Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

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

    Additional notes:
    Start a new discussion

    Eugene Lipov

    [edit]

    (Note: I received significant assistance in writing the material below from a M.D, who chooses to remain anonymous rather than publicly attacking another doctor. Any errors in the following are mine.)

    Our Eugene Lipov article uncritically presents stellate ganglion block therapy as if it was a well established medical treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. It appears to be an experimental treatment with very little support from the medical community, yet Dr. Lipov is selling these treatments for PTSD ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/sgb-dual-sympathetic-reset ) and Long COVID ( https://stellacenter.com/treatments/long-covid ) at 22 locations in the US.

    The American Psychological Association strongly recommends four interventions for treating post traumatic stress disorder, and conditionally recommends another four. See [ https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments ] Stellate ganglion block therapy not on the list.

    The list of publications cited by Dr. Lipov to support the use of Stellate Ganglion blocks for the treatment of PTSD ( https://dreugenelipov.com/publications-2024/ ) is rather unimpressive. Dr. Lipov has been using this technique since 2008 and has given thousands of injections but there are no references to any long term outcomes data for his own patient population on his list of citations. There are ZERO references which specifically review patients treated with the "Dual Sympathetic Reset" technique.

    Despite the claim that, "Stella aims to heal the injury, instead of just managing the symptoms", one of the papers listed as a citation on the Stella Center web page concludes that "stellate ganglion blocks are NOT a "cure" for PTSD... but have the potential to significantly reduce symptoms as part of the treatment plan for combat related PTSD".

    Although one of the cofounders of the Stella center is a PhD psychologist and the website has the tagline, "Highly effective evidence based mental health care", there are no studies from the psychiatric literature referenced on the website.

    Insurance companies won’t pay for Stellate ganglion block injections because published studies documenting their effectiveness are lacking, and because long term effects are completely unknown. A well controlled randomized and double blind study published in 2016 concluded that:

    "Although previous case series have suggested that Stellate Ganglion Block offers an effective intervention for PTSD, this study did not demonstrate any appreciable difference between Stellate ganglion blocks and sham treatment on psychological or pain outcomes." [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27187898/ ].

    Approximately 125,000 veterans are currently diagnosed with PTSD, and both the Veterans Administration and the department of defense are highly motivated to find and implement reliable treatments for the devastating condition. However, the official 2024 VA position statement on Stellate ganglion blocks was:

    "Stellate ganglion blocks may have short term benefits for some individuals with PTSD, but it is not an established treatment at this time because the evidence is not conclusive. Stellate ganglion blocks have not been fully researched in Veterans with PTSD and the long term effects of stellate ganglion blocks are currently unknown"... "Currently, individuals with PTSD should be strongly encouraged to try established, and recommended treatments such as trauma-focused psychotherapy and medications. For Veterans that don't benefit from these traditional treatments, alternative interventions such as SGB might be considered". Source: [ https://www.va.gov/HEALTHPARTNERSHIPS/resources/SGBforPTSD_508.pdf ]

    In my opinion, the Eugene Lipov article should present SGB as an unproven experimental procedure, and we should consider creating a Stellate Ganglion Block Therapy stub article with Dual Sympathetic Reset redirecting to it. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any meta-analyses of experimental data for this one? Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find one. Certainly not for Long COVID; nobody but Eugene Lipov seems to believe that sticking a needle in your Stellate ganglion is a reasonable way of treating Long COVID. For PTSD, the best that I could find was https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/ganglionblock.pdf which concluded
    "SGB for PTSD is currently supported only by evidence from uncontrolled, unblinded case series which was neither confirmed nor refuted by a single RCT with imprecise findings, moderate methodological limitations, and which did not directly focus on clinically relevant outcomes. In currently used evidence grading systems,62 such evidence is considered “insufficient” for estimating an effect."
    but that was published in 2017. It could be that the answer has changed in the last seven years. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a crack at rolling back the WP:MEDRS / WP:PEACOCK violations in this edit. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)

    [edit]

    There's a discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Reverts about whether "bombing Palestinians in Gaza" is more emotionally charged and POV than "bombing the Gaza Strip". The article in general could also use more eyes if possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Indo-European Studies

    [edit]

