Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Request for feedback on recent edit to the Mohammad A. Arafat article

Request for feedback on recent edit to the Mohammad A. Arafat article

Hello, I recently replaced the following sentence in the article:

"He is wanted by the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh on charges of crimes against humanity and genocide."

with:

"On October 17, 2024, the newly reconstituted International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, under the interim government headed by Muhammad Yunus, issued an arrest warrant for Arafat in connection with alleged crimes against humanity and genocide during the July–August 2024 unrest. The tribunal has faced criticism from human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, over fair trial concerns."

I made this change to improve neutrality, sourcing, and clarity in line with BLP policy. Could other editors please review this edit and advise if any adjustments are needed? Also, please check my last edit. Thanks! DarkTI (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here in addition to the article talk page; however, I note @DarkTI has been indefinitely blocked as of 18 May 2025. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArafatHassanWiKi Erp (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

American Institute for Economic Research

So, this has been simmering for a while now, the entire talk page archive has been more or less the same thing, I figured it'll be better to get it somewhere there are actually people, since clearly the few editors who have the page watched (myself included) have been unable to get to a consensus that others recognise exist.

I am notifying Iljhgtn, Ixocactus and North8000 as the participants of the current discussion, as well as C.J. Griffin, Llll5032, Doug Weller and Hob Gadling, who I believe are the main editors who have edited the page in the last year or so.

The locus of the dispute is, as far as I can tell, essentially boils down to the only third party coverage the organisation having received being mostly focused on their COVID shenanigans. Editors often argue this is WP:UNDUE or biased, but we don't really have independent, reliable secondary sources covering more (presumably) positive aspects of the organisation, at least as far as I can tell, and nobody's bothered to send me any or post them to the talk page. The preferred versions of the articles appear to instead more heavily rely on first-party sources, primary or otherwise, which I believe is contrary to policy on the matter.

Personally, I don't believe the organisation actually merits an article, for the same reason we have notability guidelines in the first place (WP:WHYN): lacking WP:NORG sources, we are unable to write an article people are happy with, but I am disinclined to nominate the article for AFD for a second time (though I could be convinced otherwise).

I would like to invite thoughts from outside the half dozen or so editors that frequent the page though, so here we are. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather not split or attempt to duplicate the discussion. But one comment might be useful: I wouldn't classify the missing content as "positive", I'd classify it as the missing information on what they do. If it's straightforward factual information where it's veracity is not disputed and people aren't arguing that inclusion distorts coverage, IMO primary sourcing is OK. Lots of basic enclyclopedic information about organizations (particularly non-profit ones) is enclyclopedic and necessary for good coverage but not covered/repeated in secondary sources which typically consider that too boring or a repetition of basic facts. Wikipedia's systemic bias-enabling issues can enable knocking out enclyclopedic coverage of organizations but we shouldn't let that happen. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Scientology has an RfC

Scientology has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

(Posting here on NPOVN because some new neutral participants would be welcome to this more general WP discussion which might otherwise only get attention from niche editors.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Significant bias on Oprah Winfrey?

The page does include mention of several criticisms, but it seems to me that the article is written to distract any blame away from Oprah by burying these in other sections instead if a dedicated controversies section, which is absolutely warranted given the sheer amount of scandals Oprah had a role in or often was outright pretty much the sole/main enabler (e.g. Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz), often due to negligence. The article also seems to surround some criticisms with flattering words towards Oprah, such as "Though X, Y", where X is a controversy and Y a an unrelated "good thing". Wallby (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Controversies sections are frowned upon. Generally, articles should not have them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

With that being said, if there are elements of her career, such as ties to right-wing wellness figures like the two mentioned above, which are discussed by reliable sources there's nothing preventing people from inserting them organically into appropriate areas of the article. An absence of "controversies" sections doesn't mean we are limited to hagiography. Just that we don't section off criticism in a dedicated subheading. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that I'm just saying sectioning is bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I get it. Mostly clarifying for the OP. Simonm223 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I read WP:STRUCTURE and it indeed opposes that. All right. Then my focus shouldn't be on that. Wallby (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Holy shit, Michael Jackson has no controversies section

It doesn't even list controversies under see also. What the hell is going on here? It even brushes off Leaving Neverland in the way that is succeeded by a paragraph of "rebuttal" documentaries. Wallby (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

His controversies are mentioned in the lead paragraphs, and are covered in depth in sections such as Michael_Jackson#First_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_and_first_marriage_(1993–1995), Michael_Jackson#Documentary,_Number_Ones,_second_child_abuse_allegations_and_acquittal_(2002–2005), as well as in immense detail in the spinoff articles 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and Trial of Michael Jackson. We need not create devoted controversy sections bluntly called "Controversies" merely to appease the desires of scandal-seeking or impatient readers. See also the essay Wikipedia:Criticism, especially WP:CRITS. 03:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If someone adds a controversies section to an article, that's a strong indicator they're not interested in neutrality. If there's something worth adding to the article, then it should be added to the article just like anything else, not separated based on how "controversial" it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The essay you mentioned isn't an official accepted policy, but it does reference the policy WP:STRUCTURE, which indeed mentions opposition to pro and anti sections.

