Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Twelve Tribes communities — "cult" in the lead, attribution question

Disclosing up front: I am a disclosed member of the Twelve Tribes community (WP:COI), the subject of this article. I am not proposing direct edits, but am seeking outside policy guidance on a sourcing and voice-of-Wikipedia question that has stalled on the talk page.

The lead of Twelve Tribes communities currently states in direct voice-of-Wikipedia narrative that the group "is a cult and new religious movement," without attribution. On talk, I raised that this conflicts with MOS:LABEL, which classifies "cult" as a value-laden word and states that wide usage calls for "in-text attribution" rather than direct assertion in Wikipedia's voice.

Checking citation 14 (which carries the unattributed claim), two scholars who've written most extensively about the group take different positions: Susan Palmer consistently uses "new religious movement," and Stuart Wright uses "fundamentalist Christian communal organization" -- neither uses "cult" in the cited text. Other sources in the bundle (Whitsett & Rosow, Lalich & McLaren, SPLC) do use "cult."

I proposed keeping "cult" in the lead alongside "new religious movement," both attributed, and splitting citation 14 so each term points to sources that actually support it. The request was declined twice on talk, without the MOS:LABEL wording itself being addressed directly. Discussion here: Talk:Twelve Tribes communities#Lead says "is a cult," body attributes it — should probably match

Question for NPOVN: Under MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV, when secondary sources vary between academic designations (NRM) and value-laden labels (cult), does policy require in-text attribution for "cult" rather than asserting it as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's voice? Mevaser (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you identify some sourcing with a better description of what this group is? Theres a giant set of 8 or so citations at the end of that cult sentence, im not sure i wanna review them all rn, but if you could find that there is obvious discrepancy in how the group is categorized fhat can hell User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure -- here's what I've found checking through citation 14's bundle so far:

Use "new religious movement" / neutral terms, not "cult," in the cited text:

• Palmer, in Lewis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998), pp. 334–335 -- never uses "cult" in the chapter text; the word appears only in the title of the book series itself.
• Wright (1997), Review of Religious Research — discusses the group at length (already cited elsewhere in the article for his "front-end/back-end disproportionality" media-coverage analysis) but calls it a "fundamentalist Christian communal organization." Where "cult" appears at all, it's in quotes, attributed to media/anticult sources, not his own classification.
• Palmer (2010), Nova Religio 13(3) -- calls the group an "international millenarian organization" / "communal NRM" in her own voice.

Use "cult" directly:

• Whitsett & Rosow, in Women's Journey to Empowerment... (Oxford UP, 2019) -- uses "cult" repeatedly, in a chapter focused on a former member's account.
• Lalich & McLaren, Escaping Utopia (Routledge, 2018) -- same, framed around ex-member narratives.
• SPLC (2018) -- uses "cult" directly in its own reporting voice, not attributed to a third party.

So it's not a fringe-vs-mainstream split -- Palmer has done fieldwork with the group since 1986 and is by far the most extensively cited academic source in the article. She doesn't use "cult" in her own analytical voice anywhere I've found. That's what led me to think this needs attribution rather than an unqualified assertion either way.

Haven't yet checked the remaining two (Swantko's papers, and the p.155 cite to Palmer's Children in New Religions) as closely -- happy to if useful. Mevaser (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

SPLC's designations cannot be stated in wikivoice anyway per the consensus on WP:SPLC as a source. None of this sourcing is strong enough to say this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey Mevaser, I agree that the reliable sources aren't all beating the same drum on how the group is labelled. Palmer's Nova Religio abstract describes it as an "American communal new religious movement" and an Oxford chapter abstract says "Christian-based nontraditional movement". I agree cult is value-laden label and under MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV, it should be attributed. I suggest "The Twelve Tribes is a communal new religious movement; it has also been described as a cult by some scholars and organizations." NicoR8 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That does make sense but a direct attribution would be needed to avoid weasel wording. It should not be that hard finding someone that actually called it a cult MacTheOp (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

based on sources that have been provided above that refer to it as a cult, what about something like "...it has also been described as a cult by some of its former members and the SPLC"? EM (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Mmm I have to say, if its in a book about a subject, it's likely to be part of that subject unless the book says otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

This rewording sounds like an improvement to me. Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all, I appreciate the time you've put into this (@NicoR8, Eucalyptusmint, and Katzrockso:). I agree that "some scholars and organizations" on its own would read as weasel wording.