    In order to avoid an edit war I am starting a topic here for this. The article for the Journal for Indo-European studies has throughout the years been given undue weight consistently to make it look like its a journal of poor standing when its not. The content places far too much focus on Roger Pearson, its founding publisher,and not enough on the journal's actual content in order to make it look 'racist' when it is not since it is clearly a linguistic journal. The article currently reads more like a mini bio on Pearson rather than anything to do with the actual content of the journal itself. More over, edits go unchecked on that article for over a month that remove info that makes the journal look reputable yet edits that take out all the mostly irrelevant bio info on Pearson and alleged negative aspects of the journal get scrutinized quickly and reverted. There is clear POV pushing and an anti-NPOV campaign going on here. Other editors have flagged it as being largely unbalanced and given undue weight. I am asking here for help in order to better remedy the situation as right now there is a stalemate and the way the article looks and reads right now is a mess. Geog1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you list plainly the sources you have that you feel paint a balanced picture of the journal? Remsense ‥ 论 22:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only source that has anything remotely balanced to say about the journal in that article is this:
    Tucker, William H. (2002). Jazayery (ed.). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.
    Nearly everything else entered in that article is meant to make the journal basically look like neo-nazis literature which it is not. It is simply a linguistic journal that focuses on linguistic matters concerning the Indo-European language family. Hardly any of the content of the journal itself is presented or discussed in the article. Surely that is problematic in and of itself. The journal isn't about Roger Pearson yet the way the article is written would have you believe its all about Pearson and that the journal is racist which it can't possibly be since its a linguistic journal. Geog1 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm asking you about what you have. If you could collate the bibliography from scratch, what would it cite? Remsense ‥ 论 22:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other texts I can think of that would maybe counter balance things are actual articles from the journal itself which shows its not racist:
    https://www.jies.org/DOCS/jies_index/mainindex.html
    I think the problem though is the content in the wiki article itself does not focus on what the journal actually has in it. Its all literature being used to paint it as racist. Geog1 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, this is pretty quickly revealing itself as the unavoidable core issue though, right? We don't write encyclopedia articles based predominantly on primary sources—and in this case, what the journal itself contains is a primary source for claims about the journal itself—but on secondary sources, and so we're going to be first and foremost balancing what independent, published, reliable sources have to say about it. This is a pretty basic restatement of our core policy on neutral point of view and our guideline on reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I understand the issue here between primary and secondary sources. But I really don't think the secondary sources are necessarily reliable, Arvidson for instance has a political ideology that lends an inherent biased against what the journal is about. I suspect the same applies for probably other sources there as well. But it all seems at the end of the day unbalanced and against NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but we don't exclude a work from an academic just because they're Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The context in which Arvidson's ideas presented here within the article (too many one sided views) coupled with how the ideology creates a biasing effect against the topic per the author's book is problematic. There are quite a few claims in the Arvidson book that shows he really just doesn't care for the study of Indo-European linguistics and mythology per his political stance which is bias. Question: are opinions derived from books written by authors with a strong right leaning political ideology allowed here on wikipedia and considered 'reliable sources'. Geog1 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally yes, unless the strong right-leaning political ideology gets into WP:FRINGE beliefs such as pro-eugenicism or other racist / supremacist opinions and assuming they're operating within an area of specialty and would not, otherwise, be considered unreliable regardless of their personal politics.
    I'll be honest, when dealing with academic sources, I don't generally look up the ideological position of the author unless it's somehow actually relevant. And I don't believe it's at all relevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is rather naive and not very reasonable that an author's background or ideology wouldn't be relevant and that due diligence shouldn't be given to an author's background when choosing sources that would write fairly or reasonably on a subject. I don't think a book Sean Hannity would write on socialism would be received well in a wiki article pertaining to said subject and would raise editorial ire fairly quickly. We are dealing with much the same situation here. Geog1 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean Hannity is not an academic and does not write academic books. As such he's rather irrelevant to this discussion and the context of my response which was specific to the review of academic books and journals. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Academics do not represent completely neutral views. Certainly not Arvidsson. Just like Sean Hannity doesn't. Separating the two is not as useful as you think. Both entities are capable of publishing highly skewed views on any position. You're essentially discouraging due diligence here. I don't find that very academic and suspect in its own right. Geog1 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV does not mean that a source must be neutral. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing up the highly biased and skewed Arvidsson text as not within the many guidelines within Wikipedia's NPOV is fair game. You are trying to set your own perimiters here. Geog1 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Anyone familiar with Indo-European studies is aware that the Journal of Indo-European Studies is a major, respected, and influential peer-reviewed publication in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. There really isn't anything wrong with the Journal itself, especially if you read it, but the sources presented have a peculiar bias against the journal. Geog1 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're free to think there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm genuinely not sure what we're meant to do while writing an encyclopedia article about it? Are we supposed to adopt a totally novel process than when writing about anything else? (To the best of my ability, these aren't rhetorical questions.) Remsense ‥ 论 00:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, we just need to build out the article more regarding its reception, especially with discussion from individuals who actually have a background and standing in historical linguistics. For example, a quick look at the editor-in-chief since 2020 reveals quotes that actually reflect how the journal is perceived in for example philology and historical linguistics (eg. "a long-standing journal with a stellar reputation and a global reach"). