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

DUE weight in ADL intro paragraph

Could we get some input on WP:DUE weight for the text During the Gaza war and genocide, the ADL has been criticized for conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism and for exploiting the accusation of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel for the WP:OPENing paragraph of Anti-Defamation League? It was removed by Nehushtani and then discussed at Talk:Anti-Defamation League#11 January 2026.

Current scholarship supporting this text, cited in the relevant section of the article, includes:

• Pappé, Ilan (2024). Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic. A Oneworld book. London: Oneworld. ISBN 978-0-86154-403-5.

After 1967, combating anti-Semitism against American Jews ceased to be its main task - now, cheered on by AIPAC, it sought to portray certain 'anti-Israel' actions as anti-Semitic. It propagandised against any attempt to pressure Israel into withdrawing from the occupied territories.

• Levin, Geoffery P. (2021). "Before the New Antisemitism: Arab Critics of Zionism and American Jewish Politics, 1917-1974". American Jewish History. 105 (1–2): 103–126. doi:10.1353/ajh.2021.0005. ISSN 1086-3141.

Daniel Schroeter writes that in the aftermath of the 1967 war, advocates for Israel "alarmed at what they saw as growing sympathy for the Arabs and Palestinians began to use the term 'new anti-Semitism,' which they understood as antisemitism either expressed or disguised as anti-Zionism." … The 1974 book The New Anti-Semitism by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein gave a name to the concept.

• Zimmerman, Simone (August 2025). "Nakba denial and the future of American Judaism". Critical Research on Religion. 13 (2): 247–253. doi:10.1177/20503032251344335. ISSN 2050-3032.

In order to maintain ironclad support for Israel, many American Jewish organizations deny not just the reality of the Nakba, but also the fact that this unjust, unequal, and oppressive reality endangers all who live between the river and the sea—Jewish and Palestinian. They work overtime to preserve an image of a moral and beleaguered Israel, to insist that calls for accountability are an existential threat, and to silence voices of dissent. There is perhaps no organization more identified with this strategy than the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL says they’re a neutral arbiter of antisemitism, no matter where it shows up, but that’s not true. They have conflated the safety of Jews with support for the state of Israel. In so doing, they undermine their own stated mission of fighting antisemitism. How did this happen? Since the 1970s, the ADL has sought to popularize the concept of the “new antisemitism,” the idea that Israel as “the Jew on the world stage,” was being unfairly singled out for criticism in ways that echoed old school antisemitism (see Forster and Benjamin 1974). إيان (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not question that the claim is supported by reliable sources and even due for the lead. It was suggested on the talk page that it should go in the third paragraph; I have no objection to that. However, MOS:BEGIN says that the first paragraph "should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". The organisation was founded in 1913 and has a history of over 110 years. A controversy that involves less than 3 years of that history is not due in the first paragraph. Nehushtani (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The sentence isn't ideal, because as the quoted sources point out, the ADL has a much longer history of gradually shifting its mission from being an antisemitism watchdog prioritizing protecting American Jews to defending Israel (at the expense of the former mission according to many critics) (t · c) buIdhe 05:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

As the originator of this notice, it can be closed, as far as I'm concerned. The issue was caused by a banned sock. إيان (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The cat vs The dog

In lede of article Dog - dogs are referred to as they

In article Cat - cats are referred to as it

I wish to update the lede to use they for cats - as they are sentient and popular pets comparable to Dogs

Discuss at Talk:Cat#It_vs_They Cinaroot  💬 01:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of Spain (or not)

There's a bit of a kerfuffle over at Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_the_Iberian_Peninsula#Requested_move_14_January_2026, where the page title has bounced around like pinball for a few years and no one can agree what's best. I think it's a simple NPOV case of following the sources, but not everyone agrees. I seek NPOVN guidance. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute on Almohads (Shilha Berber as an official Language)

I see that there is a dispute in the article Almohad Caliphate,Talk:Almohad Caliphate. regarding the inclusion of Berber (Tachelhit) as an official/institutional language of the Almohads in the Infobox. While I provided a modern, peer reviewed academic monographe (Ghouirgate 2014, published by Presses universitaires), confirming the institutional frame of Berber language of Masmuda, explicitly mentioning in his paper that it correspond to the present day Tachelhit (Referencing scholars like Van Der Boogert), I also discussed the relevence of the concept of "Official language" for a medieval empire the Almohads as such ... Opposite editors are insisting on keeping only Arabic based on a general history source from 1952 (Henri Terrasse).

