Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
(Redirected from Wikipedia:NPOV/N)
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by GeogSage in topic Superpower lede and content
Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
Shortcuts
Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

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

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

Additional notes:
Start a new discussion

Opus Dei

edit
Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I wrote a comment at Talk:Opus Dei#Criticism section discussion about potential WP:POVFORK issues with Opus Dei (see also Controversies about Opus Dei) and would like to invite additional perspectives on the talk page, especially because this is a controversial topic. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noting a related RFC that is currently open for comments: Talk:Opus Dei#RFC on lead wording. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sathya Sai Baba

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I came across this article because someone posted it on a noticeboard a few moths ago. Sathya Sai Baba is an article about an influential Indian Guru. But it strikes me as largely written from a devotational point of view, with lots of redflag claims presented credulously throughout. It also seems like the sources are not always accurately represented, or presented with due weight. (E.g., I did this, which may not even go far enough per WP:FRINGE). Entire paragraphs read like a travel brochure. On the other side of the balance, some editors have added critical material, but which seems to go too far in the other direction, rather than just dialing back the hagiography and sticking to verifiable biographical detail. The result is a hot-mess of an article, not neutral in both hagiographic and critical content. The article is also a target for a couple of single-purpose accounts. It would benefit from someone's input, but just looking at all of the issues makes me despair that it would take too much cleanup for me. At a minimum the sources need to be closely checked against what they allegedly support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree that source verification is required and can get started on this. The neutrality problem seems to stem from it being a coatrack article about the person, his following, and the institution as a whole. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yea the article is a mixture of promotional puffery and accumulated allegations, with little consideration for due proportion. NicoR8 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agree The article reads un-encyclopedically flowery, a few criticisms peppered throughout just to be debunked in the best way favoring the subject of the page. There is no ambiguity regarding the article's meeting of WP:GNG but it could use some balance.signed, Kvinnen (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Scott Driscoll

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was just patrolling recent changes when I came across Scott Driscoll. The page seems to have had COI problems before (Talk:Scott Driscoll#COI whitewashing) and the edits made by @~2026-36243-59 come across as NPOV (especially this diff). However, I do not have the knowledge of Australian politics required to properly assess it. I'd love some extra eyes on it. Should I inform some wiki project as well? (I don't want to blow it out of proportions if it can simply be resolved here).

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

At first I thought there might just be a violation of Wikipedia:SUBJECTIVE but then I took a look at the source being cited for claims in 'Industry association leadership' It's starting to seem more like a violation of Wikipedia:OR (and therefore Wikipedia:BLP) to me since the claim that Driscoll is one of the 'fiercest...national industry leaders' doesn't even appear in the cited article. Katiedevi (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Including a scientist's own paper in his Bibliography section on Leik Myrabo

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Leik Myrabo is a notable expert in Beam-powered propulsion, Laser propulsion, Lightcraft and similar. His article included the following verbatim that was removed by two different users claiming it was WP:FRINGE and WP:POVPUSH due to claims by editors that the paper is apparently UFO-friendly in (I'm not totally following the logic) because of the fact people may search for UFO-related topics due to the text string "field propulsion".

This was removed:

Technical reports and contractor studies
Myrabo, Leik N. (1983). Advanced Beamed-Energy and Field Propulsion Concepts. NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR-176108. Braddock Dunn & McDonald Corporation for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

There is an ongoing 20-year long kerkuffle related to the article Field propulsion, where it survived AFD in 2007 and now is up for AfD. Some users have since been trying to "contain" any mentions of that text string "field propulsion" to only be on that once single page. The Myrabo paper is used as a source on Field propulsion.

It was not used as a source on Leik Myrabo; it was simply in his Bibliography.

Is it incorrect or is it suitable to link the scientists own paper (and apparently their most cited work about their career specialty) in his bibliography here? NOTE: I am only interested in placing it back into his Biblography as-is.

(was posted mistakenly on WP:RSN here at this link.) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

NASA has a history of funding studies into futuristic ideas that include weird things well beyond current engineering capabilities. The report in question is one such study. I don't see a particular reason to mention it, but I don't see a particular reason to not mention it, either. Certainly no adequate reason to exclude it has been provided on the talk page. (The fact that some UFO types have cited the paper is entirely irrelevant.) Note that OP only wants to mention it as an example of Myrabo's output, not to cite its content for anything. Zerotalk 08:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What is weird and beyond current engineering capabilities that would or may preclude it?
Leik Myrabo is literally the living expert apparently on laser propulsion and Beam-powered propulsion, as his lightcraft is the working model of the same.
I want to include it in his bibliography as it's his most cited work and is about Beamed-energy propulsion, which he is indisputably a SME on. He very much provably in the historical record delivered on the beamed-energy work, set records, and put it into the sky a decade after writing that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Religious practice self-identification... "believed herself to be a medium"

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago25 comments8 people in discussion

What is the standard WP:NPOV compliant way to write how someone in life saw/described or identified themselves, religiously? This person seems to have been ambiguous about their beliefs here (see their autobiography at the end). I've beem slowly been chipping away at this article.