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are opinions about the journal expressed in secondary sources that have questionable merit. Especially when you compare these opinions to what's actually in the journal. This is indeed very problematic and presents a rather unique problem here. I don't know the best way to remedy this either other than through continued dialogue. Perhaps maybe we can strike a harmonious balance. At the moment, something is very wrong here. Geog1 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately the article (as with all Wikipedia articles) needs to be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the journal. What editors think of the journal is of no import, and what editors of the journal say about it is of limited use. The solution is to find additional secondary sources that discuss the journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see some edits made over at the JIES article but to me it seems making a whole subsection about Pearson does more to draw away what the journal is about. The journal is not Pearson. Contributors and editors like Mallory, Polome, Adams, and Kristiansen made the journal by and large what it is today. Not Pearson. We still have some ways to go here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the solution is to simply build out the rest of the article and then return to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The secondary sources in the article clearly indicate your opinion - that the presence of a known white-supremacist as a founder of the journal is irrelevant to the reputation of the journal - is not universal among academics. I concur with bloodofox. If you're concerned about how the journal is depicted then you find sources that support it being described as not an armature of Mankind Quarterly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The limited secondary sources that are highly biased in the wiki as it stands does in no way represent a universal opinion among academics in and of themselves. The journal is simply not being represented fairly based on the texts available. Pearson's involvement is vastly over stated and the idea that its an extension of himself somehow is completely unfounded. Geog1 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok this is getting repetitive. I'm sorry you haven't got the response here you hoped for. But the advice to improve the article by finding additional academic sources is good advice and would serve you better than suggesting we should never treat the criticism of a journal with a white supremacist founder as due because said criticism came from a Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you're discouraging due diligence and whether or not a source can be viewed as reliable or not. If you would just read the journal yourself you would see its not at all what Arvidsson is trying to paint it as. Geog1 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but do your own research isn't appropriate in this case. Arvidsson is reliable because he's an academic writing about the topic that is at the literal core of his academic domain. He is, flatly put, a WP:BESTSOURCE for criticism of Indo-European studies. As such it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude him. However that does not mean that Wikipedia should treat his position as privileged in some way. If other WP:BESTSOURCES disagree with him then they would be due inclusion too. This is why you've been told to find other sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ardvisson as a 'best choice' in this is simply your opinion. You're a socialist after all, so apparently he seems reasonable to you. Many others would not feel the same way you do. Sorry if you do no understand that. But feel free to continue the 'repetive' conversation here. At the end of the day all I see is due diligence being discouraged and a lack of NPOV. Geog1 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have reached the point in the conversation when I ask you to read WP:NPA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no personal attack. My tone was the same as yours. For all intended purposes that would mean you should read that yourself. If you would like to end this conversation cordially, now would be fine. We simply don't agree. Geog1 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a socialist after all... is, in context, a personal attack as you're suggesting my own, openly stated, politics makes me incapable of recognizing whether an academic is operating within his specialty - which he did his doctoral thesis on - and are trying to dismiss my advice accordingly. I would kindly ask you to strike that comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said politely that we should end this conversation as its turning out to be very, very unproductive. We don't agree on anything apparently and I don't take very well to people discouraging due diligence and setting their own standards on how wiki guidelines should be viewed. Please, stop. Geog1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, if that's what sources say about it, then that's what sources say about it. The sources we're citing there are largely academics with at least some degree of expertise in Indo-European studies, race science or far-right movements. Also, we're really only devoting a few sentences to the matter, which are roughly balanced in terms of focus - two for scholars who criticize it; one noting the existence of the boycott, and two from Tucker and Mallory defending the journal (and the defenses are given slightly more text!) Having them exactly balance out like that isn't necessary of course, but it makes it harder to argue that they're being given undue weight - aside from the fact that the page says almost nothing else about the journal at all, which is solved by finding other sources covering other aspects. (I will say that I did a quick search right now and found only a few passing mentions, all of which were about the race science connection to one degree or another. That really does seem to be the only aspect of the journal that has received meaningful external coverage. See eg. [1]: Although Duranton-Crabol (1988: 148), fifteen years ago, pointed with alarm to his involvement, [Bruce] Lincoln appears to be the first US-based Indo-European specialist to openly comment on the worrisome background of Roger Pearson, the publisher of the prestigious Journal of Indo-European Studies since its founding in 1973. Notable mostly because it's a secondary source describing such concerns, which lends additional weight to at least mentioning them.) ...also, they point out that Bruce Lincoln, who we cite in the article, is actually an Indo-European specialist; we might want to look at what we're citing him for and see if there are more details there. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geog1: You must notify other editors involved in a discussion (i.e. me) when you post it to this noticeboard. There is a big red notice instructing you to this at the top of the page. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really get what we can do here. "Neutral" specifically is a technical term meaning in proportion to what the independent, reliable secondary sources have said on the topic, and the limits of editorial discretion do not extend to excluding the what seems to be the views expressed by the majority of those sources, as indicated by the participants here. If the sources say that the earth is flat, then we can only report that that is what the sources say. Wikipedia does not have the resources to conduct original research, and it would be disallowed by policy even if we were able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just one other thing I have to bring up here. I noticed the Tucker quote had the text about Pearson's involvement regarding published material in JIES flagged as dubious for a while. I don't know by who. Eventually it was removed because someone (not sure who) did research noting Pearson had published 3 articles in the journal. That would seem to be original research. When we look at the Berlet and Lyons quote being used in the article, they claim the Journal is 'racialist' and 'ayranist' but it is a linguistic journal not 'racialist' or whatever. This can be seen by just reading a few entries from the journal which can easily be found online just like the Berlet and Lyons quote was easily pulled for online yet we see that characterization of the journal persist. This appears to present some inconsistency on how editing policy is being used.