One of them deleted my comment for the Talk page without any logical reason, he accused me of saying sometjing I didn't say, and he also called an academic source "Repetitive BS".

I request a neutral review to this incident. Thank you! Aɣaras iḍlan (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Didn't notice it was a comment. Thought it was a new discussion, my bad. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Reform UK § RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Reform UK § RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Image of Renee Good in ICE article

There is a discussion at Talk:United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement#Renee Good photo. Irrelevant? on whether the image of Renee Good is DUE. إيان (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Potential bias on Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic) article

I am pretty interested in legal academia, and after reading about Jeffrey Rosen's ouster from the National Constitution Center in the New York Times, I checked Wikipedia to see how it had covered the story. I found that his removal had not been covered at all and that the page was unchanged. I immediately updated the page to note and added a short paragraph describing the removal based on the New York Times report. I am concerned, though, that I may have acted a bit too hastily. I have met Jeffrey Rosen and spoke with him in person, so some subconscious bias toward him could very easily have made its way into the article. If another editor can verify the NPOV of the description, that would be great. Pipoin (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think talk page discussion might help with this. Asteramellus (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the content. The edit seems neutral, but the level of detail seems a bit much. Also, you may want to review WP:BLP and WP:NOT. Asteramellus (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi

More eyes would be nice on Reza Pahlavi, various levels of pro-Pahlavi vs anti-Pahal, pro-shah vs anti-shah, and a mix of the arab-israeli conflict mixed in. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Operation Metro Surge

Can we please get more eyes on Operation Metro Surge? I am concerned about the new section Operation Metro Surge#Notable patterns of operation tactics (seems a bit like an essay trying to convince the reader that ICE is bad), and I am also concerned about a recent change in the section above it converting from prose to a two-layer bulleted list. I have corresponding sections on the talk page to discuss these issues, at Talk:Operation Metro Surge#Bulleted list and Talk:Operation Metro Surge#The "Notable patterns of operation tactics" section. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I deleted the section "Notable patterns of operation tactics" and I think the article is looking better now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Falun Gong-related article

There are questions about the neutrality of the 2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article. Please see the discussion here: Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident#Which journalists claim the self-immolation was staged? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Description of HazteOir in lede of CitizenGO

• CitizenGO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:CitizenGO#New_lead_consensus

Dispute over the following in the lede [1]:

by the ultra-Catholic and far-right HazteOir organization, a similar Spanish platform that has been opposing what they refer to as "gender ideology" since 2001.

References

There is no article currently for HazteOir and this article does not mention "ultra-Catholic" in the article body. Hipal (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.elespanol.com/reportajes/20250525/propaganda-fe-millones-opera-citizengo-lobby-ultracatolico-hazteoir-afin-putin-lona-sanchez/1003743770056_0.html Propaganda, fe y millones: así opera CitizenGo, el lobby ultracatólico de HazteOir afín a Putin que está tras la lona contra Sánchez.

https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/hazteoir-blanquea-vinculacion-yunque-plataforma_1_3606596.html Los ultracatólicos de HazteOir cambian de marca para limpiar su imagen

https://www.lasexta.com/noticias/nacional/hazte-oir-vuelve-carga-autobus-feminismo-violencia-genero-violencia-domestica_201902285c77ca230cf252a9edaa8c88.html El nuevo autobús de la asociación ultracatólica HazteOir.org

https://www.levante-emv.com/valencia/2019/02/28/autobus-ultra-recorrera-valencia-mensajes-13934814.html Según el portavoz de la asociación ultracatólica

As an example of journals, the term also appears in academic papers and even books:

"The WCF was instrumental in creating CitizenGo as a transnational and interdenominational NGO, thus significantly expanding the agenda and reach of the hitherto Spanish-only, ultra-Catholic NGO HazteOir." - THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF ILLIBERALISM

I think it’s very important that when an organization is mentioned in reputable press, academic journals, or books, and those sources consistently use certain adjectives, the wiki article should reflect that common description in the lead. Otherwise, we would be obscuring how experts understand the subject. Let us not pretend there was no consensus. All the sources use the phrase in a meaningful way. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to remove something that is already extensively referenced. Unless you can dismiss the citations I support that we revert to the consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CitizenGO&oldid=1331527474 and completely remove the issues template. Cardnewman (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

...when an organization is mentioned... "Mentioned" does not mean WP:DUE, much less presented in the lede of a related article but not in the article body, and using Wikipedia's voice.

