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

"Supreme state organ of power" and "Supreme executive and administrative organ"

Supreme state organ of power and Supreme executive and administrative organ refer to specific governance concepts in communist states, even though their titles are generic (i.e. they do not indicate that the concepts they discuss are specific to communist states) and even resemble terminology used in liberal-democratic states (for example: the constitution of Japan calls the National Diet the "the highest organ of State power" in article 41, even though Japan has never been a communist state; while Hungary's fundamental law, passed after the fall of communism by the right-wing Fidesz party, calls the country's government the "general body of executive power" and "supreme body of public administration" in article 15). Just for the titles alone, Parliaments in communist states would be a more appropriate choice - in fact, the articles themselves discuss at length the theoretical differences between the communist government system with fusion of powers versus the liberal-democratic governance system with a tripartite separation of powers, while neglecting to mention that in practice the Supreme state organ of power functioned like a parliament in a "traditional" parliamentary system.

Moreover, the articles' content appears to me to be biased in favor of communist states: for example, the "Supreme state organ of power" article downplays the rubber-stamp nature of the bodies it discusses ("Originally, proceedings like these [of a clear rubber-stamp nature, where the parliament only approved the prime minister's report on government activity] were the norm in the supreme state organs of power in communist Europe, and they were mostly characterised by their short, routine, and efficient sessions that produced unanimous approval of proposals. Unlike liberal democratic legislatures, votes of no confidence, heated debates between competing views, or competitive elections were not a feature of the supreme state organs of power."), and in particular, the section on membership asserts that "Soviet elections were not organised by bureaucrats but by citizens", and makes an incorrect claim about the 1947 Polish elections: "In the 1947 elections, 99,8% of voters voted for the official candidate list..." (in reality, the 1947 Polish elections had multiple lists of candidates, and even according to the official results which were manipulated in its favor, the communist-headed list only received 80% of the votes). Glide08 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you have correctly identified that there is a NPOV issue there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Glide08 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the culprit for that NPOV violation is User:TheUzbek, the main (and almost only) contributor to the article, who also made various edits to chinese government-related articles to make them more "ideologically compliant" (e.g. changing the President of China article from "head of state" to "state representative" citing Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi's own reports, while ignoring Chinese media articles which call the president "head of state" - as they explained in a talk page). Glide08 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

On a similar vein, the article Special committees of the supreme state organ of power (which suffers from similar NPOV issues) should just be merged into Committee. Glide08 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Glide08 has reported me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would love it if you could, at the very least, comment. I am not saying you should support me, but rather that you should formulate your own perspective on this case. If you haven't bothered to read this whole discussion, this is the time to do. Glide08 believes you support his position. I don't think you will after reading this discussion session here, but you can prove me wrong :) TheUzbek (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have only stated what the sources say, and how the sentence contradicts the fact that it was a rubber stamp when the article says (I don't know): "However, in practice, the sessions of the SSOP are often pliant and used as a showcase of unity amongst the political elite." But I haven't used the word "rubber stamp" in the article; maybe I should... As for elections, that is what the source says. The source is also very clear that does not make the election democratic: it only showcases that elections were organised from the grassroots (not a professional state bureaucracy that is common in liberal democratic states)... However, that does not make the elections democratic or multi-candidate.

I can check the source regarding the Polish point; maybe I did a typo.

I feel like nothing has been proven by this point, @Horse Eye's Back:, and if something is unsaid or should be clarified, say it. But I doubt that is the case.e TheUzbek (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I also want to make clear: he showed "Soviet elections were not organised by bureaucrats but by citizens". The whole sentence reads, "The Soviet electoral system was less free than its liberal democratic counterparts, but the popular participation rate was higher. For example, during the 1974 elections, there were more than 50,000 electoral units with more than 2.2 million seats up for election. Soviet elections were not organised by bureaucrats but by citizens, and in the 1975 elections, more than nine million people participated in their organisation." If someone wants to strengthen the language, please do, I just tried to be as neutral as possible and follow the sources as close as possible.

As for his arguement that some of these terms are used by liberal democratic states... so what? We can create an article titled Supreme state organ of power (term) and Supreme executive and administrative organ (term). As for the attack that I am making things "ideologically compliant", I honestly don't know what to make of it. I am very open for other suggestions and fixes, and If I am in anyway biased towards communism I agree that should be fixed. The problem is that I believe Chinese communism to be oppressive and the rubber stamp nature of the supreme state organ of power to be a reaaal problem, and the article showcases the supreme state organs of power rubber stamp nature. TheUzbek (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Last point: "while neglecting to mention that in practice the Supreme state organ of power functioned like a parliament in a "traditional" parliamentary system". Does the parliament of the UK appoint the Supreme COurt, dismiss them regularly and hold them directly accountable to themselves? Last time I checked, the fact that the Chinese supreme court delivers a work report to the legislature is rather unique... --TheUzbek (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In conclusion, I will say the following

1. Glide08 says we should have an article on liberal democratic uses of the term supreme state organ of power, and I agree that we should if scholarly sources say that it's relevant. But the term, as used in Japan and Hungary, is to showcase parliamentary sovereignty. A related, but entirely liberal democratic concept.
2. Glide08's says communist states have fusion of powers, and not unified power. Fusion of power accepts that political power should be limited; unified power does not. These are not identical concepts. Most states with a fusion of power system tries t separate power somehow: for example, by making the judiciary independent of politics. For example, Norway has made it very clear that the Storting shall not involve itself in the judiciary. Communists don't do this because they don't want to limit political power, which is bad if you like a free and independent judiciary.
3. Glide08 says that communist parliaments function as liberal democratic parliaments. That is obviously entirely wrong, and I can point to sources disproving that in the millions.
4. Glide08 says the article is biased in favour of communist states. I don't understand how, because it tries to make the point that the sessions of the supreme state organ of power has been, for the most part, entirely lifeless and controlled by the communist party. It also makes clear that the party controls the supreme state organ of power and can even bypass it.
5. I responded to the Soviet electoral claim above: important to read the whole sentence, but if my sentence was overly communist, please help me fix it. I have nothing against using terms such as rubber stamp, but I have not used them. Maybe that was a wrong decision on my part. The point, however, was to make it as neutral as possible and follow the source as neutral as possible.
6. I will need to check you're Polish claim: if you're correct I will fix it.
7. Your president of China claim: I haven't edited that article for years, and if it still stands, it's because of WP:CONSENSUS.
8. Glide08 accuses me of bias, but I would say I am clarifying. I am clarifying, for example, how communist states, through the supreme state organ of power and unified power, oppose a free and independent judiciary. I'm not sure how it's biased, but apparently it is. His solutions would make this less discernible.
9. All these articles are referenced by secondary and academic sources. You will not find any biases in them.

--TheUzbek (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Just because it was all a unified branch in theory, doesn't change the fact that in practice, the SSOP only exercised legislative power (while executive and judicial powers were exercised by an executive organ and a judicial organ respectively, not by the SSOP itself). A truly fused legislative and executive branch would resemble the English committee system of local government more than a system with a parliament-like body and a government-like body.

2. When you make an article that primarily relies on primary sources such as Marxist theoretical writings and the constitutions of communist states (which is a problem people noted about your edits, such as user:Rosguill here), while neglecting secondary sources (especially those more critical of communism, which would surely not make claims such as "Soviet elections were organised from the grassroots, not a professional state bureaucracy that is common in liberal democratic states" but rather that "Soviet elections were organised by a professional party-state bureaucracy and that bureaucracy included the secret police which manipulated them in the party's favor"), it comes out biased.

3. "The have unified power not fusion of powers" is a semantic game, and an annoying one at that. Where there may be differences between the two in senso strictu, they are synonyms when speaking more broadly (such as in the discussion pages).

4. The correct article to discuss the term "supreme organ of state power" is in the article that's called "supreme organ of state power", without parentheses at the end. The correct article to discuss the SSOPs of communist states legislatures in communist states (which, in layman's terms, is what they were), which was the title of the article before you changed it unilaterally.

Also, reverting the NPOV dispute tags out of the articles is a bit unsportsmanlike, to say it mildly. Glide08 (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest, to get some clarity, that you single out all the sources you deem Marxist. YOu are saying the source that reference that claim is Marxist, but its written by Western academics. One of them, William L. Miller (the book Elections and Voters: A Comparative Introduction), even has a Wikipedia page. I can find no information on these authors purported commmunist sympathies: can you? TheUzbek (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn't an article relating to a communist party primarily use Marxist sources? Do articles relating to the US not primarily use neo-liberal sources? No source is more or less biased than another. Also you claim TheUzbek is biased towards communism, but I can confirm, as a communist, TheUzbek is obviously a liberal who just hasn't completely drank the anti-communist koolaid that the rest of y'all on this god-forsaken CIA honeypot of a website have. Instantly whining about NPOV whenever an article doesn't fit your narrow western neo-liberal worldview is exactly why there's such a big problem with Wikipedia:Systemic bias. 172.58.57.210 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

1. The communist party can do it through the SSOP and through it party branch system: it does both. I want to write an article about how the party colonises the state apparatus as well
2. None of the sources in this articles are from Marxist sources: find a single source in this article that is based on "Marxist theoretical writings"
3. Its not a semantic game.
4. You can always start a move discussion. No one is stopping you...
5. Your claim is unreasonable, and you have proved it by formulating other accusations (that can very mildly be disproven). The three most used sources in the article: Hazan, Towster, Siegler etc are all academic sources. The only source that might fit the bill (which is used twice) is The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx. That is the only that can fit your description. One, which is used twice....