    I see the comment by Aquillion mentions how if 'reliable' sources report the earth is flat, then according to wikipedia policy, its fair game to put into an article and discuss. While I understand this is a policy, I'm not entirely sure if its serving us well here. This could open the door of Pandora's box for all sorts of misinformation to be presented in wiki articles.

    Finally, I took a look at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society article. I see an entire section with no sources entitled 'discussion papers' which essentially relates to the journal's content. No one for some reason seems bothered that its not sourced but I have doubts that a similar section in the JIES article would go without scrutiny if we were to say flesh out what the content of the journal is actually like. Again, it would appear inconsistencies are presented here regarding wikipedia policy being applied to two different journals.

    I don't know what can be done here, but like I said before in the JIES talk page, I'd welcome more information that could help balance out the article a little more. However, I also feel this is a situation where wikipedia policy is failing a particular article and I doubt this is the only one. In the future, it may be useful to revisit wikipedia policy and see if changes could be made to help prevent or better remedy situations like this.

    Best,

    Geog1 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Geog1Thank you for bringing up these important points. It's clear that there's a need for careful scrutiny and consistent application of Wikipedia's policies to ensure accuracy and neutrality in our articles.
    Regarding the Tucker quote and Pearson's involvement, it's essential to rely on verifiable sources and avoid original research. If a reliable source supports the claim that Pearson published in JIES, then it can be included. However, if the source is questionable, it should be approached with caution.
    The characterization of the JIES as "racialist" and "Aryanist" is a serious allegation. It's crucial to base such claims on solid evidence from reliable sources. Simply reading a few articles may not be sufficient to make such a sweeping judgment. If there are specific examples of racist or discriminatory content in the journal, they should be cited and discussed in a neutral manner.
    The Aquillion comment about the "flat Earth" scenario highlights a potential limitation of Wikipedia's policies. While it's important to be open to diverse viewpoints, it's equally important to maintain a high standard of quality and accuracy. In cases where there is a clear consensus among reliable sources, it's important to prioritize that consensus over fringe theories.
    The issue of unsourced content in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society is a valid concern. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose of such sections. If these sections are intended to stimulate discussion and debate, rather than present definitive facts, then they may not require strict adherence to sourcing guidelines. Tattipedia (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything being discussed is appropriately sourced to highly reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please have the respect for other people not to reply with a textwall of obvious chatbot glurge. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    notability concerns

    [edit]

    Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim

    [edit]

    Some IPv6 has opinions about Open Orthodoxy & David Bar-Hayim. Can someone who knows about such things please take a look? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    "In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.": https://books.google.com/books?id=gt8SDAAAQBAJ&q=Muslims+casualties+millions+Balkans&pg=PA93

    Why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths as is stated in the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction article. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans".

    I would like to get other viewpoints and advice related to these. Theofunny (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Theofunny, the way I understand your interpretation, when Biondich says "the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million", you think this includes those expelled, right? So you think the word "casualties" do not mean only deaths. Is this correct? Bogazicili (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes exactly. Like even in a war, the term casualties is quite flexible and is a source for confusion as it could mean all who are dead or all are dead as well as injured. Theofunny (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Later in the page he uses the term "victims" for "dead, wounded, and refugees". I don't think the term is as flexible as you think. Bogazicili (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally "casualties" includes dead and wounded. Including refugees is a bit novel but I don't think it's unduly confusing provided it's described with care. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is, is my rewording in the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction correct? The historian Mark Biondich estimates that, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, more than three million Muslims from the Balkan area died, and around two million Muslims were displaced. Bogazicili (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those numbers don't seem to line up with what the OP posted as a quote from the source. Can you please elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had interpreted the quote from the source as how Biondich calculated the number of deaths (casualties). Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans." He says 2 million left between 1878 and 1912. He says more than another million ("When one adds...") left or died between 1912 and 1923. (The number who died or left 1912-1923 is added to the number who left 1878-1912 to equal "far exceeds three million".) The source does not support any number that died because he groups those who left in the same estimate. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah my concern is that the two figures seem to be divided chronologically but not by type. So we can't determine what percentage of the three million were killed rather than expelled or wounded. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theofunny+1 Tattipedia (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone! Looks like I was incorrect in this one due to my misinterpretation of the word "casualty".