The burden of proof lies... Actually, you have that backwards. Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't remember hearing the term Ultra-Catholic before. So what is this ideology, another variation of Traditionalist Catholicism, with political positions to the right of the current version of the Catholic Church? Dimadick (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Holocaust survivors and descendants supporting Palestine

Input welcome, there’s a merge discussion at Talk:Jewish pro-Palestinian activism#Merge Kowal2701 (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Tesla Robotaxi safety

There is a discussion about the Tesla Robotaxi safety at: Talk:Tesla Robotaxi. Some editors insist on removing referenced content, but by doing so there would be no neutral point of view. Mfixerer (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Just flagging that yes, this looks like it needs additional eyes -- it looks like there have been multiple attempts to introduce material about crashes and safety that have been repeatedly been removed since the article was created. Some of it looks like it should've definitely been removed (reddit citations), but given the amount of press it's gotten on the subject of safety, it does seem strangely thin in the article. Mfixerer isn't doing a very good job of advocating for their position, but I'm also unpersuaded by the counter arguments. Mfixerer, we don't typically create whole sections devoted to a single source, so start there as a compromise, but also it looks like there are plenty of sources out there about Robotaxis, safety, and crashes. Do a little more legwork, compile some sources together, and you have a better argument to stand on. Sites like tech crunch reference Electrek on this issue, reinforcing that it's probably worth including. Futurism, Futurism, Mashable, Jalopnik, Ars Technica, etc. just in the first couple pages of search hits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Futurism and Jalopnik both produce a high volume of clickbait anti-Tesla articles; I can't speak for Mashable and Ars Technicha they might be more reasonable.

The primary issue is that comparing the crashes per mile of an early and limited area probationary service to one which has been active for several years over a very wide area and should be fully mature contains an inherent statistical dishonesty. Like comparing the spelling mistakes per sentences written over the lifetime of a 1st grader v.s. a college student, of course the 1st grader's spelling mistakes per sentence will be higher: they're only just getting good at spelling; and the college student's spelling was just as bad in 1st grade; they've just written more sentences overall since the bulk of their spelling mistakes occurred.

Thus, the assertion that Tesla Robotaxi's to-date safety record is shockingly worse than Waymo's to-date safety record is inherently flawed and being played for outrage value rather than actual statistical significance. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

"anti-Tesla"? You mean they're critical. A publication doesn't have to be "pro-Tesla" to be reliable, and it sounds like your objections are based more on your own interpretation of what is or is not newsworthy, for which we defer to those sources. Where a claim is controversial (as in, there's room for disagreement among reliable sources, without factoring in the opinions of Wikipedians), we attribute it to them. If you don't think Jalopnik or Futurism should be considered reliable when it comes to Tesla, WP:RSN is where you can make the argument, but I think they're both considered halfway decent sources on cars/technology. To be clear, I'm not endorsing Mfixerer's edit as-is. The wording and citations need work, and I've advised them to improve it above. But I'm also responding to what looks like a fairly skewed article, where perhaps "anti-Tesla" articles are omitted in favor of e.g. Teslarati (which has come up at RSN before). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I definitely don't think sources need to be "pro-Tesla" to be reliable, by anti-Tesla I mean sources engaging in selective/hypocritical interpretation, skewing facts, cherry picking evidence, and setting out with a "Teslas are dangerous/bad for the environment/worse than ICE cars in some way, how can we prove that?" mindset, which I have definitely seen Futurism do to Tesla and Jalopnik do to both Tesla and electric cars in general. Neutral presents the facts without any of that anti-/pro- twisting or interpretation, and especially without luridness, appeals to outrage, or other propagandistic smearishness.

Agree that Teslarati usage should be reduced as much as possible, by my understanding it is basically a fansite.