How do we typically describe how religious adherents and practitioners saw themselves? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article currently reads "Jones became a religious convert to spiritualism in 1854 and believed herself to be a medium.". Assuming that is supported by the sources, I can't see any problem with it. Has anyone suggested there is a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nope, just wanted to get it right the first time and I couldn't find any relevant MOS for this. The wording seemed fine but I wasn't sure if it was proper for that use case (I have not written much on religious matters yet). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
As long as (a) the sources cover the matter in sufficient detail to justify it as something significant in a person's life, and (b) one describes beliefs as beliefs, there shouldn't be a problem. There's certainly no particular issue with stating that a spiritualist (of which there have been a great many) believed themselves to be a medium. Or for that matter, if properly sourced, stating that someone is a medium. This isn't a Wikipedia-voice statement that they are actually capable of communication with the dead, any more than a statement that someone is a catholic priest indicates that they are capable of transubstantiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
While we may state that they considered themselves a medium, I'd think it may be undue for the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 02:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because spiritualism is the religion, e.g., "Person was a Christian" because they said they were (the only real qualification?). But "medium" is saying like @AndyTheGrump mentioned, "Talks to spirits directly somehow" by inference/role. But we won't say that for obvious reasons, so...
"Jones was a spiritualist" is fine, and "Jones believed she was a medium" is just as fine, because it doesn't mean superpowers, it means the person said they believed they were that thing. She was exceptionally public about her beliefs over time. Guess I was overthinking it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Looking at other articles for examples: Pythia says that During this period, the Delphic Oracle was the most prestigious and authoritative oracle among the Greeks... Muhammad says According to Islam, he was the final prophet of God who was divinely inspired to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets in Islam. I think that we want to be careful to hew closely to the sources in cases like this; caution and skepticism are important, but we need to reflect skepticism from the sources, we absolutely cannot just add it ourselves. If an implausible claim doesn't seem to have the skepticism in the sources that we would expect, that might be a sign that it lacks the in-depth coverage to include at all; it might also be an indicator that the sources aren't using the term the way we'd expect (eg. the Oracle of Delphi example, which clearly treats "oracle" as a job description and a religious role, not a description of actual supernatural powers.) The distinction won't always be obvious, so we need to rely on the sources to guide us. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There certainly seems to be enough material in the article body about the centrality of Jones' spiritualism to her life to justify including it in the lede. And we should avoid 'Wikipedia doesn't believe in mediums' editorialising creeping in. Our readers are generally capable of understanding what a 'belief' is, probably don't appreciate being lectured, and for the very small minority that might actually take claims of mediumship seriously, unlikely to change their minds on the basis that Wikipedia shoehorns its own opinions into random articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1 to editorialising comment Drew Stanley (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you post the relevant excerpts from the sources cited? I can't access them all.
My initial thought is similar to @Aquillion and @AndyTheGrump ("As long as"): referring to someone a medium does not require that we agree with their idea of mediumship (in this example, that mediums can access spirit guidance to make decisions).
One sentence in the article calls her a spiritualist medium. This is more accurate and straightforward than "believing herself to be" a medium. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Jones was a spiritualist medium and believed her actions were governed by a spiritual guardian.[7]: 420"
Is from this one I started on today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Jones_(inventor)#cite_note-Mainiero_Jones-7
Just says outright "believed that she was a medium and that her actions were governed by her spiritual guardian." Page 420.
Then this earlier:
"Jones became a religious convert to spiritualism in 1854 and believed herself to be a medium.[2][6]: 106 [5]: 4 [3]: 1"
Is the main passage with:
  • "By that time she had become a full convert to spiritualism and was convinced that she was a medium."
  • "After a long relapse of her tuberculosis and the sudden death of her brother, Amanda turned to spiritualism, considering herself a bona fide medium and traveling around the country giving seances in the homes of well-to-do believers."
  • "It affected her deeply and led her to an interest in spiritualism, a popular movement of the day. She conducted seances in an attempt to communicate with him and claimed to have a spiritual guide. The spiritual guide was the one who prompted her career as an inventor."
  • Various similar.
That's all of it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Much appreciated. These sources (McHenry especially) seem to carry the skepticism of believed herself to be a medium (what do you think?) Drew Stanley (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be silly (and WP:OR/WP:NPOV smashing) for us as Andy mentioned to contradict a dead woman's self identification on what her religion was, especially as she wrote a book about it. She believed x, identified as y, source that, no reason to even bring up anything like "ghosts aren't proven" because it's an article about "Amanda Jones", not an article about "ghosts". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
You may have misunderstood my comment, which is that "believed herself to be" is inherently skeptical in tone, whether or not we discuss scientific evidence for ghosts (also not in favor of doing so). So my question to you is whether that phrasing works for the article or not Drew Stanley (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

<- I guess someone like Libra Patriarch Prophet Lord Archbishop Apostle Visionary Mystic Psychic Saint Royal Robertson is an extreme case. The term self-proclaimed is used. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure the Robertson lede should be phrased like that. Was he actually commonly described as a 'self-proclaimed prophet'? There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that in the article body. He seems to have attracted attention for his artistic works more than the grandiose title he conferred on himself. In any case, this isn't really comparable to Jones, who appears not to have considered her mediumship anything particularly special. In as much as it is distinguished from more mainstream religion, the spiritualist belief system is centred around an understanding that communication between the material world and the 'afterlife' is not only possible, but that with sufficient effort, anyone is capable of doing so. Robertson was grandiose, and probably schizophrenic. Jones was merely reflecting a common belief amongst what was at its peak a not insignificant section of the US population. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The parallel for me is that he believed himself to be x where x=prophet (and all of the other labels he applied to himself) rather than a medium. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • I would want to read the sources to be sure, but just glancing at the article he seems like more of an Emperor Norton figure whose proclamations weren't taken seriously by anyone, so I wouldn't be surprised if the sources used self-proclaimed or similar language (or at least didn't call him a prophet in their article voices.) Part of the issue I had with using the wording above without a proper source is that it implies that nobody accepted someone's status as a medium (or whatever); this can be avoided by saying who considered them to hold that role when the sources support it, but when they just say they assigned themselves the title our article should probably reflect that and not just use it in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
How would we know this is what they truly believed rather than, say, a lie? It seems to me it should be "claimed to believe". Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do we typically put qualifications on what people in their own writing expressed as their religious views? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
A lot depends on who, often, we just say they claimed or said they were. No actual mention of what they believe, just what they have said. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why would we add qualifications that are not present in the secondary sources? Wouldn't that be a type of original research? Drew Stanley (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The wording "believed herself" is representative of the sources' wording and "believed herself" already removes wikivoice. On a different point, is there a way to contextualize what "medium" means? Maybe a clause in-line or linking specifically to the Mediumship section on the Spiritualism page? Swirlymarigold (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
is there a way to contextualize what "medium" means?
I'm inclined to say no, for her case, the deeper I get. That's not my usual wheelhouse. There's simply too many varieties ranging from religious adherents we'd be grossly WP:NPOV violating to treat an iota differently from someone who proclaims themselves any other religion, to overt criminal grifters. I have in-link wikilinks a few times to the various pages:
Hopefully you don't mean the odd suggestion/tic that some folks press at times, where if someone believes X and it's noted in their article, we have periodic insistence by editors to include something like... "This person believes in ghosts" and so someone wants to put in something akin to "Ghosts aren't real" for fear our readers may move the dial 0.00000001% toward a belief in ghosts...?
Or something else? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your explanation makes sense. I did not mean what you illustrated with the ghost example. I just thought that it's unclear what "medium" means as currently phrased, but if there isn't a reliable source to clarify the specific meaning for this context, I agree it's fine as is Swirlymarigold (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

List of pro-Russian political parties

edit
Latest comment: 20 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion

@123Omjarp has been adding parties like there's no tomorrow. Most of the parties they added are communist and socialist parties from around the world. Lots of the entries are unsourced, some are sourced to WP:RIA and WP:TASS, some faik verification.

One concrete example (near the top): People's Front for Democracy and Justice is on the list, with this citation (RIA Novosti @ Web Archive), but the website doesn't mention the party at all.