    I was also confused because McCarthy and Kaser give much higher number of deaths, around 5 million, in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. So 3 million made more sense.

    Now I see that it has to do with dates. It should have been clear from the quote actually, but looks like I missed it.

    The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 is available through Wikipedia Library. Page 94:

    When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans.157

    Source 157:

    157. Mazower, The Balkans, pp. xxxvii–xxxviii; and McCarthy, Ottoman Peoples, 149–62

    Biondich gives same numbers and sources in The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Volume 4: Violence chapter The Balkan Wars, page 1:

    The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans.1
    ...
    1 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (New York: Random House, 2002), xxxvii–xxxviii;
    Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Arnold, 2001), 149–62.

    I don't have Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire. But the book seems to cover 1912-1922 period of Ottoman Empire [4]. So this aligns with the quote from Biondich.

    This is what Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History says, pages xxxvii–xxxviii

    Christian Europe’s blindness to Muslim victims overlooked the huge movements of populations triggered off by Ottoman decline. “People often talk in the West about transporting all the Turks, in other words Muslims, to Asia in order to turn Turkey in Europe into a uniquely Christian empire,” Ami Boué had written in 1854. “This would be a decree as inhumane as the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, or of Protestants from France, and indeed scarcely feasible since the Europeans always forget that in Turkey in Europe the Muslims are mostly Slavs or Albanians, whose right to the land is as ancient as that of their Christian compatriots.” Yet, according to one estimate, nearly 5 million Muslims were driven from former Ottoman lands in the Balkans and the Black Sea region in the century after 1821; from the Balkans themselves between 1.7 and 2 million Muslims immigrated voluntarily or involuntarily between 1878 and 1913 to what would later become the republic of Turkey. The Turkish language declined as a regional lingua franca, urban settlements were taken over by Christian incomers and Ottoman buildings were deliberately demolished or left to rot. The dynamiting of mosques and other architectural masterpieces in Bosnia-Hercegovina in the early 1990s was thus the continuation in an extreme form of a process of de-Islamicization that had begun decades earlier.19

    So the general confusion we had in Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll_and_casualty_figures: has to do with dates and geographic areas (Balkans only or including other areas). Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Mark Mazower only talks about displaced, but the 5 million displaced after 1821 is also in other sources.

    I'll fix the wording in affected articles in Wikipedia. Bogazicili (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You should add the displaced figures by Mark Mazower in the article and and a displaced section in the infobox too with the other sources and Mark M. Theofunny (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't do everything today, but I'll make some of the changes later. I already changed the wording in the article [5] Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:BRICS

    [edit]

    It is a dispute in about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS#cite_note-:2-173

    Nobody seem willing to verify my citation therefore I lost this edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BRICS Dark Flow (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give more details and a link to the discussion at the talk page? Right now it's not clear what the dispute was about. Also, you might want to review WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume good faith. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Alaexis , yeah I can https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BRICS#Much_more_efficient_than_SWIFT .
    I didn't get notified of your reply, please use the @user citation it would make it easier to keep up with the conversation. Dark Flow (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ( @Walter you are welcome to join ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Flow (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Contradictory Claims on HTS Governance and Human Rights Violations

    [edit]

    The article on Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian paramilitary organisation that has been designated a terrorist organisation by a variety of countries, contains contradictory information about the governance of HTS in occupied territories.

    The Governance section claims HTS has generally not interfered in womens' lives, has been tolerant towards religious minorities, and has been lenient towards civilians. These statements are based primarily on a chapter written by Dareen Khalifa in the book The Rule is for None but Allah, published by Oxford University Press. Khalifa’s work relies heavily on interviews with HTS leaders. For many claims about HTS' tolerance, the source she gives is "author interview, Jolani [the leader of HTS]", "author interview, HTS commander" or similar.

    However, as an anonymous user pointed out, the section Human rights violations and war crimes (which for transparency I authored) contradicts this, citing multiple lengthy reports by the UN, EU, US, and human rights organisations, which document enforced dress codes, repression of women, executions for "crimes" such as blasphemy, forced disappearances of political opponents and activists, persecution of minorities, torture, among others. The governance section makes no mention of these reports, or that much of the current information in this sections relies on interviews with HTS leadership.

    The primary dispute appears to be that the users @Whoopsawa and @Shadowwarrior8 consider Khalifa's chapter a reliable (or authoritative, given that her claims about HTS tolerance are stated as fact) source, because even though many of her claims are based on interviews with HTS leadership, the chapter is in a book published by Oxford University Press. The user @Shadowwarrior8 is also of the opinion that the reports by the US government are "propaganda", although the user has not addressed the reports by other institutions that come to similar conclusions as the US reports.