Full agreement with DistilledPizza's comment immediately below. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I think a section on safety could be added to the article, but I don't think going purely off the amount of coverage is a good reason. Tesla is very divisive, and so it's inevitable that there are going to be exaggerations that exist only to create outrage. There are tons of videos of Waymos making dumb driving mistakes, but no one talks about them as much as when a Tesla makes the same mistake. I'm not against mentioning the safety of Robotaxi in the article but it should be

1. Well sourced.

2. Free of comparison to Waymo or other autonomous cars.

3. Written as neutrally as possible and without exaggerating the severity of crashes.

Also just reading that TechCrunch article you gave to support the integrity of Electrek, and I'm not very convinced. One of the references is just to show that Tesla redacts the crash data, one is a blatant lie (or at least a gross misrepresentation) about Tesla moving the safety monitor to the drivers seat when in reality that's only the case for highway drives, and the other two are just about quotes from Musk. These aren't exactly high levels of journalistic critique. DistilledPizza (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with comparisons to Waymo?

Other than that I agree with this. Perhaps it would be good to limit the size of this section. There is some tension between WP:NPOV and WP:RS here. On one hand, if RS talk a lot about Tesla's safety issues Wikipedia should reflect that. On the other hand, if the actual safety stats of Tesla are comparable to those of its competitors (and probably are much better than human drivers' performance) then it doesn't seem neutral to dwell too much on this topic. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Largely Legible Layman already laid it out in this thread, but I'll say it again. Robotaxi shouldn't be compared to Waymo because it's still very new and hasn't had nearly as much time as Waymo to become fully fleshed out. And besides, Autonomous cars should always be judged against human drivers, because at the end of the day that's what they're trying to replace. It's not like we mention the crash test ratings of the Honda Civic in the Toyota Corolla's article. And for a more apples to apples comparison, in the incidents section of the Cruise article, there aren't any comparisons to Waymo. The only time Waymo is even mentioned is when talking about how both Waymo and Cruise vehicles had blocked first responders. DistilledPizza (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to comparisons between services so long as the source puts in the effort to compare the services to each other at similar points in their respective developments so that the comparison is statistically honest. Electrek did not do that and consequently its comparisons between Robotaxi and Waymo are statistically dishonest and most of the other sources seem to be copying Electrek's homework. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

then it doesn't seem neutral to dwell too much on this topic - That sounds like WP:OR to me. WP:WEIGHT is determined by coverage, not an editors' evaluation of "yeah, well, they didn't cover Company X as much as they should've so we can factor that in...". The answer, as ever, is to summarize aspects of the subject corresponding to the prevalence of those aspects in the body of reliable sources. That's WP:NPOV on Wikipedia, for better and worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that it's WP:OR. WP:WEIGHT is primarily about the weight given to different viewpoints. Here the issue is not that there are 2 different viewpoints on the safety of Tesla. Even if (generally reliable) media outlets report on every single fatality, we still shouldn't have a huge safety section that mentions every accident. Alaexis_¿question? 08:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If RS deems it noteworthy, so should we. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

FSM

Please, can anyone put "an end" to an ongoing argument at Template:Did you know nominations/Federated States of Micronesia–Russia relations, where an editor insists that the FSM (a sovereign nation) per all articles, is dependent on the US? Thanks, it seems to be on purpose dragged on. Thanks. CoryGlee 16:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have made several edits to expand the article and fix small errors. Feel free to remove anything if I've gotten something wrong. I have not had a chance to read through the DYK discussion yet, but, at a glance, I see others have already commented. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Dispute regarding death figures mentioned in the infobox of the article 2025–2026 Iranian protests

I am seeking input on the death tolls presented in the infobox of 2025–2026 Iranian protests, as I believe the current presentation violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025–2026_Iranian_protests#New_death_figures_mentioned_in_the_infobox Hu741f4 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Commented on talk page, copying it over here:

The Iranian government, and any IRGC-run press, are WP:NOTRS for this subject.