--TheUzbek (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Below, I give a fundamental overview of the differences between fusion of power and unified power

• Fusion of power
  • The parliament as the supreme law-giver and the source of the executive
  • The call for a balanced relationship between the executive and parliament
  • The call for a balanced relationship between parliament and all other state institutions
  • Judiciary, if not as independent as in the American separation of powers, is seen to be independent of the changing political will of parliament
  • THe judiciary (and other organs) can function as an outside check on parliament
  • Political pluralism and multi-candidate elections
  • Accepts the vocabulary of branches of government
• Unified power
  • The supreme state organ of power/communist state legislature is above all other state organs
    • Marx called for an unbalanced relationship between the legislature and all other state organs in favour of the legislature.
    • Lenin supported this, but also created an unbalanced relationship between the communist party and the supreme state organ of power (which gives the party the ability to bypass it)
  • All other state organs are formally subordinate to the supreme state organ of power (that means all, from a city level government office to the national government)
  • All state power is centralised in the supreme state organ of power, and all power emanates from it (in theory)
  • The judiciary and all other state organs are not independent of the supreme state organ of power
  • Unlimited political power granted to the supreme state organ of power
  • The communist party is formally enshrined as the leading force of the state, meaning that it leads the supreme state organ of power
  • The supreme state organ of power checks itself (no one is above it) and no one can override it.
  • Elections formally organised by the supreme state organ of power and controlled by the communist party and mass organisation that ensures unity of will; one voice
  • Opposes the vocabulary of state branches and speaks of state organs (or state bodies)

--TheUzbek (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is all only correct in the most strict definition. In a discussion where this sort of precision isn't required (like the one we're having right now), it's perfectly acceptable to refer to "unity of power" as "fusion of powers". Glide08 (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This is your opinion, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH TheUzbek (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am going to ask both TheUzbek and Glide08 to take a step back… give other editors a chance to examine the situation and respond. Blueboar (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me, contact if you need me to respond on anything :) TheUzbek (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I will add that it recently passed WP:DYK without any comment on any neutrality issue, and it was now read by over 6000 people yesterday (or at least visited)... and no one commented on any neutrality issue. I think it is about time to close this case. I have specifically asked if Glide08 has any critique of the sources used (he refers to them as Marxist, but he hasn't proven that any of them are). All of the sources used are secondary sources based on leading Academic works on the subject. Case closed? :) TheUzbek (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment As much as some people might think otherwise, Wikipedia has no policy exception stating Marxist sources are unreliable. That's Conservapedia nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  They're not unreliable in general and because of anything with the ideology of Marxism, they're unreliable in this particular case for taking the claims of dictatorships at face value (e.g. "different kind of democracy that offers greater civic engagement than liberal democracy"), insisting on "official", "ideologically-correct" terminology over more easily understandable layman's terms ("supreme state organ", which is how they are described in the countries' constitutions, instead of "parliament" which is what they are), and whitewashing the dictatorial nature of the regimes described (e.g. "short, efficient sessions without debate" instead of "rubber-stamping decisions already made by the party leadership", or "elections by acclamation" instead of "single candidate imposed by the ruling party") Glide08 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  I actually think that Wikipedia would be more neutral if it didn't assume that Western Liberal Democratic norms were the end-word in what "democracy" represents as a political system. We aren't in Athens casting lots anymore. Most democratic systems are functionally authoritarian. What is interesting is in interrogating how that authority is invested, justified and limited cross-systematically. Furthermore it's a long-standing grievance of mine that Wikipedia too often replaces terms used by socialist governments with the terms used to describe them by their geopolitical rivals. In short: I think TheUzbek isn't incorrect in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 and Glide08: I agree with Simonm223 and some of the arguements of the IP. We need to adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You are not talking about neutrality, Glide08, and you are not reporting on what the sources say, but rather your own political viewpoints. As for your point on democracy, the article on the supreme state organ of power does not state anywhere that the supreme state organs of power operate in a democratic environment; it says it's an institution that governs communist states. They were not parliaments: I am not aware of any parliament in a liberal democracy (or, formally, in a non-communist dictatorship) that allows for unbridled formal control by parliament over everything. This is your WP:POV and it's factually inaccurate. Your claim that the article is whitewashing is complete nonsense. The full sentence is this: "Originally, proceedings like these were the norm in the supreme state organs of power in communist Europe, and they were mostly characterised by their short, routine, and efficient sessions that produced unanimous approval of proposals. Unlike liberal democratic legislatures, votes of no confidence, heated debates between competing views, or competitive elections were not a feature of the supreme state organs of power." It squarely says that the sessions of the supreme state organ of power are lifeless in comparison with those of liberal democratic legislatures. How is that whitewashing? The term "elections by acclamation" is used by the scholar and reused by me in the article: I did not invent that and I don't understand how that is biased. They were acclamatory elections where electors had no choice but to vote for or against the official candidate.

  The sentences you are suggesting are not neutral: "single candidate imposed by the ruling party" and "rubber-stamping decisions already made by the party leadership". These are value judgements. As regards the party, the article makes very clear that the supreme state organs of power have little to no autonomy from the communist party. However, there are several cases to the contrary. The article, for example, showcases how Vietnam's supreme state organ of power voted that it had low confidence in Nguyen Tan Dung, a politburo member and prime minister. I have not found a single academic source (or any source) that states that Vietnam's supreme state organ of power acted on the command of the Politburo or a party agency; it acted this way because its members wanted it to. So, no, it's not correct to say that it always rubber-stamps: the articles also refer to cases in Poland in the 1980s and Yugoslavia where the SSOP did not obey the party. It is also incorrect to say that it always obeys the party: this article has not mentioned any incidents during the Gorbachev era, but there were numerous such incidents. --TheUzbek (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  1. As elected legislative assemblies, they are absolutely parliaments for the same reason why the United States Congress is a parliament. And they are described as such in sources written in the languages of the countries that had them (e.g. for the Volkskammer alone, we can find sources that say: "Die Volkskammer ist das Parlament und nominell höchste Verfassungsorgan der DDR. Sie wählt den Ministerrat und seit 1960 auch den Staatsrat.", "Formell oberstes Organ war die Volkskammer, das Parlament der DDR, die aber kein Parlament im Sinne einer repräsentativen Demokratie war, sondern angeblich die ungeteilte Volkssouveränität in radikaler Demokratie und im Verhältnis der gesellschaftlichen Gruppen verkörpern sollte.", "war besaß der ostdeutsche Teilstaat mit der Volkskammer seit 1950 pro forma ein Parlament, das laut Verfassung sogar oberstes staatliches Machtorgan war.".)

  Also note that these sources use qualifiers such as "nominally the highest constitutional organ", "according to the constitution it was even the supreme organ of state power", "was supposed to embody an undivided people's sovereignty in a radical democracy", which do a much-needed job at conveying the necessary neutrality (as in, essentially stating "this is what its theoretical position of supremacy was, while in practice it was a powerless organ in a one-party dictatorship").

  2. The very mother of Parliaments itself, the UK Parliament, has "unbridled formal control over everything" due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty/parliamentary supremacy, which says it has unconstrained power to make laws and ability to override the UK's executive and judiciary, devolved governments, etc etc.

  3. As for the claim that it is whitewashing, would, say, statements such as "the União Nacional candidates were elected unanimously, by acclamation" and "the Estado Novo's National Assembly was characterized by short, routine, and efficient sessions that produced unanimous approval of proposals", as opposed to "the only candidates standing were those imposed by the União Nacional" and "the Estado Novo's National Assembly was mostly a rubber-stamp body for decisions already made by Salazar's inner circle", be considered whitewashing the Salazar regime in Portugal? I think we'd both agree the answer is yes. Glide08 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  In addition, the Vietnamese National Assembly's decision to recall Nguyễn Tấn Dũng was not the NA itself expressing low confidence in him, but effecting a "punitive recall" for challenging the party leadership (i.e. merely formalizing a decision by the party leadership to remove him from power). Glide08 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  1. No one is denying that many have called these organs parliaments. No one. Alas, the United States Congress is not a parliament; its a legislative body. Its an important disctinction that you do not seem to grasp... However, are you saying this article is non neutral not because of its content or is it its title? Again, confusion reigns.

  2. Wrong. Liberal parliamentary supremacy says that parliament can do all, but at same time respects the limitations on politics, judicial independence and is against political interference in the judiciary. In the UK's constitutional system, parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament holds ultimate legal authority, with courts unable to overturn its primary legislation, while judicial independence ensures judges are free from outside influence to impartially interpret and apply the law, a system where both principles coexist to support the rule of law rather than being in direct conflict. In the unified state power of the supreme state organ of power the judges and the leadership of the highest judicial body is beholden to the supreme state organ of power and must implement its will. Big difference!

  3. I don't know anything about the Salazar regime, I must admit. But yes, the wording is biased against it and it should be reworded neutrally. Alas, I doubt the National Assembly of Portugal functioned identically to the supreme state organs of power of communist states. Someone writing an article about it should write a) what was the aim of the Salazar regime of having a national assembly, b) was it only propaganda or did it have a purpose c) if it had a purpose did it actually fullfill its purpose and d) was the difference between theory and practice to much? If the theory was one thing and reality another it should be stated and written about in a neutral manner.

  4. The source you referred to does not even mention the vote of no confidence again Nguyen Tan Dung... so how would you know? This is also proof of your bias and how unneutral you are. TheUzbek (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  1. The Estado Novo National Assembly and the National Assemblies of the communist states alike, were there to create the appearance of a democratic system in countries that were ruled by a one-party dictatorship. Their theoretical underpinning in the ruling party's ideology (which is what the articles are 90% about) is a side-note and was inconsequential for how either regime functioned in practice.