I disagree that the controversies are mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Only 1993 is mentioned in the introduction. The introduction continues that in 2005 he was acquitted. Then no mention at all of 2019, but the introduction finishes with covering charities he founded and awards he won.

Exactly how prominent 2019 was is explained in Leaving Neverland "Leaving Neverland triggered a media backlash against Jackson and a reassessment of his legacy.".

The only reason that Leaving Neverland was taken down was not because it was deemed non factual in court, but because HBO had signed themself into a non-disparagement agreement in 1992. It is deeply ironic how a Jackson estate representative John Branca said in 2019..

“I’ve never seen a media organization fight so hard to keep a secret,” he said. “We’re saying let’s get all the facts out there, not just two stories from two accusers with a financial interest.”

— https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/judge-michael-jackson-estate-leaving-neverland-1203342191/

after forcing HBO to take the documentary down, claiming that "2 - 1 = 2". Wallby (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd split that post into two elements:

1. No specific "controversies" section. IMO those are a bad idea anyway.
2. Controversies are under-covered in the (top level) article. IMO definitely a problem.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Unsatisfied with third opinion Talk:Oprah Winfrey#Controversy

A user @EducatedRedneck has responded to the third opinion request, but I don't agree with the outcome. I am arguing for the inclusion of criticism in the introduction, even if it would mean rewording some of what I wrote. But rather it has been moved into the article (where some criticism already was) and I feel handled by an attempt at flattery to falsely make it seem it has been addressed when it hasn't "out of respect for you and your research, I kept all your content but moved it". Wallby (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Your edit[1] was a iffily-sourced and somewhat off-topic WP:LEDEBOMB, so not viable. That said I am surprised there is nothing in the lede about Oprah Winfrey's role in the en-wooment of health in the USA – surely that is something covered in RS? Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The lede does contain this sentence: She has been criticized for unleashing a confession culture, promoting controversial self-help ideas,[15] and having an emotion-centered approach,[16] and has also been praised for overcoming adversity to become a benefactor to others.[17] Meanwhile the article itself contains tons of criticism elaborating on these points. SamanthaG (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are those criticisms grouped together with closing praise? That comes across to me a style of writing intentionally trying to distract from the criticisms. Wallby (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Because elaborating on each criticism in the lede while ignoring all the praise would violate WP:UNDUE.SamanthaG (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You added a full paragraph to the lead, which is WP:UNDUE given the body of the article, and filled it with references that mostly don't even mention Oprah. There's the "Sham" book which mentions her several times, and the vox article... and that's it. The reality is, Oprah's not all that controversial of a figure. The article should reflect perspectives in rough proportion to their prominence among the best sources, and these criticisms just aren't all that prominent in the grand scheme of Oprah. It's possible a sentence could be justified, but you're going too hard, and making it seem like there's some conspiracy to protect Oprah doesn't help your case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry Wallby isn't pleased with the 3O outcome, but my response has nothing to do with Oprah herself. It's simply that I didn't see that detail anywhere in the text body. As has been noted elsewhere, MOS:LEAD states, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. If Wallby feels that more criticism should be in the lead, the solution is to expand the body of the article first, then summarize that in the lead. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Man

New changes at Man could use review:

In many societies, men experience certain forms of social inequality compared to women, as documented in several cross-national studies., additionally, misandry—prejudice or discrimination against men—is often less recognized or addressed in academic and public discourse. and manifests itself in various ways, for example: one in six male experiences sexual assault, men typically receive less support after being victims of it, and rape of males is stigmatized.discrimination against men in female-dominated workplaces is more prevalent than discrimination against women in male-dominated workplaces., Domestic violence against men is similarly stigmatized, although men make up half of the victims in heterosexual couples.