I think the entries without citations and the ones who fail verification should be removed. I'd do it, but 123Omjarp has been reverting anyone who tries, so I think it'd be good to have some more eyes and input on it. Thank you! TurboSuperA+[talk] 10:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
First, I only once restored a party that someone had removed, and when it was removed again, I didn't add it back. Second, the party you listed, "People's Front for Democracy and Justice," wasn't added by me. 123Omjarp (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
So you don't mind if I remove the unsourced entries and the ones that fail verification? TurboSuperA+[talk] 15:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have nothing against it. But as for parties without sources, the vast majority of them have "Russophilia" embedded in their ideology, which is probably why no one has removed it. 123Omjarp (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
We need RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
and of course I mean the "Russophilia" entered in the infobox of a given party 123Omjarp (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I understand that, but now I checked and some parties with "Russophilia" in the infobox have been on this list for 4 years and no one has removed it. 123Omjarp (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure such a category should exist: per WP:CAT Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. So if a party self-describes as pro-Russian or is unanimously described as such then it can be included. If on the other hand there is a controversy - and most of the time there is - it shouldn't be added to this category. Alaexis¿question? 16:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not a category.. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Repressed memory article - sustained NPOV concern

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago29 comments9 people in discussion

(talk) 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

OP WP:CITED two papers co-authored by Dodier. Dodier was discussed before, and it seems he does not support what OP claims. Namely, it seems Dodier does not believe in RM. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is correct, Dodier is a skeptic. That does not invalidate the plethora of information supporting Dissociative Amnesia. I have cited Battista and Dodier specifically for balance and to show that even skeptic research shows there is contention and not a settled debate. I have made a mistake in referencing Battista et al. (2023). It is an article from the Journal of Anxiety Disorders and not the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation as I stated above. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0887618523000713?via%3Dihub. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102733. Thank you tgeorgescu for pointing this out. NpsychC (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The papers I mean:
Battista, Fabiana; Mangiulli, Ivan; Patihis, Lawrence; Dodier, Olivier; Curci, Antonietta; Lanciano, Tiziana; Otgaar, Henry (2023). "A scientometric and descriptive review on the debate about repressed memories and traumatic forgetting". Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 97: 102733. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102733. Retrieved 28 June 2026.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
Dodier, Olivier; Otgaar, Henry; Mangiulli, Ivan (2024). "Beyond Repressed Memory: Current Alternative Solutions to the Controversy". Topics in Cognitive Science. 16 (4): 574–589. doi:10.1111/tops.12754. ISSN 1756-8757. Retrieved 28 June 2026.
Dodier believes the debate hasn't ended because there are other options than RM. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The phrase "I have cited Battista and Dodier specifically for balance and to show that even skeptic research shows..." is misleading. Battista and Dodier are not skeptical sources. They are standard academic sources. Nothing wrong with that, but we should call them what they are.

Here are some actual skeptical sources (See WP:PARITY):

And here are some non-skeptical sources (See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS):

I would also note this, from :

Harrison Pope, M.D. and James Hudson, M.D. set out criteria that are necessary to confirm the hypothesis that repression can occur, that memories of childhood might be repressed and later recovered.
All four of the following criteria must be met:
  • Evidence the abuse/traumatic event actually occurred.
  • Evidence for "psychogenic" amnesia, i.e., that the abuse was actually forgotten and inaccessible for some period of time.
  • Evidence the memory loss could not be explained by biological causes.
  • Evidence the abuse was later remembered.
These criteria seem obvious to even a non-scientist, yet most of the studies used to support the notion of repression fail to meet them. ((Read the whole thing with citation here.)

In my opinion, those are reasonable criteria.