    I am the other party to this dispute, and am of the opinion that the variety of reports by multiple - in my view credible - international organisations and human rights groups (and yes, the US too) should at least bear enough significance to warrant a re-writing of the Governance section, making it clear that much of the information regarding HTS' tolerance is based on HTS' self-portrayal in interviews and that there exist multiple credible reports that document a rather draconian and repressive governance policy employed by HTS. For example the European Union Agency for Asylum concludes that HTS has interfered "in every aspect of civilian life" and notes that women have been whipped or even executed for violating religious dress codes (p. 88).

    The discussion on the talk page can be found here. Neither @Whoopsawa, @Shadowwarrior8 or I have engaged in edit warring, but the way this discussion is going appears to be an endless back-and-forth, so it would be nice to get outside opinions.

    Sarrotrkux (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I successfully removed the promotional content from this article?

    [edit]

    The owner of emailSanta.com made WP:COI and WP:YESPROMO edits at his own article yesterday. I tried to remove the "fluff" and restore the WP:NPOV. Has the WP:NPOV been restored, or is it still too promotional? Félix An (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, looks better now Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits to “Game Science”

    [edit]

    Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. As the first subsection deals with a POV edit and the disputed edits create a POV more favorable to Game Science, I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't actually a neutrality problem. You've been arguing against things like attribution of quotes and secondary sources. Heck you tried to argue with me that attribution automatically casts doubt on the attributed statement. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I’ve said, the first subsection is about a neutrality issue. I am contesting that change because it violates NPOV, which explicitly mentions and forbids casting doubt through attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribution is not automatically casting doubt - it's good practice dealing with quotes or opinions to attribute them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to NPOV for RSes that state factual information, as I’ve quoted the policy to show in the discussion on the article’s talk page. I encourage you (and anyone else) to reply there for the added context of the quote. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a newspaper. It doesn't hurt the article to says "according to SCMP" and your resistance to that is perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I and a policy supported by community consensus agree that adding in-text attribution when we already have inline citations unnecessarily casts doubt. If you disagree with the policy, try and get consensus to change it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your policy interpretation is weak. And, generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically your policy citation is to WP:SKYBLUE and this is not a "the sky is blue" situation here but is, rather, a newspaper reporting on an acquisition where the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how "the acquiring stakeholder refused to comment" makes the fact that an acquisition happened doubtable and require in-text attribution. (Also, I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to cite an essay on inline citation, which is about the [1], not "according to...". My reply here assumes you were contesting whether the claim Hero Games acquired a 19% stake in Game Science through its wholly-owned subsidiary Tianjin Hero Financial Holding Technology in 2017, but sold the stake in 2022 falls under Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources.)

    generally, a person who says, "I have consensus" doesn't.

    You may as well tell that to everyone who cites a policy to remove text it explicitly forbids. Anyways, I'll be moving this to the article talk page soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu You do not have permission to refactor my comments please restore this discussion to its prior state. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, if you say so. I'll transclude it there then. It's much better to centralize discussion in one place. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that South Morning Post reported on the relation between Hero Games and Game Science. It is also clear that Hero Games stated that they couldn't comment on the relation when asked directly about it. Using wikivoice is inappropiate, and an attribution is needed. Secondly, don't act like you have a consensus by proxy for your unilateral stance though a (misrepresentation of a) policy. --Cold Season (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am replying on the article's talk page to centralize discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You brought the discussion to the noticeboard. This is borderline disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very common to notify and invite noticeboards to comment elsewhere. I invited participants of these noticeboards to comment on Talk:Game Science. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

    [edit]

    @C at Access: Circulating on relevant noticeboards... essentially if contentious oligarch label should be mentioned in intro Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NextEra Energy

    [edit]

    Hi editors, I'm Matt and I work for NextEra Energy. I currently have two edit requests (first one linked here that I think are directly applicable to this noticeboard. Content added some time ago by a now-banned user (Surge of Reason), which was largely copied from the Florida Power & Light article, creates some neutrality issues, particularly as relates to WP:STRUCTURE. The above linked request is to move content in a section titled "Environmental issues" about a power plant that was never built – and therefore can't be an issue – to the History section, in line with WP:NOCRIT.

    The second request is a bit meatier and involves removing some content that is pulled directly from a source without attribution and/or uses poor sourcing for negative information that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and moving what remains to the History section, again to improve WP:STRUCTURE in line with NOCRIT. I would appreciate any feedback or help you can offer.  Because of my COI I have avoided making these changes myself and I'd like to have this page be reflective of our overall desire to have the page be neutral and factual. ~~~~ NextEraMatt (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, as an editor I genuinely appreciate these requests being made in a responsible and transparent manner. Remsense ‥ 论 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unwarranted promotional and COI tags on film articles

    [edit]

    Hi, I need help with some tags that have been added to two articles please:

    I'm getting pretty tired of the constant unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing (which got removed after review), then COI tags without evidence, and now suddenly it's "promotional content" - but nobody's actually pointed out what's promotional or what constitutes a conflict of interest. Here's the situation:

    1. Everything in these articles comes from proper independent sources like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat 2. Yes, some reviews are positive, but that's what the reliable sources reported 3. My only contact with the filmmaker was to check facts like dates and get source materials 4. I have no other connection to these films or anyone involved 5. The latest tags were just slapped on without any discussion, continuing this pattern of baseless accusations

    The articles stick to Wikipedia's neutral point of view rules. If something sounds promotional, tell me what it is and I'll fix it. I'm happy to add any negative reviews too if someone can find them in reliable sources.