  2. The article about Nguyễn Tấn Dũng's purge states that "[Nguyễn] is expected to remain prime minister until the legislature approves a replacement later in 2016.". The vote of no confidence was merely how this "approved a replacement" took place in practice - because, again, a rubber-stamp legislature in a one-party state is predictable and will do the party leadership's bidding. Glide08 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  1. That is your opinion. I really doubt that Portugal's constitution under Salazar was based on democratic centralism and unified power.

  2. So we agree, it doesn't mention it all.... also note that the vote of no confidence took place in 2013, and that Nguyen Tan Dung was voted out of the politburo and left the prime ministership in 2016 (the article you are referring to is also from 2016). So what you are writing is wrong; Nguyen Tan Dung was not removed from office by that vote... you are again proving my point TheUzbek (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  re the claim in 1.: It's irrelevant what sort of veneer was used to disguise the non-democratic nature of the regime, whether "democratic centralism and unified power" or "organic representation of all the constituent forces of the nation through a corporative system". At the end of the day, both of these terms were used to deflect accusations of the regime's nature as an undemocratic one-party state - not only from foreign powers but also from the domestic opposition/dissident movement - by saying it's "a different sort of democracy than the liberal one", and their ideological basis is secondary to their use as this sort of deflective rhetorical devices. Glide08 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  No one is saying the supreme state organ of power was a democratic institution. The article does not say that either. In your extreme bias you cannot accept that these organs can play an important institutional role. Not everything is black and white. The article does not state anywhere that this organ was democratic or that communist states are democratic. So I don't really understand why this discussion is taking place. TheUzbek (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  If "no one is saying the supreme state organ of power was a democratic institution", as you claim, then there should be no issue with highlighting the SSOPs' actual nature as rubber-stamp bodies, rather than describing their theoretical basis in detail and acting like their nominal important constitutional role was anything more than nominal (the cases from Poland, Yugoslavia, and the USSR in the 1980s you mentioned, where the assemblies started exercising real power, were signs of the regimes' imminent fall - their capacity to impose their rule was so worn down they could no longer enforce party discipline on the legislators).

  Also, I do not appreciate being called "biased" for not taking the claims a one-party dictatorship makes about its own political system at face value. Glide08 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  1. This is your POV. This has been represented in reputable and academic sources; Wikipedia is about representing what reliable sources say. If the sources discuss this, then Wikipedia can detail it.
  2. It is your opinion that they were rubber stamp. The article has countless of examples that was not always the case. The case of Vietnam above was mentioned, and while you tried to disprove it, you utterly failed....
  3. "where the assemblies started exercising real power, were signs of the regimes' imminent fall": This is your point of view. Gorbachev choose to institute democratic reforms: he could have continued like North Korea.
  4. "their capacity to impose their rule was so worn down they could no longer enforce party discipline on the legislators": this is just plain rubbish. Why in gods name could Assad's Syria do it for so long and North Korea, but not the USSR?
  5. You are biased. Because everything in the article is referenced by reputable academic sources. You have utterly failed to single out even one reference for the contrary. As for the stupidity that this article takes the claims of communism at face value, have you even read it? The article plainly makes clear that theory and practice when it comes to the SSOP are to completely different things. It makes clear that the SSOP, in practice, is not above the executive organ, that the SSOP, in practice, is inferior to the party, that the SSOP, in practice, is a lifeless body. Again, you are accusing me of something that is not in the article.
  6. Yes, you are biased, and obviously, unable to read and comprehend things. If you could, you would have been able to do the following
     1. prove that the sources in the article is biased (you have come with vague accusations, and thats it)
     2. you would have read the article and understood that what you are claiming is stupid
     3. you have retracted your accusations a long time ago, but you continue ...

  TheUzbek (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think it depends on how you interpret WP:BIASED. If bias is defined as deviation from most sources on a particular topic, then for a topic that is largely written about by Marxist authors, the page ought to have a Marxist bias. If bias is defined more holistically as deviation from mainstream views in society/globally, then we'd either be correcting for the sources' bias (a non-starter) or attributing more. The former seems much more policy-compliant and sensible. I don't see anything wrong with the articles, they seem to attribute where appropriate. It'd be a lot more constructive if Glide brought some scholarly sources that in their view would add balance to the articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  While these pages should use marxist sources about how these things work in theory the currently have a flat out POV about how they work in practice which they shouldn't have—blindlynx 14:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  But the article doesn't use Marxist sources :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, good grief. Yes, Wikipedia doesn't have a policy saying that Communist sources are unreliable. It also doesn't have a policy saying dowsing is unreliable, it doesn't have a policy saying not to eat lit firecrackers — we are supposed to use our brains, comrade... jp×g🗯️ 10:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  100% agreement! TheUzbek (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling#Philanthropy

Mixes her early philanthropy with donations to anti-trans groups, with no distinction made between them. Surely that's a major POV-push? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we shouldn’t call it philanthropy because you disapprove of the cause? Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that campaigning against civil rights for a group of people is actually for the good of the public? However, it doesn't really matter: If we're going to classify it, in Wikipedia voice, as a positive act ("Philanthropy"), then it needs to be non-controversial. That's kind of basic NPOV. There's maybe a middle case for weaker terms like "philanthropy", but it certainly doesn't extend to widely condemned acts by her; reliable sources are not generally positive about her donations to For Women Scotland. Hell, it's not even following the sources, both of which class it as a highly controversial act.

If you can't even find a source that's positive about her actions, it fails verification as philanthropy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You've posted here 4 minutes after raising this on the article talk page. Everyone knows you've come here from a war zone looking for fresh recruits for your side. No one in their right mind (and neutral) would get involved on either side. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Or I want Wikipedia, a site I've edited about 20 years, to not have supposed featured articles with major issues. The number of issues I've found, every time I've dug into this article, from failed verification of sources to structural to simply terrible prose makes me shocked this was ever considered FA quality. It's done everything from using a source discussing an event from 2022 to talk about an unrelated event in 2000, tried to claim text that clearly, patently wasn't supported by a source was (as I recall, it talked about Rowling for one sentence, jumped to a different group of people related to her, and then the description of that group was applied to Rowling in our article.) Yes, I do have issues with it. But I have issues because, as the voting at the FARC makes clear, this is not FA quality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do have issues with it. But I have issues because, as the voting at the FARC makes clear, this is not FA quality

This is the NPOV noticeboard. Whether it's of FA quality or not isn't relevant to any discussion here. TBicks (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be preferable to keep the dysfunction to existing battle grounds and not have it spill out and infect other parts of WP. Keep it to that article talk page leave this noticeboard alone. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

A few days late, but if there are NPOV concerns that someone feels are not being sufficiently addressed on the article's talk page, should they not be brought up here? And should we not be casting WP:ASPERSIONS like Everyone knows you've come here from a war zone looking for fresh recruits for your side. No one in their right mind (and neutral) would get involved on either side? Aren't we supposed to, you know, WP:AGF? Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing says philanthropy must be non-controversial. Indeed, philanthropy can often be quite controversial. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Philanthropy comes from the Greek words phil- (loving) and anthrōpos (mankind). Definitionally, donating to hate groups is not philanthropy. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You were pinged to the sandbox where these issues are being worked on.

This faulty edit has been raised at least three times since I unwatched (sample), but no one has deleted it. It is an easy SOFIXIT: that content is already mentioned in Views, is completely duplicated in Philanthropy, and is not a good fit for Philanthropy, which had a clear structure of her MAIN philanthropic ventures. No one has objected to that content being removed; indeed, no one seems to have even noticed that it shouldn't have been added there. And no one that I know of is objecting to the restructuring of that section that is occurring, and which will merge philanthropy to the bio chronologically, so I'm not sure what the dispute is or why we need a NPOV noticeboard post. Those additions were faulty and are being addressed; ImaginesTigers has linked on article talk to his sandbox, and you posted there, so the work underway should not be a surprise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Completely different thing than we're talking about, and the work being done at a sandbox, possibly for months, does not excuse leaving strong bias and POV-pushing in a supposed FA until the work's done. It's doing that thing, often seen in this article, where it extracts a fact out of context, then frames it in such a way to subtly add an interpretation to it that often goes directly against the source. In this case, classing it as philanthropy, when the sources given are in no way in support of that. That is textbook WP:SYNTH. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

If the reliable sources do not make a distinction between when she made her contributions, it is OR to try to argue that her philanthropy to anti-trans groups should be handled differently. That's a RGW problem. Masem (t) 20:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

But, as far as I'm aware, no WP:RS describes them as philanthropy. "Philanthropy" is an emotive term, so obviously, to categorize something as philanthropy we need sources describing it that way; otherwise it's just an editorial judgment by an editor. Obviously if you have a RS describing them that way, go ahead and present it; but WP:LABEL isn't only limited to negative labels - positive ones also requiring proper sourcing. (I wrote an essay about this, WP:PHILANTHROPIST. It is a term often used in sources, so we do use it pretty often, but editors can get careless and forget that it's still a clear-cut value judgment - to call something "philanthropy", we need an independent, reliable source saying so explicitly, or using language that unequivocally means the same thing. We can't just categorize donations as philanthropic ourselves.) --Aquillion (talk)

From Awards and honours:

In the 2017 Birthday Honours, Rowling was appointed a Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) for services to literature and philanthropy.[1]

And Pugh, page 5:

"While pursuing her extraordinarily successful writing career, Rowling has energetically contributed to a range of philanthropic endeavors, primarily those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation.