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

My intention was not to misrepresent. I merely meant the other side of the debate when I referred to it as skeptical, and was attempting to differentiate it from the evidence supporting recovered memory in the psychological literature, including Dissociative Amnesia in the DSM. Please note that I am not arguing that evidence and contention exists about the concept of recovered memory does not exist. It certainly does and is an important part of the psychiatric, scientific and legal literature for many reasons. I am aware of both arguments and think it is important that we keep questioning. What I am saying is that there is debate within the literature and a significant body of evidence that memories can indeed be out of awareness for a period of time and return later, a process that is now understood as dissociative amnesia. The opening of the article currently does not reflect this, and has the potential to cause harm in its current form. The Pope and Hudson article, does set out some good criteria for navigating the validity of recovered memory and would be useful for forensic psychiatrists and psychologists in legal settings, though they already have well developed tools for screening out malingering or other explanations that an individual's thoughts are not based on real events. NpsychC (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Science settings and legal settings are very different. Same as a scientist in psychiatry and a therapist in psychiatry have different methods. Or a car design engineer and a car repair man. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
"the concept of recovered memory does not exist. It certainly does" Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is a lot of research on the talk page of repressed memory, but posting it here again. For clarity and brevity here are five main sources that support dissociative amnesia:
Diagnostic Manuals containing official definitions
American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5-TR): American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). APA PsycNET.
World Health Organization (ICD-11): World Health Organization. (2024). International classification of diseases (11th ed.). Parent code - 6B61
Clinical and Academic References
Medical Guidelines (UpToDate): Loewenstein, R. J., & Spiegel, D. (2025). Dissociative amnesia: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, course, and diagnosis. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/dissociative-amnesia-epidemiology-pathogenesis-clinical-manifestations-course-and-diagnosis/print.
Medical Textbooks (Gabbard's): Loewenstein, R. J. (2014). Dissociative amnesia. In G. O. Gabbard (Ed.), Gabbard's treatments of psychiatric disorders (5th ed., pp. 471-478).
Academic Review (The Lancet Psychiatry): Staniloiu, A., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2014). Dissociative amnesia. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(3), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70279-2
These are also easy to read overviews.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9789-dissociative-amnesia
https://professionals.blueknot.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/38_BK_FS_PRF_UnderstandingRecoveredMemory_DEC23.pdf
The above is only a tiny fraction of the available information about disociative amnesia and the reliability and validity of it as a diagnosis.
Copied from the talk page:
There seems to be a lot of confusion about this topic as it crosses so many fields, including psychiatry, forensic, experimental and clinical psychology, philosophy and the law (to name a few). I have developed a brief summary to try to bring understanding up to date, as there have been nearly 9000 views since my initial attempts to bring balance to the article, and this represents a significant potential for harm in those who may be attempting to understand resurfacing traumatic material. Memories do not always resurface in therapy, and even if they do initially, a person will only spend one hour in therapy a week (if they are lucky) so will seek to do understand resurfacing traumatic material through internet research - wikipedia being one avenue for understanding. This article currently reads that recovered memory has been debunked, when there is a plethora of evidence for dissociative amnesia. It really is time to update this article, or it needs to be removed.
Repressed Memory:
A Balanced Overview "Repressed memory" is an older term, originating with Freud, that describes what contemporary trauma psychology and psychiatry now understands primarily through the lens of dissociation and dissociative amnesia — both recognized diagnoses in the DSM-5.
The mechanism: dissociation, not repression Rather than memories being actively "pushed down," current understanding holds that trauma can disrupt the normal integration of memory, emotion, and identity. Two influential frameworks explain how this occurs: Structural Dissociation Theory (van der Hart, Nijenhuis & Steele) proposes that trauma causes a functional split: an apparently normal part of the personality manages daily life while an emotional part holds traumatic memories that remain inaccessible to ordinary consciousness — not absent, but compartmentalized. Betrayal Trauma Theory (Jennifer Freyd) adds an adaptive dimension: when trauma is perpetrated by a caregiver or attachment figure, not knowing becomes functionally necessary for survival. Amnesia in these contexts is not random — it is more likely precisely because the victim depends on the perpetrator, making awareness of the abuse incompatible with maintaining the relationship required for survival.
Neurobiological support Neuroimaging research provides meaningful support for dissociative mechanisms. Studies by Lanius and colleagues on dissociative PTSD show hyperactivation of medial prefrontal areas with relative hypoactivation of limbic structures — consistent with active inhibitory processes rather than absent encoding. Markowitsch's work on psychogenic amnesia similarly shows right prefrontal hyperactivation functionally suppressing hippocampal retrieval. These findings suggest a real, neurobiologically grounded process, not a purely psychological or theoretical one.
On recovered memories Research suggests that memories, once recovered, are not uniquely unreliable. Linda Williams's prospective study followed women with documented childhood sexual abuse records and found approximately 38% had no recall of the abuse 17 years later — and those who did recall showed largely accurate memories. Dalenberg's meta-analysis found corroboration rates for recovered memories comparable to those for continuous memories. Recovered memories are subject to the same degradation over time that affects all long-term memory, but this is not evidence of special unreliability.
Where genuine contention exists The most significant scientific debate occurs in forensic and experimental contexts, where evidentiary standards rightly demand caution about memory accuracy — particularly memories recovered under suggestive therapeutic conditions such as hypnosis or guided imagery. This is a legitimate and important area of scrutiny. "False memory syndrome" is sometimes cited in this debate but is not a recognized clinical diagnosis and does not appear in the DSM. Research on implanting false memories has been conducted largely using non-traumatic stimuli, and its applicability to traumatized clinical populations is disputed and has not been well replicated in those contexts.
In summary The clinical and neurobiological evidence supports dissociation as a real and meaningful mechanism by which traumatic memories can become inaccessible. Forensic caution about memory accuracy in legal settings is appropriate, but this should not be conflated with skepticism about whether traumatic amnesia and memory recovery occur — the evidence indicates that they do. For anyone navigating the return of traumatic memories, this is a well-recognized clinical phenomenon with substantial theoretical and empirical support. NpsychC (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
In light of the above, I am proposing two narrow, specific amendments supported by direct citations, and requesting an RFC if consensus cannot be reached. NpsychC (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is the same request for false balance raised by the same editor in October 2024 on this noticeboard. You can read about what happened last time at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Repressed_Memory. MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is not a request for false balance. False balance would suggest there is very little to no evidence supporting recovered memory, which simply isn't true. The previous request was closed without my knowing it was going to happen. I have since become aware of the amount of people who have tried to update this article both before my attempt and after. It is important to review this as it currently violates NPOV. NpsychC (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I strongly suspect AI use in Npsych's first post, and have collapsed it. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 22:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please know that this was my own work. You can see this from the repeated references that I used in 2024. I did get AI to tidy it up in an attempt (honestly) to make sure my argument was clear and would not be too disruptive. I apologise that I did not flag that I had used AI to tidy things up, that is a genuine mistake on my part. AI is new to me and I only use it to proof read. All the work is my own with hard copies of the research on my computer. I work with people who have experience sexual violence, and have for a long time. I currently have to guide them away from wikipedia for any mental health related concerns based on what I have seen here and the resistance to updating a clearly biased article. I value the community based encyclopedia, I think it captures so much that can be missed in Academia. This is why I have spent so much time trying to bring this up to date. NpsychC (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is becoming disruptive