    You can see the whole frustrating history here:

    Can we get a fair review based on what's actually in the articles, not just assumptions and accusations? I am requesting that these unwarranted promotional content and COI tags be removed from the articles. Much appreciated!

    Stan1900 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've just discovered that the entire Reception section, which contained properly sourced reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and multiple independent critics, has been removed without discussion. This further demonstrates the issue with these arbitrary content removals. The deleted section was entirely based on reliable sources and followed Wikipedia guidelines. I have preserved the content and sources and request review of both the tags and this content removal. Stan1900 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is Talk:It's_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag here. You should know, you posted in the section. MrOllie (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie, yes, I'm aware of that discussion. The wholesale removal of a properly sourced Reception section warrants broader review. This isn't just about a tag anymore - it's about the removal of verified content from reliable sources without justification. Stan1900 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't "removed without discussion" as you just stated, then, was it? You've had an account since 2017, and in that time 100% of your editing has been about the films of Shannon Alexander, and often quite promotional in nature. If you don't want people to think you have a COI, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric, and strongly consider finding a way to improve the encyclopedia that is entirely unrelated to Alexander. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie,
    1. The Reception section was actually just removed without proper discussion. A few quick comments declaring content "promotional" without specific examples doesn't constitute real consensus.
    2. Your statement about my editing history is wrong. My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. My recent focus on documenting these films stems from noticing a gap in coverage of internationally-recognized work - I've said countless times.
    3. There's nothing "promotional" about including properly sourced reviews from reliable publications. If positive reviews exist in reliable sources, documenting them isn't promotion - it's proper encyclopedic coverage.
    The focus should be on specific content concerns, not repeated unfounded attacks and assumptions about editor's motivations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Katherine Langford's article, where you wanted to correct information about a project she'd recently been in. Who made that film, I wonder? diff. Dishonesty is not going to help - every time you post something like this these 'attacks and assumptions' you mention appear to become better supported. MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just blatant forum shopping of a grievance previously discussed at the Helpdesk and now at COIN [6].
    Also, why does the user continue to lie that their edits to Katherine Langford were completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander?
    Here is one of the edits [7]: Langford will appear in her first feature film, The Misguided, an independent comedic drama by Shannon Alexander. In actual fact, all of the user's edits to that article relate to Langford being in a film by Shannon Alexander.
    Pants on fire, my friend, pants on fire... Axad12 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Stan...
    The reason the tags are in place and the reasons that the removals of material have occurred is that pretty much everyone who has commented in the various threads you've started disagrees fundamentally with what appears to be your transparent promotional agenda.
    For reference, normal editors do not (a) create promotional articles, (b) open multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC, (c) talk about when the articles will start to appear on Google searches, and (d) open multiple threads trying to strongarm other users into removing COI/PAID tags.
    That pattern of behaviour is how conflict of interest users operate, usually ones who have been paid to produce articles to order. Axad12 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie, your implication about my editing history misses the point. Like many editors, I followed connected topics that revealed gaps in coverage. Following a subject area and documenting it with reliable sources isn't wrong - it's how Wikipedia grows.
    More concerning is the removal of an entire Reception section containing properly sourced reviews from established publications. The content was based on reliable sources including Rotten Tomatoes and Film Threat. If specific statements appeared promotional, they should have been identified and discussed, not wholesale removed.
    This pattern of removing sourced content while making assumptions about contributors' motivations vioaltes Wikipedia's principles. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was discussed in the relevant place [8] and the consensus was for removal. Another user has since added back the Rotten Tomatoes part of the Reception section, by which we can reasonably assume that they agree with the rest of the removal.
    As I have stated to you before, the WP:ONUS is on the editor wishing to include material, not on those wishing to remove it. There is clearly no consensus in favour of inclusion, so arguing for inclusion in 3 completely separate threads (this thread, this one [9] and this one [10]) is pointless.
    In any event, it is obviously contrary to Wikipedia policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews, whether they are good or bad, so your line of argument is a very bad one in any case. Removal was thus entirely non-controversial. Axad12 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, your interpretation of both consensus and policy continues to be problematic:
    1. The "consensus" you reference was a single editor agreeing with you, while ignoring multiple objections. The fact that another editor has since restored part of the Reception section actually demonstrates that there isn't consensus for wholesale removal.
    2. Your interpretation of WP:ONUS is incorrect in this context. The content was already established with proper reliable sources. The burden shifts to those seeking removal to demonstrate why properly sourced content should be deleted.