TIME[2] and the Guardian[3] are reporting that the Iranian government has killed tens of thousands of civilians. There is an obvious conflict of interest here with the Iranian government attempting to downplay this reporting. Quoting the Guardian article: "Testimony from medics, morgue and graveyard staff reveals huge state effort to conceal systematic killing of protesters"

Including Iranian government figures as equally valid would be a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and give WP:UNDUE credence to what the Guardian calls a "huge state effort to conceal systematic killing of protesters." DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This is Hu741f4's sixth (!) attempt [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] at trying to minimize the numbers of civilian casualties at the hands of the regime. I think this is a pretty massive indicator of who truly is violating WP:NPOV here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sorry if I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here but Hu741f4's constant attempts at downplaying the severity of the crackdown in Iran while ignoring reliable sources is mind boggling. And since they are not getting their way, instead of dropping the stick they have now dragged the discussion into another venue in pursuit of a different outcome, which most certainly they will not get. Keivan.f^Talk 05:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You are violating WP:AFG and WP:PA at the moment. Just because a source is reliable does not mean it can be included in an article, again see WP:RS instead of inventing convenient guidelines. Tine and the Guardian have not provided any reliable source for the number of casualties and are instead relying off third party speculation. There is no confirmed number for the casualties in the protests, unlike for the Gaza Genocide in which the number of casualties has been confirmed as reliable my several academic and human right authorities. So it is highly irresponsible of a Wikipedia article to claim that 40,000+ people were killed even if so called “reliable sources” mention that number. Being reliable sources does NOT make them unquestionable sources. SwedishDutch (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You already tried this same failed tactic countless times of denying WP:RS that goes against regime propaganda and altering/removing it [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and were warned for it. You even claimed to have IRGC (designated as a terrorist group by many countries, and soon the whole EU [16]) connections on your userpage [17]. WP:SPA. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If, for the infobox, we ignore the relative reliability of sources and just want a literal NPOV rather than the overall more nuanced WP:NPOV policy, then we would include the 50k death estimate per "activists and political prisoners" in Iran and "medical authorities" per Reza Pahlavi per The Sunday Times. However, so far, nobody has argued that Pahlavi, a politician (and hypothetical monarch-in-exile) is a sufficiently reliable source for putting that estimate in the infobox of either of the two relevant Wikipedia articles. In contrast, the Iranian government is known to undercount official killings of Iranian citizens by Iranian authorities by a factor of about eight on average, making it definitely WP:NOTRS. Boud (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Why not "according to... however according to..."? Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is for the infobox, which already has (have, if we consider both articles) footnotes to the infobox numbers. There is very little dispute about the numbers in the main body of the two relevant articles. There have been some disputes for the leads. Most of the editing disputes are for the infoboxes. Boud (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

We can still do this in the info box (of one article) we put both the lowest (according to) and highest (according to). Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hu741f4 (talk · contribs)'s persistence on trying echo the Iranian regime's attempts to minimize the impact of an ongoing genocide is indeed highly concerning. I find this editing pattern extremely worrisome. It's also highly possible that SwedishDutch (talk · contribs) is the sock puppet account of user Hu741f4. Ecrusized (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if the two of them are not connected, SwedishDutch's attempts at pushing IRGC affiliated sources pretty much gives their game away. Both of them need to be topic banned if this pattern of behavior persists. Keivan.f^Talk 15:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Keivan.f Accusing users baselessly of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry doesn't go with WP:CIVIL and makes it more difficult to solve edit disputes. Instead of hoping that your fellow Wikipedian be banned, maybe engage with them on the merits of the conversation. Cheers. Perfecnot (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Perfecnot I appreciate your comment but I didn't accuse anyone of anything, so your comment is a bit misdirected. And I don't see the point in discussion when one party is hell bent on using deprecated sources and erasing valid data. Keivan.f^Talk 17:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right, it was @Ecrusized that accused @Hu741f4 of being a sockpuppet. I retract that.

Can you provide evidence that @Hu741f4 erased valid data? Because I don't see anything of that nature. Perfecnot (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Did he actually go ahead and erase the data completely in his edits? No, because we did not let him, but that's what he has essentially been arguing for in his comments. The issue is that we cannot omit information based on user preferences. If multiple sources say that the deaths are in the thousands then that's what we are obliged to report on. As I pointed out on the article talk page, what the user in question fails to understand is that we are dealing with a regime who's cut off the Internet to hide the extent of their crimes; thus why a precise figure cannot be given. Hence why we have a range in the infobox, but they want to alter the range because their main issue is that they do not “believe” that the number could be this high (SwedishDutch) or that because an exact number has not been determined so according to them that means the estimates are somewhat invalid (Hu741f4). Keivan.f^Talk 08:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Genocide is a highly specialized legal term and it there are no reputable/relevant organizations individuals claiming that the crackdown on protestors in Iran was in anyway a genocide.