edit

Should we open up a WP:NOTHERE case at WP:ANI? Replying seems to have no effect. Warnings on the user talk page seem to have no effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this suggesting that my well-evidenced attempts to update a heavily biased article are being interpreted as 'not being here to build an encyclopedia'? And that there will be no debate on the actual content of the changes I am proposing? NpsychC (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not trying to be disruptive. I am genuinely trying to use the processes available for dispute. NpsychC (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The wikipedia community does not agree with you. You have made your argument repeatedly, and it has failed to persuade anyone. See WP:1AM.
Look at User talk:NpsychC. You didn't get the point there.
Now look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Repressed Memory. You didn't get the point there.
And clearly you are not getting to point again in this discussion.
You are a single-purpose account who is here to right great wrongs and are clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia
It is becoming clear that the only way to get you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
longtime but very light Wikipedia account here.
I saw this and wanted to weigh in.
I have to apologize for not knowing all the precise rules,
but I know pseudo-arguments and kangaroo courts.
I don't have a horse in this race -- no position AT ALL on the topic -- on this topic because I HAVE NO IDEA whether "normal biological processes" explain apparent "memory suppression."
If a person is citing multiple scholarly peer-reviewed sources then it should be included.
-!
And if there is criticism and controversy -- even if an "overwhelming consensus" (which poster has stated it isn't nearly that black/white) -- then the article itself MUST BE WRITTEN IN A NEUTRAL TONE.
ANY CLAIMS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE MUST BE LISTED AS A CLAIM UNDER A "CRITICISM/CONTROVERSY" SECTION.
Otherwise Wikipedia loses its claim to pretty much anything consistent with an "encyclopedia,"
and instead becomes something else entirely.
/rant
/argument
Nobody who has dogpiled onto this "consensus" has YET ADDRESSED THE KEY ARGUMENT:
the GOVERNMENT-MANDATED TEXT FOR DETERMINING MENTAL ILLNESS ITSELF HAS STATED THAT MEMORY SUPPRESSION IS A REAL PHENOMENON.
The DSM or "Diagnostic & Service Manual" -- for all its flaws -- is the United States of America's LICENSED-PSYCHIATRIC TEXT FOR DIAGNOSING PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC CONDITIONS AND HAS STATED THAT THIS CONDITION IS REAL.
That statement -- from a reputable source -- is in fact a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.
## ARGUING THE OPPOSITE
I will take the position -- hypothetically -- that "memory suppression" is -- in fact -- pseudoscience.
Have scientific consensuses been wrong before? Sure. See classical (Newtonian) Physics.
Or claiming that Natural Selection is the ONLY cause of evolution. (It isn't the only cause; see Epigenetics.)
Or that "Junk DNA" is a thing. (This has since been debunked.)
However, Wikipedia is not an Arbiter of Truth. It is a reflection of what is currently and historically understood. See the excellent presentation by a well-known lexicographer about "compiling a dictionary" and "being a fisherman, NOT a traffic-cop."
And... having an article make subjective claims -- AS OPPOSED TO REPORTING on what others' claims (and peer-reviewed research) are -- clearly violate NEUTRALITY.
You MUST address the issue of THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVING THE POSITION OF MEMORY SUPPRESSION AS A REAL, VALID PHENOMENA.
I do NOT agree with the United States' government's policies in MANY areas.
I do NOT agree with its Psychiatric diagnostic service manual in MANY areas.
However, if we consider "psychological & psychiatric researchers" to be arbiters of scientific consensus, then it logically follows that -- if they have a scientific consensus (I am referring here to the "car engineers", NOT the "car drivers"), -- then that is the most relevant group.
I completely agree this is a controversial topic.
IT SHOULD BE LISTED AS SUCH AND CRITICISM AND CONTROVERY OVER THE TOPIC SHOULD BE 1. IN THE SUMMARY as "... is hotly debated topic (see the 'Controversy/Criticism' section of this article)" and 2. Nowhere else in the article.
SilentAshes (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nobody reading this. Summarize if you want someone to consider this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
They think the OP may have their view included in the article because they cry censorship. Besides, RM is not in the DSM. That's the whole point about WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh. Well crap.
Ugh.
Let me figure out if this is still worth my energy.
I've been witness to so my garbage censorship and exactly this type of dogpiling before, so it was pretty upsetting to see.
Whether it is OR or not is something I now have to choose whether or not to waste time in tracking down myself because it's
becoming impossible to tell this
sort of thing apart anymore.
Frankly if dissociative amnesia is considered real (skimming that article), then it seems that memory suppression could just as easily be.
Sorry for not reading that part more carefully earlier.
I do still think the article should have a section as "controversial" tho rather than stating "veers in pseudoscience." That feels very anti-neutral. Articles must be written objectively, not make claims themselves (even if literally every research scientist in the world says it is bunk, the article should state that).
Other unaddressed point:
The split among scientists.
OP states isn't anywhere near 95/5 or 97/3 (like anthropogenic global warming).
The scientific split OP mentioned doesn't seem to be in this discussion but I remember seeing it in the last couple hours elsewhere on this exact debate.
Again, sorry for misreading/misremembering the point about the DSM.
SilentAshes (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPS WILL I GET MY WAY? HOW ABOUT WITH BOLD AND EXCLAMATION POINTS!?!?!? No? You still insist on citations to reliable sources? Help! Help! I'm being repressed!! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like we're both triggered. I'm going to further edit (reduce) my above comment and maybe take this up tomorrow.
.
I already removed the sentence that others didn't seem to be investigating the research claims of OP, after rereading what you and others had posted in that regard. SilentAshes (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Assume good faith: when someone posts a Wall-O-Text, using typographical devices to place emphasis on the most critical parts might make parsing easier for a reader.
Belittling people for their writing/rhetorical skills not yet having been refined is juvenile and toxic. Do better. ~2026-34838-40 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be a real pattern here of being asked for information to support the changes I think are important to prevent harm, then having the research that is provided be belittled and devalued. The avenues for seeking input from other editors only opens those seeking change up for more ridicule and devaluing attacks, as well as threats to be banned. I am not investing my time and my energy into providing a well evidenced response for no reason, the article as it stands has been accessed around 9000 times. A significant proportion of those may be trying to make sense of returning traumatic material and so the literature around dissociative amnesia (a well evidenced traumatic response) should be in the introductory paragraph. It is incredible that such an important topic can devolve into the sort of comments like those above. NpsychC (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Given the increasing research about the link between suicide risk and dissociative disorders https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-025-00622-5, the repressed memory article needs updating. Given the potential for harm, the quality of the debate here and on the talk page is quite alarming. NpsychC (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The 'real pattern' is that the research you provide does not actually support the changes you want made to the article. That's why people keep bringing up WP:OR. Your claims that people who want to keep the article in line with Wikipedia's policies are protecting pedophiles are not going to deflect attention from this - we have to follow WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And a violation of wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How to describe language that seems overly negative for Wikivoice? (non-BLP)

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I was reading Charles II of Navarre and came across this paragraph:

Charles of Navarre's remarkably slippery and devious political career was at an end. He retained his crown and his country but he was effectively a humiliated client of his enemies. He had lost his French territories, and his Pyrenean realm was devastated and impoverished by war. Though he continued to scheme and even still to consider himself the rightful King of France, he was essentially neutralized and impotent for the years that remained until his gruesome death.

While the sources may back up speaking entirely negatively about him, I'm not used to anyone being described this poorly in a paragraph with no attribution or citation. It almost feels like the negative version of peacock words. Not knowing anything about 14-th century France, I want to tag it for people who do, but how do I even describe this? (I just put cn, which may not be appropriate, but it is an unsourced paragraph...) Sesquilinear (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article looks to contain some unnecessary WP:PEACOCK descriptions and puffery. This is fine with attribution or when referring to quotes. Perhaps a template for WP:WEASEL or WP:POV might be appropriate, to attract attention from the community. DN (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please see this edit. I removed the obvious WP:CONTLABEL violations. The rest still needs citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think there are quite a few like that on articles about this war: just before finding that, I found this sentence which was so obviously POV that I felt comfortable editing it out on the spot. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yea spot on. Citation alone may not resolve this. Even if each term is sourced, combining several strongly negative descriptions can create an imbalance, the negative counterpart of promotional puffery. NicoR8 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • I suppose that when someone's epithet is the Bad some degree of negative coverage is expected, but the real problem is that we aren't using sources for most of this at all. Curiously, John II of France, known as the Good, had the opposite problem and was written in an unduly positive manner. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Steam Controller (1st generation) and removal of sourced claim

edit
Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steam_Controller_(1st_generation)&diff=prev&oldid=1361760800

I mildly suspect WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, but I may be biased, as the user harassed my edits since we had a dispute. Tracerneo (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Steam Controller is not associated with any console at all so it simply can't be assigned to any console generation. Masem (t) 12:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Extra Eyes on Society of Saint Pius X Please

edit
Latest comment: 19 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Experienced editors, and in particular those with some knowledge of the Catholic Church, are kindly asked to help monitor and correct as needed the article about the SSPX. They have been much in the news lately due to their decision to consecrate bishops w/o papal approval. As of this post the article appears to have been turned into a pro SSPX essay/resource page with heavy editing by obvious WP:SPA accounts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Concern regarding neutrality and due weight Accession of Albania to the European Union

edit
Latest comment: 18 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Request for review of neutrality and due weight

I would like to request a community review of the section "Rule of law, corruption and democratic backsliding".

