Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Theological sources in the articles about history

I would like to understand what the policy says about theological sources (Biblical study sources) that describe, for example, the events that happened, or allegedly happened in I - II AD in East Mediterranean. There are tons of sources authored by scholars who have a degree in theology about Christ and similar topics, and the number of works authored by the scholars who see the same events from secular perspective is much smaller. Should the POV of theologists be considered a mainstream just based on the fact that their works are historically more numerous?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bible and its Old Testament are a blend of history, folklore, beliefs, etc. A lot of the historical material is accurate and confirmed by other methods, so those bits are fair game. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The study of Christian origins/the ancient Israelites is not "theology", it is part of Religious studies, archaeology and history. "Theologians" do not work in these fields, although people with degrees in theology/divinity sometimes do, and some of them do teach at divinity schools/seminaries. To call them theologians misrepresents what they are, and is an ad hominem attack on their research.

To elaborate: we say at The Exodus that scholarly consensus is that it didn't happen as in the bible. This is the consensus among historians and archeologists, "theologians" have no say in the matter, although many of these same archaeologists and historians teach at divinity schools or may even be religious Jews and Christians. At Historicity of Jesus, we say that the view that Jesus did not exist is a fringe view, because the overwhelming consensus among historians is that Jesus existed. Again, this has nothing to do with theology or Christian belief. Paul, on the other hand, assumes that this scholarly consensus is false, allegedly because the scholarly consensus is among Christians. He has yet to provide any evidence of "secular" scholars who disagree, however, besides a few fringe figures like Richard Carrier, and is currently making the same baseless argument at Tacitus on Christ.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I would be grateful if you stopped putting your words in my mouth. I am pretty capable of explaining what I think by myself.

Second, I am not discussing historicity of Jesus. My question is more general. It seems logical to expect that majority of sources that are directly or indirectly associated with some religious organisations, schools, or specialised religious institutions of higher education resemble, in some aspects, the research groups that conduct climate change studies sponsored by, e.g. Exxon Mobil. In other words, we can speak about some conflict of interest. Obviously, many biblical scholars are affected by religious doctrine, and, although some of them may be atheists or agnostics, the presence of a large amount of religious scholarships influenced by a religious doctrines creates a significant bias. And I am thinking about possible ways to compensate for that bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's fairly clear what agenda you are following by doing so - how can anyone have this discussion without concrete examples? You continue to dismiss out of hand people you identify as "theologians" (which is incorrect) or Christians (which is absurd) without any evidence that this has any affect on their scholarship. The only other places you have made these arguments have been in attempts to deny the historicity of Jesus or else, most recently, to deny that Tacitus has anything to say about it because the scholars saying he does are "biased". You have provided no evidence that mainstream scholars who happen to be Christian have reached conslusions any different than anyone else's. Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. There is no problem on Wikipedia with the POV of theologists be considered a mainstream just based on the fact that their works are historically more numerous. This is just your own POV.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure speaking about your opponent's "agenda" is totally civil. My original post was inspired by this exchange. Obviously, my first post in that thread is a generalisation of that problem. Indeed, if we have a topic that is a core topic for theologians, so 100 authors with PhD in theology (50% of whom are devoted Christians) wrote 1 article each, and, at the same time, this topic is only marginally important to secular historians, so only 5 authors have written articles on that account, then, if we will treat all sources as having equal weight, then the opinion of non-theologians (the authors like Russel or Dawkins) becomes dramatically diluted by the works of theologians (both religious and agnostics). I want to know how our policy deals with that.

This question is general, and it has no relationship to our old dispute. Please, do not bring the dispute about some narrow topic to this general discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I suspect you might be misusing the term "theological sources" - theologians discuss God, not history. Can you give us some examples of sources you might mean?Achar Sva (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite correct. Theology is the study of God, plain and simple. It is arguably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, fields of study since the beginning of time. It is not the study of religion or anything else, however perverted that definition has become over the years. It is my belief that it must be kept separate from the concept of religion. Religion is defined as a set of beliefs while theology is a study attempting to ascertain facts concerning the existence of God. --KitchM (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for less developed articles

A while back, I posted at VPP asking, to violate WP:UNDUE, does content need to be undue with regard to the current state of an article, or undue with regard to what the article is expected to become once it is fully developed, or some mixture of both? Quoting myself:

As a result of the recent North Face COI editing controversy, a lot of attention is being paid to how to describe the incident on The North Face's page. Any views specifically on that situation should be directed there, so as to keep the discussion in one place, but I want to bring one question raised by that discussion here to see about establishing a broader consensus. The North Face is a start class article, and many sections are pretty bare-bones, so as a result, any mention of the controversy in any amount of detail will take up a significant portion of the article. This has led some editors to argue that it would be WP:UNDUE. Others, however, contend that, were the article fully developed, spending a paragraph on the controversy would not take up a huge amount of space proportionally and would probably be fine, and that the article won't become more fully developed unless we allow additions, even if it temporarily leads to some unbalance. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated! (I do realize it's in some ways a proxy for the whole WP:Immediatism/WP:Eventualism debate.)