ProQuest produces many sources that describe her philanthropy, as do Project Muse (accessible through WP:TWL), and scholar.google.com, eg 1, 2, 3 -- not saying those are the best sources, but the ones I quickly grabbed. Also found in recent news like 2025 Sunday Times. Nonetheless, ImaginesTigers' plan is to merge content now in the philanthropy section chronologically into the biographical material, and remove the section heading, and that reorganization will also address the contributions that have been recently added which some argue should not be described as philanthropy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The specific issue I'm talking about here is the recently-added anti-trans donations, yeah. Obviously it's not enough to say that "some people have described some of her donations as philanthropy, so we can uncontroversially describe all her donations as philanthropy"; as I explain in WP:PHILANTHROPY, every individual donation (or at least ones that are likely to be challenged, ala WP:V) also needs a source specifically describing it as philanthropic if we're going to put it a philanthropy section, otherwise we're performing synthesis. This is an extremely common problem with such sections and part of the reason I dislike them from a structural standpoint - they sort of have a mirror of the WP:CSECTION problem in that, even when we can find sources supporting individual entries there, the nature of the section is to become a magnet for praise, transmute anything placed in it into praise, and potentially amplify a bunch of things whose individual weight isn't that high. And like with CSECTION, I tend to agree that the best solution is to break it apart and put things in the appropriate place chronologically. --Aquillion (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like forum shopping to have yet another section here, rather then discussion at the article. Was there reason to suppose there were not enough eyes already on the article to engage there? But that aside, I agree that we don't need all the stuff about what are essentially political donations (a group campaigning for something, for instance) under philanthropy. I also agree that we should be careful to follow sources. But Beira's place certainly does get described as philanthropy, e.g. One might imagine that this philanthropic gesture would be met with praise.[2] Not convinced about that source, of course, so perhaps The service is not a charity but is privately funded by Rowling, a noted philanthropist. The amount she will donate to set up and run Beira’s Place has not been disclosed. [3] So yes, that would be an example of philanthropy. Whether it needs to be there or not is an open question, though. I'd prefer us not to collate specific examples, but to follow a secondary source that summarises her philanthropy. I don't agree that philanthropy should not be treated as a section though. As the Times says, she is a noted philanthropist, and if she is noted for something, we should cover it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems like forum shopping to have yet another section here, rather then discussion at the article. I think it's more like getting fresh eyes on an article known on this noticeboard for having WP:OWN issues in order to get some NPOV into the article. 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:E91D:95B:3DB1:7365 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Was notified about this via FAR... Guess I have thoughts. I guess, in terms of the complaint:

• User:Aquillion: It's basically indisputable philanthropy is a major component of Rowling's public image, and we have strong high-quality sourcing on it. For example, on FBAQTFN & QTTA: The status of [the books] as charitable books similarly served to obscure their commercial underpinnings, but also contributed to discourses that position Rowling as a benevolent philanthropist. Where the article falls short is replicating that narrative without acknowledging that it is a narrative (i.e., we don't talk about her public image—we replicate its components without justifying it). Is it not predictable that some editors will say that "philanthropy" includes a women's shelter that discriminates between demographics (1; 2). Given Rowling's fame, any editor will find at least a few sources supporting their perspective. The follow-up is predictable, too: "Can you provide all the sources that frame it as philanthropy versus contextualise it within her controversial comments on transgender people?" And it never ends, and we get another RFC. We avoid circular debates that force constant RFCs by providing chronological statements of fact which resist value judgements. Covering it all chronologically and as part of her life will reduce complaints and increase stability. I'm genuinely thankful to everyone who has weighed in so far, and hope to get more collaborators (Links: Proposed structure; Associated discussion; Draft with some content). So far I have 1 person doing the actual editing with me, which is fine but does slow things down.

Okay, meta talk – User:Adam Cuerden, this post (and your replies) makes me pretty miserable.

• Why make a NPOVN post about an issue people agree should be fixed and for which we've identified the fix for? Aren't noticeboards for contested changes? Nobody's contesting this! Nobody is going to object to the template, but... you could fix it. It's not unlike the 200+-word FAR comment to outline an issue was band-aid fixed in seconds. I can think of at least 2 band-aid fixes for this. You could help me do the work of putting 2000s–2010s #Philanthropy into that new section of her biography. You – personally – could speed this up, so why complain about the time it's taking? Responding to this only slows me down more.
• You said you'd "have faith the article could be FA again" if I took point on fixing it, and I am—I've built on your feedback; I've implemented feedback from others; I've proposed reasonable compromises to bring temperatures down. Can you not acknowledge that's really powerful momentum that this article's never had? Being logical and respectful works because the vast majority of editors respond positively to respectful, logical and self-aware comments. The only time you did respond on the sandbox, I mentioned this very problem outright!

I hope you can see why this upsets me... We're both volunteers, so "it's taking too long" is particularly frustrating. Even if I put myself in your assume-bad-faith mentality, these theatrics actually give ammo to anyone who might want to remove an ideological opponent? From a productivity POV, this post achieves nothing. – ImaginesTigers 11:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking this beyond the current dispute at the Rowling bio - suppose some other article subject gave large donations to causes that “discriminated” based on some other factor (such as religion. say… a shelter for battered Muslim women). Would we hesitate to call that philanthropy? Would we question sources that do so? Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

What about a shelter that excluded Black women on the basis of their colour? That's a more apropos correlate. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I think this question ignores the core bit of my argument, which anticipates that some editors will argue "yes it's still philanthropy" (we see that in direct response to your question here). Whether or not I feel it constitutes philanthropy isn't relevant – I want to reduce complaints and keep the article's star. – ImaginesTigers 13:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the article deserves a star as long as it remains apologia for its subject's political activism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The links are in my response to Aquillion above and I welcome any and all feedback/collaborators. – ImaginesTigers 13:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I find any attempts to work on the Rowling page entirely exhausting. I'll participate on noticeboards when it comes up and register my ongoing dissatisfaction with it's blatant non-neutrality but that is the extent of my willingness to involve myself with this long-term embarrassment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I get it. I felt the same for a bit but reception to the overhaul has been positive and people are open to compromise to keep the star. I'm genuinely optimistic so far but it's really exhausting work on my own. – ImaginesTigers 14:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

IT, I did not realize you wanted help with the actual sandbox editing. I hope I haven't disappointed, but I don't think I'm the best person for the task. Thank you for taking it on, and for your optimism! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah – I've been dropping sources into the structure in the hopes that someone would pick up some sections. I've asked a few people on the sandbox discussion if they've any interest. It's a lot of work (and much slower) with just me. – ImaginesTigers 17:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: It's not that I don't support efforts to rewrite it. But the main article is the one people are reading right now, and likely for quite some time. I'm sure the rewrite will be an improvement, but the article is labelled as an FA, with tags indicating problems getting removed without any consensus. There's a certain amount of work that needs done to get the article in an alright-ish position so there's time to do the rewrite. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I got a bit unnecessarily defensive over the time comment; I apologise for my theatrics. Reading my comment back, there's a lot of exclamation marks from me. Sorry. I get that it's causing pain.

Either way, the "fix it" mentality is important. Like with Victoria today and Alach E. prior, you can just explain, make the change, and see what happens, before coming to a noticeboard. The next time you do this, I'm relatively confident that you'll end up with at least a page ban. Without trying to sound condescending – please be a bit more restrained if you get mad. Being right isn't enough. – ImaginesTigers 22:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

philanthropy /fɪˈlanθrəpi/ noun the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.

It does not seem to say anything about it being right or just. Seems to be that anything that seeks to help others (even if it is racist or sexist) counts.We need to stop thinking it means "just". Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you have to fall back on how the RS describe it in any particular instance rather than applying general (WP:OR) analysis. While one can say that donating money for the welfare of others is different to donating money for advocacy purposes, where would one place donations to this: National Association for the Advancement of White People#Charity work (Operation Appalachian)? DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

This argumentium ad dictionarium above, is pushing at the bounds of civility. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree there is a degree of OR here (I disagree it is even vaguely uncivil), the prolbem is that (yes) we have to go by what RS say, as it is not in fact soi clear cut as to be blue sky what "philanthropy" is, as it means different things to different people. So how do RS describe what she does? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear I thought this part of the thread had got away from the Rowling article. I thought this was in response to Blueboar widening it to the general point. I've not no comment on JK Rowling. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Its not indented as a reply to Blueboar. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes I know, but only noticed after your 2nd post which is why I tried to clarify with my last post. DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

So, do any RS describe her donations to anti Trans causes as philanthropic? Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

For historical purposes: that contents was first first added here, reverted, put in again here, reverted, added again here and there was discussion here. I'm a proponent of getting rid of that section entirely and folding into life/career sections so as not to compartmentalize her biography to such an extent and to avoid these kinds of edits that land in the wrong place. The work to redo the structure has begun (hats off to ImaginesTiger!!), Adam has been invited to participate, so in my view rather that slowing down the process it might be more useful for Adam to simply use the section created for his input in the designated working space to flag these kinds of issues. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I shall ask again, did any RS describe this as philanthropy? Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Not seeing it from a spot-check of two sources. Have moved the text to another section [4]. Victoria (tk) 14:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Going on three weeks, we still have a recent addition of text that was already present in Views, duplicated in Philanthropy. Why is no one (but me) complaining about that one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

gone now. Victoria (tk) 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Victoria. So the fixes were fairly simple -- pending the reorg underway in sandbox -- and if there are any reasons for the section to remain tagged, or for this thread to remain open, they need to be identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Does every claim in a "Philanthropy" section usually have sources explicitly describing each action as philanthropy, and is that something we should enforce? Maybe we should require strict sourcing to use a philanthropy heading, or maybe we should stop covering one-off instances of donations altogether per WP:PROPORTION. There are arguments that could go either way here. What we definitely should not be doing—and should be concerned about anyone doing—is considering causes or beliefs and writing about them based on whether we personally have deemed them Good or Bad. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Started a discussion on the inclusion of an NPOV tag on J. K. Rowling