My concern is not that the cited sources are unreliable. Rather, I believe the section gives undue weight to negative political developments in comparison with the overall scope of this article, which is Albania's accession to the European Union.

The section is substantially longer than many other parts of the article and reads almost as a standalone summary of domestic political controversies. It includes extensive coverage of corruption investigations, protests, procurement scandals, environmental protests and individual criminal cases involving politicians. Much of this content already belongs in dedicated articles and may be more appropriate there, with only concise summaries included here.

Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE policy states that articles should reflect the prominence that topics receive in reliable sources without giving disproportionate attention to one aspect of a subject. Likewise, WP:NPOV requires that significant viewpoints be represented fairly and proportionately.

The European Commission's annual reports certainly identify the rule of law, corruption and democratic governance as key accession issues. However, the current presentation appears to go considerably beyond summarizing those findings by compiling numerous recent political controversies into a single section. This may create an imbalance for readers seeking information about the accession process itself.

I therefore propose that editors consider:

  • shortening this section to summarize only those governance issues that are directly relevant to the accession negotiations;
  • moving detailed descriptions of corruption cases, protests and domestic political events to their respective articles;
  • ensuring that progress in accession negotiations, institutional reforms, legislative alignment, implementation of EU recommendations and other relevant developments receive proportionate coverage.

I welcome comments from other editors regarding whether the current balance of the article complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Due Weight policies. Brizton (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You cite WP:UNDUE here as reflecting reliable sources, but have not mentioned the content of any sources covering the subject. Sources may give these domestic political controversies a lot of weight in the context of accession, or they may not. Have you considered raising a source analysis at Talk:Accession of Albania to the European Union? CMD (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will do it. I appreciate your suggestion. Thank you Brizton (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

NPOV guidance on SVG maps of Hispaniola's territorial evolution

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I am reaching out to the NPOV noticeboard to seek guidance regarding a sequence of SVG maps I am currently developing in my sandbox (User:Stratos_449/sandbox) to illustrate the territorial evolution of the island of Hispaniola. My main goal is to fill an existing content gap on the platform and provide researchers and readers with a clear, reliable visual reference of the island's geographical history. I recently had an interaction with user Howardcorn33, who reviewed my initial proposal from a policy standpoint. The user wants me to modify my maps to ensure they strictly align with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines. Specifically, the advice was to keep the SVG maps visually cleaner and move the detailed historical text and analysis directly into the article body and captions accompanied by proper citations. Since Howardcorn33 has unfortunately become inactive due to personal circumstances, I would like to submit my current progress to the community's scrutiny to ensure that both the visual sequence and the accompanying text perfectly fulfill all NPOV criteria.

Image text needs to be neutral and descriptive. "despite its illegality and defeat" and "violating treaties in the process" are neither.
Images should avoid flashing or moving elements. Lose the fires.
Good to know that before the arrival of the Spaniards the island only contained males. I would have thought that there were females, but your image mad the all-male status clear. Wait ... what? I have been informed that I am interpreting that image incorrectly. Before the arrival of the Spaniards the island contained six giants. Alas, they were unable to repel the Spanish because they were buried up the their necks and did not have their arms free. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I came to the NPOV noticeboard seeking objective, professional guidance on a complex cartographic sequence, not a comedy routine. Sarcastic fabrications about 'giants buried to their necks' are not only completely unhelpful, but they also blatantly violate Wikipedia’s civility guidelines (WP:CIVIL).
The visual strategy in image_bd789f.png is to use prominent portraits of the island's primary chiefs—such as Caonabo and Guacanagarix—to enhance the educational value and quickly identify the leadership of the historical chiefdoms. This is a standard and effective pedagogical graphic technique. Interpreting these large portraits as 'giants buried to their necks' is either a severe and intentional misrepresentation or suggests a level of graphic illiteracy that has no place on an NPOV noticeboard.
If you have a legitimate, specific concern regarding the visual clarity of the pre-contact map symbols or the neutrality of the text, state it plainly and professionally. Otherwise, keep the unconstructive snark out of this discussion so that editors who actually want to improve the platform can proceed with the work Stratos 449 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Got it. You don't want advice on how to improve the images. You want agreement with what you have already decided to do. I won't bother you again with unwanted advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Stratos 449, I suppose that you've raised this question here because you want these images to be used on English Wikipedia. This means that all the content should follow its NPOV standards. The advice to move the text off the images is sound: it's very hard for the average editor to change the text within an image, which goes against the basic principles of wiki. Also, there is no obvious way to provide easily accessible references to large blocks of text on your maps which is bad from WP:V point of view. I don't want to discourage you - I think that making maps more lively or making infographics-maps hybrids can genuinely enhance the encyclopedia.
To be specific, maps 1-4 are okay (assuming you add sources in the file description), but on map 5 there is a lot of text that can easily be moved into caption (or less easily into an overlay), so I'd lose it.
Maybe rather than asking for feedback on all the maps here it would be more helpful to propose adding them to specific articles (or, being WP:BOLD, actually adding them) and then taking other editors' feedback into account. Alaexis¿question? 21:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the constructive feedback, @Alaexis. I appreciate the technical points regarding text accessibility and NPOV standards. Moving large blocks of text to captions or using Wikipedia's overlay tools on Map 5 is a very sensible approach to ensure easier translation and sourcing. I will work on adjusting the visual balance based on these suggestions and proceed to integrate the maps into the relevant articles.
As for the bad-faith disruptive commentary above, I am glad it has been withdrawn so the discussion can focus strictly on encyclopedic improvement. Stratos 449 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The maps are beautiful!!
One thing I want to comment on is the animation on the flames. I personally find it very distracting, and I'm sure that many others, with or without ADHD, would feel similarly. I would suggest keeping the static version of the small flames, which I think achieves the same goal without the distraction.
I'm not planning to comment on other aspects of this, just wanted to note this one thing.
Great and lovely work, keep it up! غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Chronology of the Division of Hispaniola

edit

Thierry Henry NPOV concern

edit
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a lack of neutrality concern here Talk:Thierry Henry that deserves review and monitoring.