There were a few comments from Barkeep49, Nosebagbear, and Blueboar, but it wasn't a full discussion. This question has recently come up again with regard to Ed Kosner (see here), so I'd like to open the discussion again here. Can we come to some consensus on this and add appropriate guidance to the UNDUE section? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• By common practice, I've seen due weight judged by the article's current state, not its hypothetical finished state. Especially when writing thorough BLPs, building out the subject's origins before the other sections will overemphasize that portion. A fair compromise is to move that content to the talk page or a draft subpage until the balanced version (the hypothetically finished article) is ready for primetime. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• I think UNDUE/DUE coverage is about the current state of the article. We might not ever get to the fully realized (even B class) version of an article and so having undue coverage in there basically permanently goes against the spirit of that policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• I remain much more split on this. Perhaps it comes down to my very earliest content being declined and not being able to add most of it into its parent topic because of UNDUE that I was not in a position to resolve. Partially as a devil's advocate to @Barkeep49:'s point above, it might permanently violate UNDUE, but avoiding that also risks permanently excluding reliable information from the encyclopedia, purely on the basis of other missing info. Permanently missing information worse or better than permanently disproportinate coverage? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, I am fully in favour of this getting a broader consideration - I imagine that the issue has been considered in a broad variety of articles, and as an issue with no inherently wrong answer, is more a question of community judgement and ethos. Nosebagbear (talk)

Permanently disproportionate coverage is worse than permanently missing coverage. It gives the illusion of a more complete article than it is. I also don't think in DUE/UNDUE it's about excluding reliable information it's about excluding some verifiable information, perhaps even from reliable sources. But we choose to exclude lots of kinds of verifiable information. This is no different, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• DUE/UNDUE is definitely assessed based on the “current state”. This becomes obvious when you realize that DUE/UNDUE goes beyond the question of WHETHER to cover something... it also influences HOW we cover it. A brief summary of some aspect of the topic may be DUE, while a detailed account of it may be UNDUE. This is especially true when it comes to discussing recent events... many editors make the mistake of writing a detailed account of the event rather than a brief summary. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• This came up/is still being discussed at Scott Lobdell. My best effort at compromise was to summarize two paragraphs of detail into three sentences while retaining all the sources. If a reader (or editor expanding the article) wants more information, they can follow those links. This might not apply to all cases, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• I find this reasoning a bit concerning. It would suggest that concision, bloating, non-extreme forms of RS refbombing (after all, we often don't include every single reliable source on a topic) etc would move a section of content on the boundary of DUE/UNDUE in and out. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the NPOV tag require consensus before it is put up and what do you do when someone pulls it down for lack of consensus

I'm having trouble figuring out what to do in an NPOV tag situation. There's been about a month of discussion on a US political controversial page, Deep state in the United States. There's been about a month of back and forth on the topic with me (and others) putting up material and getting it reverted. I know, I know, par for the course in a lot of circumstances but here's the thing. The controversy is over material that is already on the page recognizing that there are non-conspiracy theories of the Deep State in the United States. A history section for the article has been squashed and recognition of the already included material in the lead paragraph has been squashed, and it's unlikely that any further development of non-conspiratorial Deep State theories will be accepted because the dominant side is saying this is only a page about the conspiracy theory even though that's not supported by the text or the RS footnotes. So I put up an NPOV tag and have been told by multiple editors that to put up such a tag would require consensus prior to it being put up. They quickly pulled it down. Since I can't find where consensus is a Wikipedia requirement for the NPOV tag, I figure either I need to get up to date on how to ask for sanctions or I need to work on the NPOV template page to clarify that consensus actually is a requirement. What would be a good next step? TMLutas (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(Without looking at any specifics) It doesn't require consensus to be placed, but requires some consensus to remain otherwise drive-bag taggers could add "hostage" tags to articles and keep them there so long as the article displeased them. As a rule of thumb if there's significant push-back to placing the tag, back off. Such notices are of less importance than talk page discussion to resolve any issue in any case: that is where effort should be going. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll stand corrected of there's guideline somewhere that says otherwise, but IMO consensus is too high of a bar for retention of a tag. To me requiring a consensus to remove it seems about right and also the normal practice. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I was under the same impression but I was starting to wonder if I were the crazy one or I was being gaslighted. TMLutas (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:NPOVN#Deep state in the United States NPOV. TMLutas, see also WP:FORUMSHOP. Other than that, I'd wait for the outcome of Talk:Deep state in the United States#RfC: Should the lead paragraph include explicit mention of non-conspiracy theories of the Deep state in the United State as detailed in existing body text and footnotes? – that is, without edit-warring over the tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We ask editors to be bold, so no prior consensus is needed to add a tag. Afterwards, it's not something to edit war over, one way or another. Follow WP:DR.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:POV has clear usage material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