Discussion is here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles related to trans rights in the UK

I have noticed a number of users editorialising articles to create pages for non notable gender critical academics (i.e. Joanna Phoenix) and remove balanced factual material regarding groups such as for women Scotland as well as lists of deceased trans people. These edits do not appear to be made in good faith or in line with Wikipedia rules on notability and neutral point of view and I would ask for a review by others outside the issue. Many thanks. 2A00:23C7:CB03:7F01:FC1D:EF13:73B4:DFB3 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you be bit more specific as to which articles you are concerned about? Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This page made me aware of the issue and edits made by this editor compounded my concerns given the nature of edits/talk contributions and pages edited. Given how contentious this area is in the UK I feel it would benefit from additional scrutiny. Thank you. 2A00:23C7:CB03:7F01:11FD:D918:AA49:E2D0 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been notified of this discussion by a ping, but the comments are so general that I don’t see anything I should reply to. Yes, I edit in gensex regularly. That means that my edits are always subject to scrutiny by other editors with various views on this topic. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC) 

I raised it here rather than constant back and forth given issues of notability and content. I assume good faith as always, but feel it would be wise to allow other editors to consider as I have concerns on point of view and this is currently a very fraught issue in the UK. I feel neither you or I are neutral enough to do this properly. 2A00:23C7:CB03:7F01:11FD:D918:AA49:E2D0 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Due weight for reaction sections on events

Following a disagreement at Talk:2025 Guatemala City bus crash#Reaction content, I'd like to open up discussion more generally for how to treat "reactions" sections. When does a reaction meet WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE to warrant inclusion? To use an example from this article, it says: Governments such as those of Taiwan, Nicaragua, the Maldives, and El Salvador expressed their condolences to the victims' families and the Guatemalan people. The former two countries are sourced to articles from news outlets in those countries, while the latter two are sourced to the statements themselves.

I believe that merely being documented as happening does not prove that something is due without additional indication of significance or secondary analysis from sources. I argue that their inclusion fails WP:BALANCE's limitation that description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic and possibly MOS:TRIVIA's expectation that articles not try to provide examples of every instance of something. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

ArionStar's position is that the reacting parties being "major/international authorities and bodies" confers significance. Could you clarify why this doesn't meet your requirement of "additional indication of significance"? For instance, are you looking for basic facts (birth/death/nationality etc)? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like some sort of indication that it's not routine. If a later source went back and talked about the effect that a given statement had on the situation, then it would be due. But just a source saying that the leader of some country sent condolences? That's meaningless. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on WP:ROUTINE and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_60#The definition of routine coverage I don't think this coverage can be considered routine. Even if it was, the policy only says to not base an article on it, not to exclude it.

This being said, I'm not sure what is added by listing the discrete countries/leaders that offered condolences. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Vilina Vlas

Can we get some opinions on this? The hotel is famous for being a prisoner rape camp set up for Bosniak Serb paramilitary forces. How should that be tackled in the article? Should the lead describe it as a former camp first or as a hotel first? Can editors look at the sourcing in the article and see if liberal use of "allegedly" and "apparently" is warranted? As far as I know, it is proven and confirmed it was a prisoner camp where systematic rape occurred. I don't think there are any WP:RS that deny it or cast doubt on those claims, therefore "allegedly" is unnecessary in my opinion.

Pinging @Srpska1992 and @Nitroerg542 as previously involved editors. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a general whitewashing campaign across several articles, with the minimisation of crimes committed during the breakup of Yugoslavia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

In all fairness, its role during the Bosnian War is covered much more heavily in international news than its current role as a spa resort. It would probably be WP:DUE to state its former role first in the lead. I'll wait for a third opinion (or a fourth and so on), though. Srpska1992 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

As the location is most notable due to documented historic abuses I would agree its former role should be noted first. 2A00:23C7:CB03:7F01:11FD:D918:AA49:E2D0 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Edits Debunked

Dear Editors - I originally addressed this letter to the an admin, Drmies, in the Land Reform in Vietnam Talk Page, but I think it’s also important to post this here. For some reason the info-box won’t let me space my letter properly. So I uploaded it to Google Docs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h8EolNfkNm8qCczae1RP7gvWfe_wzQVu/view?usp=sharing 117.2.58.172 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE and article names

Is mentioning an article name considered stating a seriously contested assertion as a fact or violate NPOV policies?

We are specifically talking about navigational links links like See also, Infoboxes, Navbox etc..

If we write something like - During the Gaza genocide, an estimated three X people were killed. - then that could be a problem.

My perspective:

Mentioning the name of a Wikipedia article, by itself (in navigational links ), is not considered stating a seriously contested assertion as a fact. Simply referencing or naming an article does not imply any claim about the truth or contestability of its content.

Merely mentioning or linking to a Wikipedia article name serves as a form of citation rather than an endorsement of the article's contents. When editors reference other articles through wikilinks in Infoboxes, See also etc.. they are guiding readers to sources of additional information rather than asserting the accuracy or validity of the article name.

Related discussion : Talk:Gaza genocide#Part of Gaza Genocide Cinaroot (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a clear rough consensus on Talk:Gaza genocide against calling it a genocide in wikivoice. The title of the article is irrelevant. Piped links exist for a reason - and even if they didn't, we are not obligated to just link to an article with no other words before/after it. Again, there was a clear (rough) consensus against calling it a genocide in Wikivoice - and that discussion was attended by dozens of editors. Until a wider consensus is formed that allows such, it is not appropriate to call it the "Gaza genocide" in wikivoice in any article. It can, of course, be linked if the link is piped to an appropriate phrase (such as "part of the accused genocide in Gaza").