I provided many sources when asked. They were deemed reliable for months and did add useful context to the page. Only to be disputed recently by a brand new account which is odd, who has now molded the page according to their own views completely disregarding the reliable sources contradicting them and also getting them deleted whilst adding nothing that backs their position.


other users in the dispute are contradicting themselves and moving goal posts constantly, and another has been harassing in an attempt to avoid addressing the sources. The other is refusing to add the sources that were provided including those they acknowledge are good enough for other pages of footballers describing the same issue even though they are directly related to the dispute. And on the Matter of not using other pages as a benchmark according to wikipedia rules which they mentioned the same user used another page as an example of why they refuse to consider adding certain words to the page which were backed by numerous citations, it is contradictory behaviour that isn't being held to account and I suspect bias. Wizeone2 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please note that the above content dispute was taken to ANI ninety minutes later. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is The European Conservative referenced with DUE weight in Citizen Vigilante?

edit
Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Neutrality review requested for The Polymath

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I'm trying to get an independent neutrality review of this article since there has been talk page discussion about whether it is neutral, and changes have been made in light of that discussion. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Candy Candy

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article was protected for a second time due to edit warring to advance a fandom POV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jeremy Griffith

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago26 comments7 people in discussion

Hi folks, I was alerted to this article by a sockpuppetry report, and having investigated, I'm sceptical that there's sockpuppetry here so much as multiple independent people with a strong point of view. Which does strongly suggest that the present article is very imbalanced. For starters, the article describes him as "a biologist", but he doesn't actually appear to be a biologist? My read of his own website is that he appears to be a prophet of a new religious movement (which does not like to think of itself as a religious movement). Attention from editors who are not part of this movement would be hugely welcome. Thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why we should not call Jeremy Griffith a biologist, but I would also be fine with omitting the title. This is one of those edge cases, but he does write books on biology and some sources call him a biologist. We should, however, use language that makes it clear that his views are not mainstream and that he is also a right wing political commentator.
While recent changes to the article are a clear improvement, I did find an easily-fixable NPOV problem with the article.
In this edit this section on bushfires was removed on what appears to be ideological grounds ("should not platform apparent climate denial") and the dubious claim that The Spectator Australia, 2GB Sidney and Sky News Australia are primary sources.
Griffith's bushfire argument doesn't actually address climate change. He advocates replacing native eucalypts with non-native plants that aren't "incinerators from hell dressed up as trees" with a great big helping of his usual "left bad, right good" rhetoric. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Guy Macon, why do you find the primary source claim to be dubious? The articles in question weren't written about Griffith, but by him, so it's appropriate to say they are primary sources for his opinion. The source you've linked as an example of calling him a biologist gives a pretty strong whiff of paid coverage to me, and doesn't have a byline. The website it links to (which is linked to Griffith) calls him a biologist, but it seems to me this is Griffith's preferred framing. As far as I can tell, he has only the bachelor's degree. He does appear to have the support of some people who are actually biologists, but that's not really the same thing.
Regarding "right wing political commentator", do you have sources for that we could add to the article? He does clearly disdain "The Left", but so do a great many people who are not right wing political commentators. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
A primary source such as someone writing an article for The Spectator is considered generally reliable for the fact that the writer wrote something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was written. I see zero indication at of wikipedia making any claim about the dangers of eucalypts. All I see is the claim that Jeremy Griffith wrote some things about the dangers of eucalypts. The first claim would, if it existed, be something we should source or remove. Removing the second claim because the source is primary is dubious. He did write that. Note that "dubious" is not the same thing as "wrong". It would be a better match to "probably wrong".
I reject your assertion that you can't be a scientist without an advanced degree or indeed any degree at all. Try to edit the James Prescott Joule or Oliver Heaviside pages to claim that they were not physicists and see how far you get. Or that Félix d'Hérelle was not a microbiologist. Other examples: Jack Horner (paleontologist), Michael Faraday, Isaac Ochoterena, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Amelia Laskey, Humphry Davy, James Croll, George Green (mathematician), Miriam Rothschild.
Just as with the case of scientists (a scientist is someone who does science) a political commentator is someone who publishes political commentary. His book Death by Dogma: The biological reason why the Left is leading us to extinction, and the solution is certainly that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Guy Macon, those are all people who have made contributions to science. Can you point to any of Griffith's? And certainly, I don't dispute that he's a political commentator; he has commented on politics in public and been paid for it, which, as you point out, is basically the definition of being a political commentator. I don't think we need an RS to make that claim, because it is obvious, non-specific, and not extraordinary. What I don't know is whether he is a right wing political commentator. He quite obviously disapproves of "woke", and since he associates that with "the Left", we can presume he is not a self-identified leftist. But "not a self-identified leftist" and "right wing" are not synonyms. If you've found an independent source that deals with his political views that would be very helpful, since what we have in the article at present is mostly primary-source stuff. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Now that is an interesting question! Reliable sources that talk about Jeremy Griffith are already scarce, and reliable sources that classify Jeremy Griffith's politics one way or the other are, as far as I can tell, nonexistent.
A bit of good old fashioned (and useless for our purposes) WP:OR makes it obviously clear that he is right wing. If he wasn't he would not have written
"So that is the first left-wing-culture-destroying clarification that understanding the human condition enables—that while the right-wing has continued humanity’s heroic quest for understanding, the Left has given in to the temptation of relief-hunting and abandoned that all-important search."
or
"In fact, soon the only way the right-wing may be able to win power will be by the left-wing’s addictive culture of relieving yourself of your corrupted condition by finding pseudo idealistic causes to support becoming so extremely destructive of humanity’s all-important, heroic search for knowledge that a great revulsion of the dishonest, utter trashiness of the Left develops and there is a desperate return to supporting the Right (such as happened with the re-election of Donald Trump in American politics in 2024)."
...but we can't build an encyclopedia on original research. I know that he is right wing just as surely as I know (again, through OR) that anyone who claims that the holocaust is Jewish lies and that Poland attacked Germany is a Nazi, but I can't find a reliable source for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mean, at a certain point we can simply declare the sky is (usually) blue. I personally would be perfectly happy to accept "biologist" for someone with a history of publishing in biology journals, by the same general blue-sky standard. But since it appears to be something he pushes heavily in his self-promotion, I'm wary of it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The fact that his argument says that the science is settled and that there are but two causes of the bushfires (poor management by the lefties / eucalipses) is a form of climate denial, as it does not recognise further causes such as climate change. There are two strategies to tackle that per WP:FRINGE: delete the primary sources if it's not imprtant enough (it might be, I've not looked in a lot of detail), or add sources describing the mainstream opinion. I found it difficult to do so without it sounding editorialising, which is the main reason I opted for deletion. If this is an important part of his current writings, culling of his own words and putting in wider context might work. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 11:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do any RS call him a biologist, if not it is only a claim. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Mm, not really academic, but yes these do call him a biologist; as such we should. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
We surely don't need or require academic sources for something that prosaic? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Guy, if you'd like to add any of those that are RS to the article in support of the claim, that would be very helpful. I spot-checked three; none were RS, so I stopped there. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sydney Morning Herald is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's a single one, and I see @Femke has already challenged that one on the talk page. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Times of Israel is also a RS. Alaexis¿question? 06:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe that Detroit Metro Times is a RS as well. It is used as a source in 9 articles and the only time it has come up at RSN is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 517#Is Jewish Insider a reliable source, where it was accepted as a RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
But blogs hosted by them may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's a difficult question. We've been calling Griffith a biologist for ages, which can explain why other sources have started using it. Biologist can have multiple meanings:
  1. Someone with a PhD in biology who works in a research position (be it private sector or academia)
  2. Someone without a PhD who still manages to engage in academic writing of some sort. Griffith's writing probably fits better into philosophy than biology proper, even if he refers to biology as well. His work is not published with any academic publisher or peer-reviewed journal, which makes this not a good fit either.
Cambridge dictionary defines is as a "Scientist who studies biology"
The claim is WP:extraordinary in my view, calling someone a biologist who doesn't have the training nor the activities we normally expect a biologist to engage in. The labels in the first sentence should be uncontested where possible, and I think it's quite possible to write a neutral first sentence without using his label.
Could this be a compromise? "Australian author known for his writings on human nature." In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 11:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Guy, the Detroit News one is "Contributor News". That's not actually their journalists; it's sponsored content. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! A quick look at that author's other articles has the obvious stink of "somebody paid me to write this". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not even sure he's a real author so much as a collective pseudonym. If it were a real author you'd think they'd have other authors writing for Contributor News. But it's almost entirely him going back months and months. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Alaexis, you've fallen into the trap intended by that promotor, I'm afraid. That's a blog on the Times of Israel site and isn't actually affiliated with them, so doesn't share its RS status. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh I didn't notice it's a blog. Alaexis¿question? 10:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Given the above discussion, I am now of the opinion that we should not call Jeremy Griffith a biologist. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • This is pretty similar to the previous conversation introduced by @Very Polite Person about "mediumship" in that the titles "biologist" and "medium" have a spectrum of amateur to professional/more formally recognized participation. Since JG calls himself a biologist, I am inclined to mention the same. I'm very skeptical that we should start deciding who has made contributions to science (Karin Magnussen is identified as a biologist).
    I don't think that Griffith is faking participation in peer-reviewed biology journals ("self-promotion") so much as he and his people are interested in promoting a non-mainstream view of what constitutes the field of the study of life. Which, yeah. But biologist is not a guild-protected title, just as mediumship technically isn't, either. Drew Stanley (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Inclusion of crimes/shootings section in "Drum magazine" article