While placing the tag shouldn’t necessarily require a consensus, shouldn’t a tagger be required to actually note on the talk page what the neutrality issues are? I see a lot of NPOV tags around and sometimes I can figure it out pretty easily and sometimes I can’t figure out the problems at all. I would think that if someone feels the need to drop a tag out there but can’t be bothered to note their concerns the tag should just be removed. Just one way to clean up drive-by tagging by busybodies that can’t spend some time doing some actual work.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As Flyer says above. "Template:POV has clear usage material". I wish people would refer to it. It says among other things The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. and The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article although that often appears to me exactly how it used, to flash a red "warning" sign indicating "Someone thinks this article is no good." Re removal You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Take it to the NPOV Noticeboard if there is difficulty.Smeat75 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities

A Request for Comments has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education asking the following question: How should the ledes of articles about colleges and universities describe the general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution? Your participation and input would be greatly appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion may impact WP:SUBJECTIVE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Non negotiable?

I noticed a strange phrase in the intro (emphasis added):

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

While I accept that NPOV is basically unchangeable, the phrasing seems unnecessarily vague. What actually does that mean and what makes it so? I was considering linking to Wikipedia:Core content policies but that doesn't really have any "power" behind it per se. I feel like that the statement is unnecessarily vague. I would propose something like "This is a foundational policy which is required for all content contributed and cannot be superceded..." although that still is just an appeal to authoritative "requirements" that isn't much better at explaining why the policy exists. Hopefully someone has some better thoughts about this? Thanks in advance. Techhead7890 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What it means is that there's a "policy" of Ignore all rules that says you can ignore policy and guideline to do something if you believe it it will improve the encyclopedia. Usually when one evokes IAR this becomes a discussion on consensus if this makes sense to go against policy, and if comes to agreement, it stays. But in this context, NPOV cannot be overriden by IAR, it is that paramount that it is upheld in an article. --Masem (t) 13:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV quiz for new users

Per the discussion here, I've started work on a quiz for the new editor tutorial that asks editors to identify examples of neutral/non-neutral passages. The half-finished draft is at Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/neutrality quiz — if anyone is interested in contributing, I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes to help refine the questions/explanations and add a few more. (If it's more up your alley, the draft of the reliable sources quiz here also needs some more work.) Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As an update, the quiz is finished enough that I've made it live for the tutorial. Feedback would still be welcome if anyone wants, though, and the reliable sources quiz still needs writing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of "controversial" in the lead and beyond references to people in WP:LABEL. Dispute at the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article.

Blanchard's transsexualism typology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology#"Controversial" in lede. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns not only whether or not "controversial" should be used in the first (lead) sentence of the article, but also whether or not "controversial" applies beyond references to people in WP:LABEL. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This should probably be at WP:NPOVN. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, it's incredibly controversial. Thios is one of the cases where the word is unambiguously correct. Guy (help!) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yeah, I know about alerting that noticeboard. And I do alert that noticeboard to things at times, but that noticeboard is usually awfully slow. Always has a backlog. Posts there are ignored more than posts are ignored here, and (as seen above and in the archives), this talk page is used at times to ask for opinions on a WP:Neutral matter happening at an article. Anyway, that discussion is now closed, and more opinions on it aren't needed.

JzG, I'm aware that the typology is very controversial, especially within the transgender community. We've talked about that before. But I (like others who have commented on the talk page about it) disagree with starting off the lead sentence with the word controversial. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Undermining WP:NPOV through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

WP:UNDUE demands covering major viewpoints published in reliable sources according to their weight. WP:BIASED, from the other hand, further explains that a reliable source does not ought to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective". These two parts of POV policy provide the possibility of using sources which are not part of the mainstream media, perhaps functioning to reduce the level of a massive systematic bias. However, if it would not be possible to use a state media for the state's POV, then editors have no option left but to use the POV of those mainstream sources. But there is a recent trend aimed at muting the voices that are out of the so-called mainstream media. These discussions are kinda removing the sources not matching the liberal-democrat standards for reliable sources. The trend started by acting against the Russian media, now is dealing with the Iranian outlets and probably will go to Chinese and Arab sources in near future. The long term consequence of such an approach would be nothing but an even stronger systematic bias.

