed publication by any qualified scholar arguing that the inscription is modern. The only name offered, Prof. Christopher Rollston, explicitly testified under oath that he is not an expert in 1st-century inscriptions and did not give an authenticity opinion in court. His subsequent public comments are general methodological skepticism, not scientific analyses of the ossuary itself. Selective citation of the verdict - The article quotes the judge’s procedural disclaimer that the court “does not determine scientific authenticity,” but omits the sections where he accepted geological findings consistent with antiquity and confirmed that the prosecution failed to prove any forgery (§§76–78, 143, 200, 259). Policy violations: WP:NPOV - failure to represent the scholarly consensus proportionally. WP:RS - reliance on unsourced or outdated media reports instead of peer-reviewed academic publications. WP:BLP-  inclusion of defamatory personal claims and insinuations against individuals (e.g., Lemaire, Yardeni, Oded). Requested administrative actions: Review the article’s lead and sourcing for compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Ensure that the 2012 court verdict and post-2012 peer-reviewed research are accurately summarized. Clarify that while the ossuary’s authenticity was debated in the early 2000s, no subsequent peer-reviewed evidence supports a claim of modern forgery. Request input from uninvolved editors or administrators to achieve a stable, policy-compliant version. Proposed neutral wording for the lead "The James Ossuary is a 1st-century limestone box bearing an Aramaic inscription reading 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'. Its authenticity was widely debated in the early 2000s, but a seven-year trial in the Jerusalem District Court (2005–2012) found no evidence of modern forgery, and later paleographic and geological studies have supported a 1st-century date." This formulation is factual, verifiable, and supported by the 2012 verdict, Prof. Wolfgang Krumbein’s geological report, and later archaeometric analyses (Feldman 2019; Bible Archaeology Review 2015). Conclusion I am requesting the involvement of neutral editors or administrators to ensure compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, and to restore factual and balanced representation of the scholarly record in the James Ossuary article. Respectfully

Domininunez (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lede gave undue weight to a court case over allegations of fraud. Fraud is an intent crime, and the court decided that there was no fraud, under Israeli law. Courts do not decide questions of historical fact. The creation of bogus religious antiquities is a well-known phenomenon, dating back long enough that the questions over patina etc. are moot. The Turin shroud dates back to the 14th Century, for example. So, no, Wikipedia is not going to state that an open historical question is settled as a result of a court case. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope that someone could take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel.sallow, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]