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Zhiar Ali

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Following a discussion on the talk page of this article, it came to light that I nominated this article for GA in 2023 without having disclosed my COI, which I only did in 2025. I've since worked to bring every claim in the article to secondary sourcing and have removed content that couldn't be. There's an active disagreement on the talk page about whether the current version still reads as promotional and whether the article's history undermines its GA status regardless of its current state.

I'd appreciate a second (or hopefully more) set of eyes to independently assess whether the article, as it stands now, complies with WP:NPOV and is free of promotional or non-neutral language. I don't want to place the burden of editing on anyone, so comments I can address myself are entirely welcome, but you're also welcome to make any changes you think are needed. épine ♬ 00:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've read through the talk discussion of the article. Something that I am first concerned about is the independence of the sources cited from the wikipedia article itself. For example, the lgbtq nation article seems like a reliable source for this article at first glance, but it's also linking the Zhiar Ali wikipedia page in its body which raises the doubt about whether it falls under Wikipedia:CIRC. In general, I am struggling to see which aspect of the article demonstrates Wikipedia:NBIO. I want to say it's for the activism? I am not sure exactly what sub-category of people activists would come under in Wikipedia:NBIO in order to accurately evaluate the article. But from a basic criteria that there needs to be significant coverage in secondary sources regarding the notable impact of Ali's activism, I don't think that the current sources demonstrate notability. The sources do mention him as an activist, but that doesn't prove notability. Katiedevi (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Intellectual Diversity: The Sequel -- Now in 3D and Smell-O-Vision!

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At Talk:Intellectual diversity there is a discussion about NPOV of that article that may interest readers of this noticeboard.

Yes, Smell-O-Vision actually happened... (smile)

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

secret hamas conspiracy theory i.e. 1993 Philadelphia meeting

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Austrian school sources

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was tralling through the Austrian school of economics sources and their related articles and their sources and most or all violate the verify policy (especially anarcho-capitalism) and I don’t want trall through every article to put cleanup templates. So I came here. – KaijuEditor (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

What would you have us do here? Drew Stanley (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Elite overproduction

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Elite overproduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this article today and I winced a bit. The article looks like a college essay based mostly on opinion perhaps suffering from WP:SYNTH, and original research but mostly suffering from an opinion that almost every social phenomenon ever is the result of elite overproduction which is a POV that at least needs attribution and careful weighting. A succession of right-wing theorists is quoted but essentially no acknowledgement of most other political theories/philosophies which explain a lot of these points in other ways. There is a consistent assertion of opinions as facts, at least by implication, that I see going on. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who disagree with this framing, and I note on the talkpage that the tagging of the article was resisted by the main author, User:Nerd271 back in March.

Are there editors able to see the problems I'm seeing and help? I'm not quite sure what to do here. I have notified the person being discussed and the article talkpage of this discussion.

jps (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa § He declared himself president

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gaza war Lede image change

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's proposed we change Gaza war lede image to represent images from war ( from both sides ) Please participate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_war#Lede_image Cinaroot (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Superpower lede and content

edit
Latest comment: 2 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It appears that the situation on Superpower is a bit out of control. Recently, a DRN for it failed, and since then discussion has only spiraled further. The issue is around trying to define which countries qualify as superpowers, specifically focused on China. The difficulty is there are reliable sources stating a wide range of possible classifications. I've proposed a lede that I believe abides by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by balancing the different views, but the conversation is ongoing and I don't believe likely to resolve without some uninvolved editors stepping in. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1365207729"