Secondly, I find that this dogpiling on @Hu741f4 highly concerning. I am among several users who have been putting doubt onto the current state in which the infoboxes in 2026 Iran massacres and 2025–2026 Iranian protests are formatted. I am not opposed to the Time (magazine) estimate being included, just that the range is also expanded to the figure just above 6,000 that media organizations such as the Associated Press are citing as of Jan 27th.[18]

@HistoryofIran linked to 6 purported edits but it seems he has just linked to talk page sections that @Hu741f4 has initiated, as any Wikipedian should do if they have an issue with the article they want to discuss. Perfecnot (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Expanding the range would presumably also include the 50,000 estimate by "activists and political prisoners" in Iran and "medical authorities" per Reza Pahlavi per The Sunday Times of 24 January 2026. (The 80k estimate per military sources per Mohsen Hashemi Rafsanjani per Sana Ebrahimi is not (currently) reliably sourced.) Boud (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I wouldn't be opposed to that. Perfecnot (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Perfecnot Thank you so much for your reply. I am not opposed to TIME figure being included either, but there should be proper attribution in closed bracket. Check out my reply there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025–2026_Iranian_protests&diff=prev&oldid=1335479317 Hu741f4 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran linked to 6 purported edits but it seems he has just linked to talk page sections that @Hu741f4 has initiated, as any Wikipedian should do if they have an issue with the article they want to discuss.

So a Wikipedian should create several threads of essentially the same topic, where they disregard user input and WP:RS, until they get their way? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear by now that there is no consensus on the death toll range that should be used. You do not get to decide when and where a Wikipedian gets to discuss a contentious edit.

Regardless, you tried to frame him creating talk pages regarding the death toll and the sources that should be used as trying to minimize civilian casualties. Whether you did that in bad faith I cannot say, and I'll assume it was a honest mistake, but regardless, it's factually incorrect.

This is Hu741f4's sixth (!) attempt [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] at trying to minimize the numbers of civilian casualties at the hands of the regime. I think this is a pretty massive indicator of who truly is violating WP:NPOV here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Perfecnot (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You do not get to decide when and where a Wikipedian gets to discuss a contentious edit.

By all means, please point out the part where I did that.

Regardless, you tried to frame him creating talk pages regarding the death toll and the sources that should be used as trying to minimize civilian casualties

Whether you did that in bad faith I cannot say, and I'll assume it was a honest mistake, but regardless, it's factually incorrect.

It is always advised to click and read on the links presented in a discussion, especially when you want to be condescending. Here's the chronological order:

1. [19] Attempted to add IRI regime numbers
2. [20] Proposed to remove WP:RS that went against the regime numbers
3. [21] Again disputed WP:RS that went against regime numbers
4. [22] Attempted to request a third opinion regarding the numbers of deaths, which was rejected as more than two people were already involved [23]
5. [24] Attempted to add regime numbers and downplay WP:RS that went against it
6. And now the sixth attempt here.

Now please tell me, since I am apparently so honestly mistaken - what violation of policies comes to mind when you see this? HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, edits 1-6 display a Wikipedian attempting to reach consensus when no such consensus has been reached about an edit. See Wikipedia:CONBUILD and Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT Perfecnot (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Their attempt at having their way was rejected multiple times by several editors, yet they continued. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAMING and WP:NPOV. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

"rejected multiple times by several editors" Individual or even multiple editors are not decision makers. That is not how things work unfortunately. Consensus is an agreement among a swath of editors.

Also, if you want to get to a consensus, you should instead propose a compromise. Which I personally haven't seen. I have not seen a single convincing argument against the inclusion of the figure just above 6,000 deaths, which the AP reported on just two days ago.[25] Perfecnot (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems you do not want to read the policies I listed, just like the links up above. I have nothing more to say to you. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I skimmed the articles.

This is a page where we are trying to reach a consensus on this contentious topic and align the article to a more NPOV. I am proposing the inclusion of a smaller death toll which has been reported on by the reputable news organization the Associated Press. What do you think? Perfecnot (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Have editors considered presenting this as a range - presenting a minimum and maximum number, each cited to a reliable (even if biased) source? Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe(?) I was one of the first editors to start editing the death toll in the infobox to a lower number since the high figures were unverified, per the Time (magazine) own admission.