[Here], for people more familiar with when such a tag should be put up and taken down as it's been put up and taken down multiple times during this whole mess. I haven't actually put one up, though I did cite from the tag's page--Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Peace and Justice (Norway)

Came across the article while reading up on Glenn Diesen (whom I am familiar with for interviewing the well known political scientist John Mearsheimer). Appears quite POV outright: "Russophilia" is bizzarely listed as a political ideology (further with the label alleged), "pro-Russia" is used as the main descriptive of the party (neither a political ideology/tenet nor a position on the political spectrum - the usual decsriptives we use for parties), "fringe" is unsourced and the neutral term would be minor party (and regardless inserting this directly in the lede sentence is quite POV), using "known for promoting messaging that echoes Russian disinformation narratives on the Russian invasion of Ukraine" directly in the lede sentence and without attribution (I see it attributed to one person in the body) is also quite POV vio, no mention of its position on the political spectrum (according to the infobox it split from the socialist/communist Red Party (Norway) but this fails to find any mention in the body or lede. I would've made changes to the article but it is quite hot with edit disputes for apparently the same thing, would like to get uninvolved eyeballs here. @Huldra and Jeppiz: pinging involved editors. This is quite an NPOV violating that I have come across recently, a comparision with the nowiki article should also be made w:no:Fred og Rettferdighet (it has been alleged at Talk:Peace and Justice (Norway) that the nowiki article has been edited by party members, but I cannot see any outright faults there and it can be used a comparitive for balancing our POV). Gotitbro (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Shouldn't you voice your concerns at Talk:Peace and Justice (Norway) first ? I can't see any contribution of yours there. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really, uninvolved editors can bring disputes to larger forums regardless. I saw the controversial stuff, read the stalled disucssion for it and then brought the dispute to the noticeboard. As good as it gets. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As most of the sources are in Norwegian which is not a language I can read I'm not sure I can really adjudicate the sources. However I'll raise, again, that this is yet another example of why infoboxes should not be used to describe the ideology of political parties. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That would need to be taken to {{Infobox political party}}, though similar concerns can also be raised for the position on the political spectrum parameter. Gotitbro (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Russophilia has effectively become a political ideology in Europe, and the fact that you don't know that tells us you shouldn't be editing in the area. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not actually particular relevant what any given Wikipedia editor knows or doesn't know about a situation. What is relevant is what can be verified in reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that call Russophilia effectively... a political ideology in Europe? Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As someone who reads Norwegian and is familiar with Norway, I find the article perfectly in line with WP:NPOV. First, Glenn Diesen is known almost exclusively for his spreading of Russian viewpoints. Apart from his engagement in diffusing Russian viewpoints, he is a non-notable academic at a minor Norwegian university. Virtually all media coverage of his is for his pro-Russian engagement. The same is true for Peace and Justice, a small fringe party for which Diesen is a candidate in the upcoming elections. Politically, the party is as fringe as can be; they poll well below 1% in all opinion polls in Norway. The only reason it is sometimes discussed in media (unlike other minor fringe parties) is for its campaigning spreading Russian viewpoints. These are just fact of how Diesen and the party are covered in sources. Second, the sources we have are about as good as one could get, representing the major media outlets in Norway, and satisfying WP:RS with flying colours. So to sum, both articles reflect how reliable sources describes the topics. There is no POV-violation in the articles, only a POV-attempt to whitewash them. Jeppiz (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not the first time POV concerns have been brought forth for this article as highlighted by the very nature of your involvement in disputes there. As an uninvolved editor who merely happened to come across this article the POV is very apparent. Unattributed statements proliferate, the article tacks as simply one of criticism rather than one which has anything to say about the subject itself. Other editors also appear to agree with some of the concerns [5], [6]. You haven't tackled any of the particular concerns raised.

And reject unjustified claims of 'POV-attempt to whitewash them', a party which I had never heard of before a few days. Users can feel however they want to about a subject but please do not get carried away. Gotitbro (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing above addresses the topic at hand. Once again, the articles report what reliable sources say about the two topics. That is what Wikipedia does. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The opening statement here clearly laid out the apparent problems, the article being completely at odds at how even minor political parties are covered at enwiki. I could understand concerns if this was an extremist fringe party virtually listed as such by sources but what we have here is a seemingly pro-Russian (accusations of such criticism are listed in the media and I am seeing no direct attribution from them) minor political party which split off from an established socialist party. We then seriously need to tread a line between presenting the party and the criticisms that have followed.

As an involved editor, I expect your reservations but univolved editors can see and have seen the problematic stuff outright. Gotitbro (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

And I ask you again, do you believe there are any claims made in the article that are not sourced from reliable sources? If so, let's discuss them. If not, I do not see a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The dispute is about NPOV and how we present those exact sources (all of which explicitly list the criticisms as accusations and which we need to explicate similarly). Gotitbro (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

For the claim that Diesen disseminates Russian propaganda, we have eight sources for that claim, including several excellent sources, that make that exact same claim. That is perfectly in line with NPOV. That is literally what Diesen is best known for, and what reliable sources say about him. Jeppiz (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I haven't listed Diesen anywhere in my opening statement here. And whatever be his reception, it has no bearing on how we deal and present the RS for this party. It doesn't hurt to have perusal of other minor party articles at enwiki. I will wait for other uninvolved editors to comment [and for comments from other invoved editors]. Multipe editors from the noticeboard have already agreed with the concerns raised here, as can be seen at Talk:Peace and Justice (Norway). Gotitbro (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

As one who can understand all the Scandinavian languages; the English version is far, far worse than the no-version of this article. As mentioned here by long-time no.wp editor Trygve W Nodeland (who has no WP:COI ww.r.t. party, AFAIK): "Artikkelen dreier seg om et politisk parti, ikke dette partiets medlemmer. Jeg har fjernet noe tekst om medlemmenes oppfatninger. Disse uttalelsene er ikke nødvendigvis kontrære til partiets, det kan jeg ikke avgjøre, men likevel irrelevante. Det er når partiet ønsker å gi uttrykk for noe at det kan bli relevant for artikkelen."("The article concerns a political party, not the members of this party. I have removed some text about the members' opinions. These statements are not necessarily contrary to the party's, I cannot determine that, but still irrelevant. It is when the party wishes to express something that it may become relevant to the article." bing-translate).

The article now is defined by its political adversaries, mixed with the most extreme views by some individuals. No-one (that I have seen) in the party itself defines themselves as "pro-Russian", they define themselves as "pro-Peace". And that it is a split from the Red Party: that is correct for some individuals (including the leader), but it is far broader that that, the leader was herself a leader in Socialist Left Party before she split over the 2011 bombing of Libya. Some editors thinks it is ok to describe a political party in the words of their political adversaries. I didn't think that was the way wikipedia was supposed to work? (And yes: I know it is a tiny, tiny party, so basically all/most of the MSM are their "political adversaries") Huldra (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As a Norwegian, I think the article had made great strides. In Norway, public opinion has hardened in recent years with many conflating anti-NATO with being pro-Russia. As someone who watched their first national debate appearance on the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (Norway's BBC), I actually believed they have made the common mistake of becoming so anti-US and anti-NATO that they have come to excuse the behaviour and action of the West's advesaries such as, for example, Russia. Not good.

I agree that the article needs to put even more emphasise on what the party officially stands for. We should alsp include information on the accusation levelled against. We need to present information as neutrally as possible to that our readers can make their own conclusions (without them being influenced by our viewpoints on the matter) while at the same time presenting the sources on the topic. TheUzbek (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I think many of the concerns raised prviously and here have now been addressed (neutral framing of critics [not using that as a descriptive itself!], including party positions etc. and how it is covered by RS (listing accusations as accusations as they do). Minor things like the split etc. can be beaten out in edits ahead. Gotitbro (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Overemphasis on shipping in Fire Emblem character articles

it started here and continued here.

In short, while discussing another topic, I accidentally discovered through a link given by other user that the articles about the characters of the mentioned franchise have an excessive focus on the description of shipping, in my opinion. In particular, in most cases it was described based on 3-4 articles in the style of "the most popular side ships in the game" on 2-3 resources.