But the title being that does not give people free reign to not pipe the link or not provide context in other articles. That was made clear in the move request, where it was made clear that the move was because the title was more concise and there is no other ambiguous event that would be confused with it. It was not an approval to call the event that in wikivoice across Wikipedia - whether linked or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

a) I think Berchanhimez is misconstruing the rfc. That RFC asked specifically "Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact" The consensus was against stating it as fact in gaza genocide article’s narrative, not against referring to the article title elsewhere.

b) My question extends beyond the specific context of the gaza genocide: in general, does WP:WIKIVOICE apply to article titles in navigational links?

I don't want to rehash everything I said in the other conversation. I'll pause here to allow other uninvolved editors to share their opinions. Cinaroot (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, wikivoice does not apply to article titles. We can have article titles like Mask of Agamemnon, Priam's Treasure, Theseus Ring and Mona Lisa (despite Speculations_about_Mona_Lisa#Subject). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does not apply to article names when they are used in infoboxes, see also, navboxes, and other non-narrative navigational elements. These organizational tools help readers locate related information. Cinaroot (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

My take on this particular issue is that Gaza genocide is the WP:COMMON NAME for events that are not in dispute. Whether those events legally constitute the crime of genocide is disputed. The dispute arises from whether there was genocidal intent and not whether the events occurred. Saying that a particular event is part of the larger set of (undisputed) events does not in any way imply that the legal threshold for genocide has been met.

More generally, do common name considerations extend beyond choosing an article title itself? Is mere mention of the common name in other articles (e.g. in infoboxes) or templates a violation of WP:NPOV? EvansHallBear (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

What else would you call it? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Ignore the blue link and look at the article text. If it reads "Gaza geonocide" in Wikivoice then it violates NPOV. No where on Wikipedia should this be called a geonocide in wiki voice. Clearly many consider it a geonocide and using Gaza genocide with some form of attribution is fine. Springee (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The article's name complies fully with Wikipedia's policies. It was determined by the community, and multiple attempts to change it have not succeeded. So much precedent already exists. Mariposa War, 1971 Dhaka University massacre, Srebrenica massacre, Armenian genocide denial ( in body ), Sinjar massacre, Bibliography of the Rwandan genocide, List of films about the Rwandan genocide, International response to the Rwandan genocide, Gikondo massacre Cinaroot (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the general idea. Nobody is opposing linking it entirely. But just because the title is "Gaza genocide" does not mean that the link can be used as an excuse to put that phrase in wikivoice without clarifying it is alleged/contested. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would imagine that there is nothing that can change it from contested to uncontested, so I assume it will always be contested even if Israelis killed every single Palestinian man, woman and child in the Gaza Strip and/or the state of Israel is found guilty of the crime of genocide. What seems unclear to me in cases like this involving wikivoice is when Wikipedia should stop caring about '...but so and so disputes this'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

In a place like a "See also" section or dab notice, articles should be referred to by their titles. We don't hide article titles like Victorian prudes supposedly (but probably didn't) hid table legs. That's completely different from inline text, where caution is needed in the use of contentious titles. A rule of thumb (which I just thought of, so sue me) is that if the visible sentence would violate npov if used without [[..]] then it also violates npov with [[..]]. Piping is your friend in those cases. Zero^talk 13:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Context matters, absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I also strongly think that the "Gaza genocide" title should remain as it is. As stated and referenced within the article, a large majority of expert scholars in this area and several human rights organisations consider it a genocide; there is a clearly expressed and recorded intent from Israeli politicians; there is support from 47% of the population of Israel to actively kill absolutely all Palestinians and from 68% to completely remove all humanitarian aid to them, presumably including food and water; and mass starvation and indiscriminate killings are systematically used as weapons of extermination; complete annihilation of all structures within the entire territory and intent to annex and incorporate all of it into Israel is extremely prevalent; and as stated above, Wikipedia's standard policy is to use the term "genocide" for these types of situations for other encyclopaedia articles. David A (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Media Madness?

I came across Media Madness and it has many issues. For example, about half of the prose and some 16 (out of 22) sources in the article aren't about the book or its author. Not to mention large sections missing inline citations and the article sounding more like an essay about Trump's relationship with the media rather than an article about a book. I don't know if that's a POV, OR, SYNTH, or BLP issue, but it is a CTOP area, so it's probably best that editors with experience in dealing with such matters take a look at it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This reads like a lot of WP:SELFCITE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Any indication of WP:COI in the edit history? Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)