However, if the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which run or support by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states, then this new consensus which undermines the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV should be discussed here. Finally, we need a broader consensus to remain the current policy and neglect those case by case RFCs or rewrite the policy. I mean, it is clear that the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RT and PressTV are state propaganda. This isn't about "liberal-democratic" it's about state propaganda. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. According to the current policy, the state propaganda is necessary to narrate the state position from its own viewpoint.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, you presuppose that certain points of view are available only in unreliable sources. That's rarely true. Normally, there are reliable sources that comment on the unreliable sources and provide context. We use those instead.

There are plenty of independent sources for Russia and Iran. Guy (help!) 11:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: It is clear that if there is a better source, then we should use that one. However, most of the local issues does not cover by such international media. In addition, even when the issues are covered by those media, they usually narrate them from their own viewpoint. Thus this trend will lead to undermining the WP:UNDUE and replace it with this one "The viewpoint of reliable news source (based on reliberal democratic standards for media) is regarded as the main viewpoint and even the opposite viewpoint should be narrated from their views."--Seyyed(t-c) 12:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, no, we don't drop our sourcing standards as needed in order to include stuff we want. That would be insane. Guy (help!) 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Assuming that DUE has been met... Minority viewpoints that are contained only in questionable sources can be presented, but must be presented with (or hedged by) in-text attribution. Don’t say “Fearless Leader is the best” (and cite State Media)... instead say “According to State Media, Fearless Leader is the best” (and cite State Media).

Doing this shifts how we use the questionable source. from being used as an unreliable secondary source about Fearless Leader, it goes to being used as a reliable Primary source about what State Media’s view of Fearless Leader is (primary sources are considered reliable for statements about their own content). Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Curbing the use of state propaganda sources (i.e., state media that lacks editorial independence) brings us closer to NPOV, not further away from it. It is not correct to say that this policy "excludes important voices," nor is it correct to say that "state propaganda is necessary to narrate the state position." If a statement is noteworthy, it will be picked up by actually independent sources, which provide proper context, as JzG noted. Examples are abundant. Reuters, for example, frequently reports on Iranian officials' comments, including those originally made to/channeled through state media (for example, example 1; example 2; example 3. We use sources like those rather than unfiltered foreign propaganda. Neutrality^talk 22:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I view WP:RS/N as a major noticeboard with a wide audience, and decisions made there by definition cannot be against policy, because decisions on what our policies and guidelines mean are made there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

According to @user:JzG, the Consensus we have reached based on the current policies is this:

The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [1]

There is another consensus which contradicts with the former one:

There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Wikipedia content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

However, if the position of the community has been changed, then it should be mentioned in the policy. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: OK. Then please clarify in the policy or guideline that the wikipedia community has changed its position and at present, there is a consensus about total restriction on usage of the sources which promote state propaganda.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, the two statements are not in tension. These are unreliable sources, but can be included if there is a pressing need and unambiguous consensus. But the bar is high, because they are unreliable. Even an accurate story will be wrapped around with propaganda. We have a small number of citations to Breitbart, for example, but this is done with care and only by exception. Guy (help!) 08:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: It is clear that considering the source as deprecated» is more harsh than what you conclude in 2015 as there is written in Effects of deprecation. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, the effect of deprecation depends on how shitty the source is. Sources that spread conspiracy theories are handled with more prejudice than those which are merely unreliable. It's also true that five years of experience have shown that we have to be more blunt with people who don't really get the whole concept, and choose to interpret cautious language as a green light to include a shitty source because ti says a thing they think needs saying. Guy (help!) 09:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If we notice to several coups which are guided or carried out by CIA such as 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and 1973 Chilean coup d'état as well as what has done to justify Iraq war and what is done by the US President at present, is it strange that a news source believe in a system for conspiracy? Is it justifiable and neutral to mute opposite voices? Do the mainstream sources cover all aspects of reality? (For example the real number of Casualties of 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq?) However, if the community has reached the consensus to mute non main stream sources, I just want to clarify it in the this policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that all pro-Iranian government sources should be deprecated, as I noted in the RSN discussion there are plenty of other English language Iranian based sources, including Islamic Republic News Agency, AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA), Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency and Iran Press, many of which are closely alligned to the Iranian goverment and can be used in the place of Press TV, In the same way TASS can be used for the voice of the Russian government instead of RT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: What are the criteria?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Islamic Republic News Agency is a direct organ of the Iranian Govt and is therefore equivalent to Press TV, and can definitely be used as a replacement. Is there anything valuable from Press TV that isn't covered by IRNA? Hemiauchenia (talk)

• WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If the views are only presented in a non-reliable, state propaganda source, then they should not be included, and by definition that is not a WP:NPOV violation. For the same reason, we should not cite Nazi propaganda directly, instead using scholarly sources that discuss it. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain#Requested move 27 July 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)