I brought this to the attention of the participants of the thematic project, and also expressed the opinion that one of the articles also contradicted itself, simultaneously stating that the romantic nature of one of the endings was both fact and interpretation. Although most users not involved in the dispute suggested that the issue be resolved within the framework of WP:UNDUE, a number of other users, who, as I understand it, were active authors of such additions, spoke out against any reduction and expressed the opinion that since it was described in authoritative sources, it could be in the article. In the end, it simply ended up in an argument for the sake of an argument, from which I do not see a way out. In particular, to my assertion that one of the sources has a clear bias and is in any case a subjective opinion due to the lack of affiliation with the creators of the game, I received a response implying that ordinary users seem to have no right to question individual materials from authoritative sources. I don't know if this can be considered a conflict of interest given the subject matter, but either way I think that the sheer focus on shipping, and on specific ships, is clearly detrimental to the neutral narrative. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

UPD. It looks like the user shortened one of the articles after rechecking sources. But now the description of the ships takes up a third of the entire description of the character as a whole. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the relevance to NPOV aside from Petra's sexuality? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with the fact of Petra's sexuality. As I said, it's an old topic for debate and interpretation, so I won't be against any description of it. But at the moment, articles about characters are very strongly promoting shipping and popular ships based on a narrow set of articles on the shipping theme. In some cases, even replacing the declared discussion of the actual relationships of the characters. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

None of these characters have actual relationships, just potential ones. It also is not in lieu of them, as we can explicitly see that one article mentioned in the previous discussion, does concern a canonically romantic pairing. It's a little silly to suggest that discussion of other relationships is being "replaced" Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This was not clear from the text. The article simply mentioned that the characters' relationships were praised or discussed, and then based on the next "best ships in the game" there was a discussion of various pairings instead of the actual relationships of the characters in the game. Including ignoring the actual romantic options. As a result, this entire section on shipping took up almost as much space as the entire text with a bunch of links with reviews about the character itself. Tell me, are a character's non-existent potential relationships more important and significant than their actual relationships with certain characters, including the main character? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

why are you asking me that, I don't determine what gets included, reliable sourcing does. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Do authoritative sources add themselves? Or do you add them? If you mean that you only read sources of this type, then that still doesn't solve the issue WP:UNDUE Solaire the knight (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying at this point. Please read what you just said, like consider how it reads to, in your words, say that I added authoritative sources to verify information. What you are asking for is false balance, which is itself would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. You are strongly encouraged to add any and all sources that exist discussing the indisputable canon relationships between two characters if you like. The argument that they are not discussed is not an argument in favor of removing sources that discuss arguably non-canon relationships. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You continue to invent my theses instead of me. Since you continue to turn this dialogue into "no, you" with constant demands from me for justifications in response to incessant accusations, then I will really stop answering you in order to stop this. And no, pointing out a violation of UNDUE does not mean that I demand that it be balanced with a false balance. When you say it's hot outside, it does not mean that you want it to get very cold yet. All the best. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to working with this editor, and have stated as such. But they struggle to articulate their concerns and aims. And the discussions have only been going on for a couple hours, so it's strange to escalate it like this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion lasted only a few hours, but during that time other users had already demanded that I "prove that they were not romantically involved" (the user ignored my request to prove otherwise, continuing to demand that I prove the absence) and also hinted that regular Wikipedia users cannot question the materials of authoritative sources. Not to mention that the discussion as a whole had reached a dead end. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I never once asked you to prove a negative. I asked you to provide any level of sourcing for their relationship being sisterly or mentorly, a claim you made earlier in the discussion. I ask that you not misrepresent another editor's actions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I stated that nothing in the game directly states that they are romantically involved. Even those who defend it admit it. You asked me to prove that it is not in the game, as if the romantic nature of the ending was already a proven fact. Which is essentially asking me to prove its absence. As for the other user's actions, because you interfered with our conversation, I was constantly having to deal with an editing conflict and respond to both of you instead of one user, which made the thread as chaotic as possible. At some point, you even started repeating his answers in your own words. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Why are you talking to me about anything other than the claim where you described their relationship was sisterly. I have no interest in you proving the claim of romantic interest wrong. I'd already suggested you fix the contradiction, why in the world are you arguing as if I'm in opposition to the change? You speak of arguing for argument's sake, but being so distracted by the argument to understand what people are saying is very clearly that. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That their relationship was sisterly was my personal opinion and I didn't write about it in the article. Whereas you described your addition as a fact and also practically interrogated me why I read them differently. Including several times threatening to leave the discussion if I did not behave in the discussion as you wanted. Clearly, I was not the one who got carried away by the argument. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You answered my question with a single sentence just now. I had to ask you four times, and in lieu of answering me, you kept debating whether it was canon or not that Petra was bisexual, which is definably arguing for argument's sake. Any reasonable person would react to tangents in response to questions by wanting to disengage. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, did I start asking monotonously about why I consider their relationship platonic? And was I the one who ignored any answers that did not go in the direction I wanted to ask? The blackmail of "answer as I want or I will leave the discussion" and the general behavior in the style of "yes or no?!" certainly does not serve the development of a constructive discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I kept asking because you replied to my question with a question. It is not blackmail to say that I won't continue in an unproductive conversation, be serious now. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I answered you and asked a counter question. But you kept repeating it because you didn't like the answer. Sorry, but this is just a road to nowhere. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You did not answer my question until this question. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Like Serge, I was (and still am!) open at first to this editors concerns that these sections are overly long. However, after asking some basic clarifying questions, and seeing how they responded to Cukie Gherkin, this actually seems to be about not wanting to call video game characters "canonically" gay or bisexual based on his own reading of the game's text? Which, as I noted in the discussion he linked, the sources we're using on the page do! He disagrees. Having not played the game myself (or edited the page, as I'm being accused(?) of), I'm inclined to trust sources over Solaire's original research. The 'clear bias' he mentions I still don't understand. Not sure why we're at a noticeboard over this. Parabolist (talk)

All I did was point out that firstly, the source has a clear bias and describes the shipping through the lens of shipping (for example, their first link was a twitter account dedicated to lesbian ships in FE), secondly, I noted that the description of the ending in the game itself is very vague and we cannot take the subjective opinion of the source as fact without any statements from the creators about it. It's simple. You first confused the context of the conversation, thinking that we are talking about the source itself, and not about how it is attributed in the article, and then you actually accused me of questioning the content of an authoritative source, as if their content is absolute and you yourself need to be a certified specialist in the topic to do this. The rest of the accusations really don't make sense to me. You yourself admit that you haven't played the game and base your opinion on secondary sources, but at the same time you accuse me of questioning the interpretation of the game's content? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Playing the source material isn't required and whether or not they did so is entirely irrelevant. Please stop introducing these sorts of non sequiturs. They're not helping. Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said that you need to play any game. The fact that I noted the irony of someone who hasn't played the game themselfs accusing me of "wrong reading the game" doesn't mean that I demand that they play it. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding. I'm not accusing you of "wrong reading", I'm saying that your reading is completely irrelevant when compared to reliable secondary sources. When you say "Well the sources are wrong, it clearly means [x]!", that's WP:OR. You need to find sources that support your reading, in that case. Parabolist (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You accuse me of misunderstanding, while you yourself do not understand the essence of the conversation. I never said what you attribute to me. All I said was that a source cannot be used to assert something as a fact. There was no talk anywhere of me having some kind of "true opinion" and that the source was "clearly mistaken". And yet you clearly accused me of trying to questoning the source. It was you who turned this into a dispute about readings, not me. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources are exactly how we determine what to state as facts! Unless you somehow think a fictional character's sexuality is a WP:BLUE situation, we look to secondary analysis of the text when it comes to how we describe them. I genuinely don't understand your position here, everyone is telling you the same thing. Please stop bludgeoning this discussion. Parabolist (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

In this case, no. The secondary authority analyzes the fiction content, and we indicate this with due attribution and within the other rules. Authoritative sources are not the absolute dogmatic truth in everything just because they are authoritative. You can agree with their reading, no problem. But to claim that this becomes an objective fact and try to forbid me from questioning it is already a clear POV. For example, if a reputable magazine writes that Batman was a metaphor for McDonald's, we can write about it as "according to the author of such-and-such magazine, Batman has been a metaphor for McDonald's all along." But we obviously can't just write "Batman is a metaphor for McDonald's" and then demand similar sources from those who decide to question it. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Um, in case I'm not the only old person reading this: shipping (fandom) is the subject. I'm disappointed this isn't someone debating the finer points of commerce in some crazy simulation game, frankly. But I do have a question: why would fan fiction and related speculation carry any weight in these articles unless specific aspects of that fandom are each widely covered by reliable sources beyond authors' opinions? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no interest in the "shipping" world either, but some of it represents critical commentary on perceived LGBTQ themes regarding the character(s) from reliable sources. It's a recurring issue in the video game world. There's characters/relationships that flirt with idea of gay relationships, but don't spell it out overtly. Reliable sources point it out, it gets added to articles, and then editors who don't agree with it remove it because it doesn't match their personal interpretation. It's happened countless times and I can't help but think that it's what this one boils down to too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a double-edged sword. Even if the fact of "flirting" really happened, it doesn't mean the intention existed. Let alone the fact. The logic of "it wasn't said outright, so it was said subtly" is no better than "it wasn't said outright, so it was never implied." As I've said many times, I'm not against leaving some general text about the fact of interpretations or readings. But when you write interpretations as fact, or give them excessive weight so that this interpretation seems more significant or generally accepted, it really does violate the rules, if not about conflict of interest, then certainly about neutrality. And if you're really going to try to accuse me of having a "they're definitely not gay, so I'll delete it!" motivation, you're not going to succeed, because I've repeatedly said I wanted to preserve the fact that some readings or interpretations were given credit. And you knew that, because you suggested I do it myself in one of my articles Solaire the knight (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

And I've encouraged you numerous times to reword it to make this more clear. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

And I have answered you many times, while also being forced to answer again to another user who tried to answer for you. Do you think that was easy? Solaire the knight (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Then I do not think you're communicating clearly to anyone involved, as no one appears to be following you. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have to deal with three different people at the same time, who are making different arguments from three sides and who require simultaneous control from my side. Do you really think that's easy? Solaire the knight (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to respond to everyone single comment. No one forced you to escalate this to a noticeboard after a short discussion with a few participants. There's literally no urgency to get this resolved immediately like there's some sort of time limit or something. They're minor details about a fictional characters article. It's not that serious or urgent. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to encourage everyone involved here to chill, and ideally try to talk to the people on this board who aren't necessarily familiar with the dispute rather than to each other. It's unlikely at this point you're going to convince each other, or at least not with the help of third parties to try to reach some sort of compromise. Loki (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just quite cranky. It seems like there might be a language barrier issue that has caused tensions to escalate, so I'm dialing back anyway to allow de-escalation. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

We were lucky that we made almost no edits to the articles. It would be terrible if this also included an edit war. Returning to the topic, since there were no questions about attributions as far as I can see and the article about Petra was essentially rewritten, I suggest that we really calm down and think together about possible solutions to the problem. I had an idea to rewrite the section about shipping as a section about relationships in general, thereby adding text about the characters' relationships in general and in this context mentioning the part of shipping that no one questions. For example, the fact that Dorothea, as the most famous queer character, is popular in queer shipping, etc. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy close There are entire articles on ships, like Kirk/Spock. I wouldn't say it's an overemphasis if that is one of the main reasons the characters are notable. Escalating things to this level was definitely unnecessary, the user got the answer they were looking for on WP:VG and now it just seems like they are being disruptive.