I wasn't personally involved with any of the editors above so apparently there was a separate effort to do the same thing. Regardless, it baffles me how far this has gone when all that is being asked is the inclusion of the lower figures being cited by mainstream press. Perfecnot (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

when all that is being asked is the inclusion of the lower figures being cited by mainstream press

• The "lower figure being cited by mainstream press" is HRANA's confirmed deaths, which is in the infobox and has a general consensus to be kept in the infobox
• That is not "all that is being asked" - one of the main asks, and the most disputed, is the inclusion of Iranian govt figures (which, when mentioned by RS, are universally doubted)

DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• My two cents on all of this:
  • First and foremost, the Iranian government figures are not reliable and should not be included in the infobox.
  • The infobox currently does not make it clear that the 30k+ numbers are unconfirmed and highly speculative, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Additionally these speculations should not be given priority over the more robust HRANA figures.
  • Accusations that users are trying to downplay/minimize the severity of the killings are not helpful. Describing the killings as an "ongoing genocide" (with no RS support), smacks of WP:RGW.
  • Regardless of Hu741f4's behavior at 2025–2026 Iranian protests, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. A local consensus of editors at one talk page can't override this. As such there is nothing wrong with bringing concerns here to get more eyes on them. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Asking new editors to review neutrality and structural rewrite of Claremont McKenna College page

In July 2024, I disclosed a COI before proposing a structural rewrite of the existing Claremont McKenna College (CMC) page in September of that year. The rewrite, which can be found in my Sandbox here, reorganizes the content for improved flow and readability. The draft keeps all the content of the existing article, including critical coverage and I specifically avoided adding promotional materials. The goal was to rearrange the copy and information for clarity as additions over the years made it harder to read.

The size of the revision has led to disputes over its implementation, though, with concerns raised about its neutrality and tone.

I’m looking for third-party input on the following:

• Per WP:NPOV, does the Sandbox draft maintain neutrality, and is it the right approach for the school’s content;
• Do the changes align with Wikipedia’s content and neutrality policies; and
• Are there any specific concerns about tone or bias that need to be addressed before the rewrite is published.

For context, it may help to know that:

• This rewrite was originally submitted as a COI edit request that stalled due to the draft’s scale and resulting feedback, which has been addressed.
• The rewrite is just to improve organization.

• Two tables mapping every change was provided for transparency here on January 8, 2025.
• The rewrite on my Sandbox page includes two versions: (1) one dated January 2026, which includes changes requested on the CMC Talk page by editors who did a partial review of the draft, and (2) one dated January 2025, which was the COI edit request referenced above.

I’d appreciate a review of the Sandbox draft by experienced editors who haven’t previously worked on this article and who can provide feedback or recommendations for next steps, such as whether to proceed with the replacement text or whether it needs continued revision. Thanks for the help! Clementine Sandoval (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Clementine Sandoval, I appreciate all the work you have put into this. I think it is a small improvement to the existing article, though the formatting is messed up and that campus map is not properly licensed and may need to be removed. The stuff about the Claremont Colleges needs to stay down in the body of the article not in the lead. Just mention the affiliation in the lead.

The article still reads like material that belongs on a college website or a student recruitment brochure rather than in an encyclopedia. That is the POV problem. The infobox includes a link to the college website which lets people find out more if needed. Most college articles aren't very well done here, I admit, but as an encyclopedia we would like to see the whole history of the college treated rather than just publicizing the current state. Why was the institution founded and by whom? Was it initially part of the Claremont colleges or did it associate later? What were the discussions like surrounding the admission of women? There must also have been other important developments in the college history since 1946. See Pomona College for what the organization and feel of the article should be, and for shorter examples, see Ithaca College and St. Olaf College. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There are references for the history of the college given here on the college website. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Denis Kapustin

Denis Kapustin (militant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I turn my head for two minutes and suddenly he is no longer neo-nazi, but "far right". The "Political views" section in the article contained only his own denial of being a neo-nazi. I started a discussion on it here. It'd be nice to have some more eyes on the article, lest on Wikipedia he becomes a progressive fighter for equality and human rights. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)