    3. Your claim "it is obviously contrary to Wikipedia policy for an article about anything to be composed almost entirely of reviews" is simply false. Film articles regularly contain substantial reception sections when supported by reliable sources - see WP:FILMPLOT and WP:FILMSOURCE. The removed content was based entirely on independent, reliable sources providing critical analysis.
    4. Regarding multiple discussion venues - each serves a distinct purpose and was used appropriately. Characterizing proper use of Wikipedia's established channels as "pointless" misrepresents how Wikipedia works.
    The core issue remains: properly sourced content was removed without valid policy-based justification or genuine consensus. Stan1900 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are completely wrong. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The core content issues remain:
    The removed material was based on reliable sources and followed standard article formatting. No concrete policy violations were identified.
    Removals occurred without consensus, and often without any substantive talk page discussion.
    Vague claims of "promotional" tone have been asserted without pointing to specific passages or policies.
    AI detection results are being misused to discredit good faith, policy-compliant contributions.
    If there are proper neutrality or sourcing concerns with the removed content, please identify the exact issues so they can be addressed collaboratively. But so far, the removals appear to be based more on unfounded personal suspicions than objective policy issues.
    Wiki articles rightly include reception sections with mainstream press reviews. That's not inherently 'promotional' it's documenting verifiable real-world coverage. Removing properly cited review content is detrimental to readers and sets a terrible precedent.
    I remain committed to working with anyone who has constructive, policy-based feedback on improving these articles further. But edit-warring removals and personal attacks need to stop in favor of substantive, collaborative discussion. We deserves better.
    Let's get back to focusing on content and policies, not personal battles. I'm happy to discuss any neutrality problems if you identify concrete examples. But so far I've yet to see a compelling rationale for these removals of policy-compliant material. Stan1900 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only important issue here is that, despite you starting multiple different threads in various different arenas, no one else agrees with you.
    Therefore the tags remain and the removals remain.
    You just have to accept that you are in the minority and move on. Continuing to argue is simply disruptive. Axad12 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, your characterization of "no one else agrees" is both incorrect and misses the point. Several editors, including DMacks, have confirmed proper licensing and sourcing, and @Aafi has confirmed the images are restored after permissions verification. The issue isn't about counting votes - it's about following policy.
    The systematic removal of:
    1. Properly licensed images (with verified VRT permissions)
    2. Well-sourced content from reliable publications
    3. Standard film article sections matching Wikipedia's format
    ...cannot be justified by simply claiming "you're in the minority." Wikipedia is not a vote-counting exercise - it's about following established policies for content inclusion. The continued removal of policy-compliant content while dismissing legitimate concerns is what's being noted and actually disruptive here. Stan1900 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in the image issue. I am talking about the tags and the removal of the Reception section.
    The consensus is again you and you are consistently arguing contrary to policy, so the distinction you draw above is rather pointless. You have also been demonstrated to be a liar. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12,
    I strongly object to your repeated accusations of dishonesty. If you believe I have misrepresented anything, I ask that you provide clear evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Wikipedia is built on good faith and such language is both unproductive and contrary this platform.
    Regarding the tags and the Reception section, I have consistently argued my case based on policy, including WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have sought to include well-sourced and neutrally presented content.
    Consensus is not determined by the number of voices in a discussion but by the strength of the arguments grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I remain focused to working within those frameworks. Stan1900 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided evidence of your dishonesty upthread here [11]. The evidence is so clear that I will happily once again call you a liar. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you consistently seem to believe that consensus is whatever you believe is correct, disregarding the opinions of every other user you encounter. Axad12 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Regarding transparency and process:
    - Paid editing tags were initially added but subsequently removed through proper channels after review
    - Wiki images were challenged but verified and reinstated through official processes
    - All content is based on reliable, independent sources
    - I served as an authorized representative specifically for image licensing/copyright verification, which was done transparently through proper Wikipedia channels
    2. Regarding consensus, let's look at the actual outcomes:
    - Multiple administrators have reviewed and approved image reinstatements
    - Paid editing tags were removed after proper review
    - Content has been verified through reliable sources
    - I've made requested changes when specific issues were identified
    3. This pattern shows I'm following Wikipedia's processes correctly. While I'm eager to expand my contributions to other topics and articles, I'm consistently forced to defend properly sourced and verified content instead of moving forward with new contributions.
    I’ve repeatedly suggested we focus on addressing specific content concerns through collaboration, but this has been met with nothing but resistance, preventing any meaningful progress. Stan1900 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked [12] following a thread at ANI [13]. Axad12 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting

    [edit]

    Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1264625217"