Yes, it's in fact canonical in some cases. Dorothea is blatantly bisexual in FE: Three Hopes for example. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• This thread was opened directly because attempts to discuss things in the discussion of one of the articles failed due to irreconcilable differences and due to the lack of neutral participants I simply did not know how to get out of this vicious circle. And again, you're comparing different things. Kirk x Spoc has a huge cultural significance and is often cited as one of the first popular ships in general. Whereas these articles are simply citing the authors' favorite ships. And as I said, the problem isn't with shipping per se, but with how it was represented in the articles. The fact that Dorothea is canonically bisexual and has canonical lesbian endings does not in itself justify the importance of the text about her favorite ships of this or that author. At the same time, we can quite well write a section about how her bisexuality made her popular among the queer audience. Which, by the way, is already in the article. And yes, ships were never the only or main reason for her popularity. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Also, the thread you're referring to was already closed half a day ago after the consensus was to move on to discussing each article separately in the future. So now you're the one escalating the situation. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  I find it really strange that you're considering every article featured together, despite one of them being about a single ship rather than the author's favorite ships. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please clarify what you mean. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  The gaymingmag source; that article doesn't list the author's favorite ships or even one favorite ship, it's just a discussion of the ship in particular. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  "Best side-ships", Fire Emblem Three Houses non-Byleth relationships feel more significant, What Are Most Popular Ships in ‘Fire Emblem: Three Houses’ According to AO3?. Leaving aside the fact that the source you mentioned is not the only one in the article, all three are, in one way or another, dedicated to shipping in general. And in a sensational format in the CBR's spirit of “10 best films in the comedy genre”. Moreover, in the Gaymer mag article you mentioned, the author directly says that it is about her "favorite relationship". Again, I don't see a problem in writing that the character will attract so much interest that some authors found their relationship more interesting or significant than the relationship with the main character, etc. But in this form, the page simply promotes some ships whose only significance is "it was written in an authoritative source". Solaire the knight (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what your concern is with "it was written by an authoritative source". It's significant coverage of an aspect of a fictional subject. That is adequate. The motives of an author for writing an article is not relevant, unless the motivations caused them to mislead the reader in some way. Yet, there is sourcing from others suggesting that the ship is a popular one. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's not about motives. It's about the fact that not everything written in authoritative sources is automatically significant enough to be added to Wikipedia. I could understand if you used it as part of a piece about the significance of the character itself or its impact on the audience. But this is just a fan note about fan content with a character. What significance does it provide to Wikipedia? Why can't we just write that the character is popular enough to have popular ships? For example, "Dorothea's queer identity made her popular with queer audiences, especially thanks to their ending with Petra, which many critics and fans interpreted as romantic"? Why do we have to write about the ships themselves in such detail? Perhaps the goal was to describe the ships themselves in the first place? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  The author discussed why these ships are so popular, which involved analyzing the characters. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, what's stopping us from writing this in terms of an overall character assessment and analysis, rather than a character analysis within the ship framework? Above I gave you some examples of how this information could look in this format (not even noting that the analysis of Dorothea as a queer character is already present in the article). Why can't we do this and have to discuss ships in such detail? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Can I suggest going to WP:DRN? I think this is a situation where just continuing to talk to each other is not going to help. Loki (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  The original thread on the wiki discussion was already closed for similar reasons after the user consensus leaned towards discussing each article separately in the future and closing the original thread due to growing tension. But we're back on this topic after the user above seemed to fail to realize that the issue at hand wasn't about shipping per se, but about the scope of its description. But getting back to your suggestion, if it helps attract neutral users who understand the rules and can resolve this dispute, I'm not against it. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Kirk / Spock has huge amounts of coverage, though. Do these ships get enough coverage in the sources to justify the amount of text we devote to them? That's the main problem. People who want the article to discuss these ships at any length should produce sources that go into depth on them, ideally. --Aquillion (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  We have one article that studies queer shipping in the franchise as a whole. With a noticeable bias towards fandom stuff, but I think we could very well use it in a general article about FE as a whole. But as for individual ships, at first glance, the suggested sources are limited to discussing popular ships through the fandom prism of the relationships of the discussed characters. In particular, at least half of the suggested sources are purely articles like "undervalued ships" or "significant ships". In general, I have already suggested several times to reduce the volume of this and rewrite the information in a more serious form, but the author of the text seemed to openly make it clear to me that they agree to some wording edits, but only if the volume itself is preserved as a whole. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling § The Official Wrestling Museum

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling § The Official Wrestling Museum. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Can someone look at Irreversible Damage ?

There's an editor in an edit dispute with Cluebot NG (talk · contribs). TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Cluebot is a bot. do you mean someone else? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

ClueBot reverted the edit as it assumed it might have been subtle vandalism, because the (new) editor marked the edit as minor. Then the editor suggested ClueBot might be an activist. I don't know whether the edit is good or not, I'm not familiar with the topic, but there's lots of changes and the editor only has two edits. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I can see why Cluebot reverted that though. That's a big edit to mark as minor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

They were good improvements to the article, I understand why a bot reversed them but the edits should be kept. Denaar (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Also - doesn't this notice board require users to be notified of the discussion? I left a message on their talk page to notify them about the discussion here. Denaar (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 5 § Gaza holocaust

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 5 § Gaza holocaust. Debate over RNeutral, which involves WP:Due. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for input on RFC: David and Stephen Flynn article

Hi, I’ve started an RFC on the David and Stephen Flynn article. It’s about whether to add a short paragraph under “Business Growth and Expansion” on two points: their involvement with Jamie Oliver’s Food Tube and the opening of a plant-based café at Dublin Airport.

The article at the moment goes into detail on controversies but doesn’t mention these business milestones, which are covered in reliable sources like the Irish Independent and Dublin Airport’s own publication.

Here’s the RFC: Talk:David and Stephen Flynn#RFC: Adding a short “Business Growth and Expansion” paragraph]]

Would appreciate extra eyes from uninvolved editors on whether this belongs for balance.

Thanks. Calmsea123456 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Topic of Afshin Ghotbi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a dispute involving editor Martin Bina (talk · contribs) which is a single-purpose account. This editor made their first edit on August 15, 2025, and edits have exclusively been about association football coach Afshin Ghotbi, particularly on the Vancouver FC article, which was the coach's most recent team.

The editor is systematically removing factual statements that could be perceived as negative (such as the team's win/loss record during the coaches tenure) and replacing it with positive statements which are either uncited or which cite the website "www.afshinghotbi.com", which is the coach's personal blog. Despite multiple attempts to educate this new editor at User talk:Martin Bina and Talk:Vancouver FC, particularly regarding NPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE, the editor continues to use that website as a source, including today: Vancouver_FC&diff=1310676766&oldid=1310664788.

Another example from that editor is this edit from August 20 where they left the summary: "Removed false info; added reliable sources: corrected inaccuracies and restored citations. Add Citation ". What they removed is "Over Ghotbi's two-and-a-half year tenure, the club held a combined 16-22-38 record, failing to reach the playoffs" – a neutral statement supported by secondary sources. And what they added was "The 2025 squad also included players attracting interest from European clubs, reflecting his eye for talent and focus on player advancement. Despite challenges in league standings, his tenure was noted for vision, structural foundations, and a commitment to building a meaningful presence for the community and Canadian soccer – which is clearly promotional and only supported by an "afshinghotbi.com" citation.

I would appreciate the assistance of an administrator with this editor. BLAIXX 23:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with the characterization presented here. My edits are not promotional, nor are they intended to “systematically remove negative content.” My approach has consistently been to ensure that articles reflect verifiable, balanced, and properly cited information, in line with Wikipedia’s core policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS.

1. Regarding sources: While the official website of Afshin Ghotbi was at times referenced for factual, non-controversial details (such as career chronology), I have also cited independent, secondary sources whenever available. This is consistent with WP:SELFSOURCE, which permits limited use of self-published material in non-contentious contexts. The accusation that my edits rely solely on a personal blog is inaccurate.
2. Regarding negative/positive framing: Neutrality requires more than reporting statistics. It also requires context, which includes the coach’s contributions beyond match results, such as talent development, international recognition of players, and structural impact on the club. Presenting only a win/loss record without this context creates undue weight (WP:UNDUE) and risks portraying a skewed picture of his tenure. My edits sought to balance statistical facts with reliably sourced context.
3. On accusations of being a “single-purpose account” or acting in bad faith: Such characterizations are unhelpful and contrary to WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith). I am here to contribute constructively, citing sources and correcting inaccuracies when I find them. Where disagreements arise, the correct process is discussion on the article’s talk page and consensus-building, not personal accusations.

In conclusion, my edits are guided by policy, not promotion. I welcome collaborative dialogue on the Talk:Vancouver FC page to ensure that coverage of Afshin Ghotbi remains factual, neutral, and properly sourced. Martin B. Martin Bina (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Claim of being neutral, yet after a very positive portrayal of one coach (on every language wiki), you then proceeded to write a very negative portrayal about the next coach. RedPatch (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems so blatantly AI/LLM and even if it wasn't, you still haven't seen how you could be wrong… this seems to be a sign of a WP:UPE WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR also an WP:SPA editor unwilling to change or move to a different topic 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:9DA9:9CE8:B50F:BB95 (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Think this is an AN thing not a NPOVN thing 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:9DA9:9CE8:B50F:BB95 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right. I re-posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Martin_Bina as that seems like the correct venue. BLAIXX 02:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A clause in Steele dossier about its role for the ICA assessment

The suggestion is: in Steele dossier, remove it played no role in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election,[38][39][40] and from the lead. PapayaSF first complained about the clause in thread Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2025. I supported removal in thread Dossier role for the ICA assessment, Valjean opposed, and added attribution.

My argument and sources are in the "Dossier role for the ICA assessment" thread in my post that starts with the words "Actually I didn't create this new thread but okay ...". The sources indicate that the intelligence community assessment (ICA) in fact contains a summary of the Steele dossier as an appendix, and that there is a reference to the appendix in the body, as post-2017 declassifications show. So it's one-sided to partial-quote only the old claims that it played no role.

I'm not suggesting adding the information and cites (gov docs + New York Times) for "balance" because adding requires consensus per WP:ONUS and/or WP:BLP. For removal, no-consensus will do. Therefore the suggestion is only to remove the clause, and the attribution.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• I hope someone else can make sense of this effort by Peter. I have made FIVE requests on Talk:Steele dossier to no avail. He refuses to explain himself there and has just decided to open a thread here, which is a breach of conduct as we should first try to figure things out on the article's talk page. This is an unnecessary escalation of a content disagreement.

If I understand his meaning (and because he won't explain himself, I could be wrong), it appears he thinks "played no role" means "no mention of the dossier in the ICA assessement", which is false. The intelligence chiefs are saying they did not "use the dossier as an evidence base" for making assessments about the Russian election interference. In fact, they didn't because they had enough evidence from their own vetted sources. At that time, the dossier's sources were not all vetted, and when Trump came into office, all efforts by the FBI to vet sources was blocked. End of story. That's why we still don't know much about the dossier's sources.

So the CIA and FBI had enough of their own vettede sources (that, BTW, happened to agree with the dossier's most important claims) to make an assessment, but because the dossier was already known by them and under evaluation, they had to mention it. That did not mean it "played a role". The FBI and CIA and intelligence chiefs have all denied using the dossier for evidentiary/assessment purposes, IOW it "played no role" for that purpose. Here is the current content Peter disputes:

... according to James Clapper, John Brennan, and Robert S. Litt, it "played no role" in the January 6, 2017, intelligence community assessment of the Russian actions in the 2016 election, and it was not used to "support any of its analytic judgments".

That content is accurate and attributed, so I don't understand the problem. Hopefully Peter will finally explain himself. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we have more recent sources that say it did play a part? If yes, I would go with the more recent sources since a lot more information has been released about the report since those articles were released. From what I've heard it seems like it may have played an indirect role and it would be interesting to see what newer sources say. Springee (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legitimate point. I asked for more recent sources that were reliable. There are recent, very official DOJ attempts to rewrite history, all with strong, conspiratorial, and accusatorial language, but no good evidence. It's the same BS we have seen ever since Trump came into office the first time, IOW using lies to control the narrative and deny uncomfortable facts. Trump will never stop with those efforts. Roy Cohn trained him well. He uses the Big Lie technique, IOW repeat, repeat, repeat, and repeat the same lies until MAGA believes them and all right-wing media report nothing but them. Now he's even shutting down mainstream media and getting any critics fired. The control will soon be complete.

We're in a strange situation where the government, and soon all information in the country, is now controlled by MAGA, which means we can't accept government documents as truly "reliable" sources, but we must document what they say because they are official sources. We cannot take what they say at face value because of their dishonest agenda. So far, independent secondary RS have been pushing back and exposing the lies, and they are sources we can use and trust. Wikipedia must not be used to whitewash history. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's a legitimate point. The dossier summary ("Annex A") was released in declassified form in June 2020. copied here. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report was declassified in July 2025. I cited the New York Times about this. But the gov doc is longer. Samples: Oversight investigation and referral 18 September 2020: "Contradicting public claims by the DCIA that the dossier "was not in any way" incorporated into the ICA, the dossier was referenced in the main body text, and further detailed in a two-page ICA annex (see box "Fourth Bullet"). .. By devoting nearly two pages of ICA text to summarizing the dossier in a high-profile assessment intended for the President and President-elect, the ICA misrepresented both the significance and credibility of the dossier reports. The ICA referred to the dossier as "Russian plans and intentions," falsely implying to high-level US policymakers that the dossier had intelligence value for understanding Moscow's influence operations. ... By relegating the dossier text to only the highest classified version of the ICA, the authors were better able to shield the assessment from scrutiny, since accesses to that ICA version was so limited. ... Ultimately, the decision of how to handle the dossier was jointly made by the directors of CIA and FBI, who overruled the objections from CIA officers, and agreed to reference it with other text bullets describing Putin's intentions, while placing the details of the dossier in the ICA Appendix A, according to senior CIA officials. The ICA misleadingly described the dossier as coming from "an FBI source." But Mr. Steele was not an FBI source as he had already been fired two months before the ICA was published for lying to the Bureau, critical information that should have been clarified. ... The people quoted in 2017 could not have been checked at the time because this was classified, so I'd say these later quotes are better. NB, however, I'm not saying they're non-partisan and I'm not saying they have to go in the article, I'm only showing more evidence that the old claims are contradicted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC) PS: I'll be off Wikipedia till next Monday. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You realise that the quoted text is 100% consistent with the statements of Brennan, Clapper et al., right? It played no role, but had to be mentioned. "Referenced" does not mean they included anything from it. They namechecked it, because it was one of the many elephants in the room, but they had their own, much more detailed information to draw on. Exactly as Brennan et. al stated.

Also of relevance: Trump tried to sue Steele in London using English privacy law (because English libel law is no longer broken, following the Defamation Act, 2013), and failed. None of this can be viewed in isolation from the documented fact that the Trump regime, and its captive media, have consistently tried to pretend that the sole source of the idea that Russia interfered in 2016, was Steele., That is simply not true. There is simply no way that serious people would have used a private oppo research document, even one wriotten by someone with Steele's intelligence background, as the source of anything. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• It's incredible that nearly nine years later people are still trying to rewrite the history of the 2016 election. The fact is that the ICA did not use the Steele dossier as the basis for anything substantive, because it was rooted in opposition research and because they have way better sources of their own. The Truth™ is that the Russia-Russia-Russia-Hoax was 100% based on the Steele dossier which was once seen by Hillary and is therefore the work of Satan, personally, and this renders the entire Russia-Russia-Russia-Hoax false, null, void, it never happened, nothing to see here. Meanwhile, lifelong Republican, decorated veteran and former CIA director Robert S. Mueller III laid out the evidence of the Trump campaign's willingness to benefit from Russia's documented interference in the 2016 election, and every credible source supports the fact that it happened. Most conclude it wasn't decisive, but only because it is outweighed by the cumulative effect of Comey and Bannon.

All this should be viewed as of a piece with Trump's relentless attempts to rewrite all of history in his favour, especially the 2020 election which he lost, and to use the full force of the Federal government to punish anyone who dissents.

Wordsmithing the exact extent to which the ICA ignored the Steele dossier belongs on the Talk page, not here. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be a conflation of "included or not included in Annex A and its existence mentioned in the assessment" with "it 'played no role' in making assessments and was not used to 'support any of its analytic judgments'."

That is a deliberate and deceptive conflation made by the DOJ, and it's not a new one. Such deliberate conflations have been made for years, such as conflating "conspiracy" with "collusion", and because "conspiracy" was not proven, claims are made that there was "no collusion", which is a nonsensical claim with no evidence for it and lots of evidence against it. In fact, there is some evidence of conspiracy, going all the way back to 2013 when Trump discussed his election plans with Russians and they publicly promised to help him.

If I were to take apart, line-for-line, all that green block of text (it lights up with multiple red flags), multiple deceptions could be mentioned, some of them of the straw man type, but let's just focus on this one conflation and see what Peter means. What is his real point? This is a conflation that needs sorting out.

Do any RS show that the dossier was actually used to make "analytic judgments" and "assessments", or do we accept what RS have always said? They said it was not used for that purpose because it was not yet vetted and because the FBI and CIA had their own sources that were vetted. Those sources just happened to confirm some of the major allegations in the dossier, giving the FBI more confidence in it and making them take it seriously, so seriously that Obama and Trump were alerted to its claims. It was not made up, a hoax, or a fiction. Those are Trump's lies. The dossier was what it claimed to be, raw intelligence that needed to be vetted. The dossier made claims six months before the FBI, some of them described as "prescient" because no one else knew or said those claims at the time, but the dossier's sources knew. The dossier was proven correct on those important points. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Correct. And we know the ideology that drives the deliberate conflation of inclusion and reliance. And we should give it exactly no consiederation. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

References

List of protests in the United Kingdom

Numerous new editors have been adding extremely dubious figures to this article claiming the 'Unite the Kingdom' protest at the weekend had 3 million attendees, compared with official estimates of 100k - see the sources at 2025_British_anti-immigration_protests#Unite_the_Kingdom_rally_(13_September). I've started a discussion at Talk:List_of_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unite_the_kingdom_attendance but nobody is joining in and I am now at 3RR, so looking for some more experienced eyes to take a look. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

What really bugs me is that the list is now organised so the organiser’s estimate is the criteria for which up is shown as the largest.mmy Robinson estimates 3 million. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a number of really obvious reasons why we would not accept the word of the diminutive fascist for that or anything else. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)