One factual note so whoever settles the wording has the full picture: besides former members and the SPLC, Whitsett & Rosow (Oxford UP, 2019) and Lalich & McLaren (Routledge, 2018) are scholarly works that also use "cult." I'll leave the final choice of wording to uninvolved editors, and given my COI I'd rather not pick the exact text myself.

Since I shouldn't edit the article directly, would one of you be willing to make the change? Otherwise I'll link to this discussion on the article talk page as an edit request. Thanks again for the guidance. Mevaser (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

As NicoR8 rightly points out, there’s not a uniform characterisation used in scholarship from experts in the relevant topic areas. Specialists in abuse and control of women, and specialists in high-control groups and cults more generally, refer factually to the subject here as a cult. Scholars of religious movements view it as a religious movement. It’s not appropriate to ignore or sideline the scholarship of one group of relevant experts without good reason, while taking another’s view as fact. To maintain a neutral representation of the sources - if seeking to avoid the wikivoice use of the term cult - one solution might be to attribute both terms to the relevant disciplines. (Such an approach has recently been implemented in the article body). Cambial — foliar❧ 01:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

e.g. Scholarship from experts in the sociology of power relations and social control, and others in clinical trauma therapy, characterise the group as a cult. Sociologists of religion characterise the group as a new religious movement. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Cambial yellowing:, that seems fair to me. Attributing both terms to the fields that use them answers the wikivoice concern without sidelining anyone's scholarship. I'll leave the exact wording to you and the other editors here.

Two small details for whoever drafts it -- 1) the "cult" sourcing also includes the SPLC and former members' accounts (per Eucalyptusmint's suggestion above), not only scholars. 2) any discipline labels should track what the cited sources actually are, so nothing reads as an editor's own characterization. also, it makes sense to split the current bundled citation on that sentence so each term points to the sources that use it. Mevaser (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Just checking back -- happy to wait longer if useful, but wanted to ask again whether anyone's able to put the agreed wording into the article, or help finalize the exact text if that's still open. No rush, just didn't want this to quietly stall. Mevaser (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Cambial yellowing was this in the most recent revision? could you link the diff where this was added, as i'm unable to find it. But I think that this wording addresses the wikivoice/weasel wording concerns. The other views (former member, SPLC) could be incorporated in these sentences as well (i.e "Scholarship from experts in the sociology of power relations and social control, and others in clinical trauma therapy, characterise the group as a cult, a description also used by some former members and the SPLC; Sociologists of religion characterise the group as a new religious movement. EM (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:CULT we should not be describing anything as a cult in Wikivoice ever. It is an opinion statement because cult - outside of the sociological definition, in which it is a synonym for "new religious movement", which it was replaced by - means "harmful/bad/weird" group, violating WP:NPOV's requirement we not say opinions in Wikivoice. Plenty of sources call Hitler evil in their own voice but we cannot say "he is evil" in Wikivoice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, per the RFC on the SPLC, their classifications should not be used unattributed anyway. The sourcing here is not great especially for saying it in Wikivoice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've posted the wording options from this thread at Talk:Twelve Tribes communities as an edit request, so uninvolved editors can pick one and implement it. Given my COI I'm not choosing between them. Mevaser (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Traditional medicine/ethnobotanical section on plants' articles

Hi, I'd like some clarification on traditional medicine edits I've been making. I've been adding to various plant articles' traditional medicine sections that the plant has been used as traditional medicine in various countries, citing Julia F. Morton, Atlas of Medicinal Plants of Middle America: Bahamas to Yucatan.

Zefr has raised concerns about this User talk:Eduardo7z#Traditional medicine edits. My understanding is that I'm not adding medical claims; I'm adding the ethnobotanical/historical fact that these plants were used as traditional medicines. Is this kind of historical ethnobotanical content considered relevant enough for plant articles or does it fall under WP:UNDUE or some "not relevant" policy? I'd appreciate some opinions. Eduardo7z (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that the history of traditional medical uses of plants is relevant for two reasons. First, beliefs about the medicinal properties of plants are a significant part of the cultures of many prescientific societies. Second, a few of the traditional herbal remedies have been studied by scientists and served as a basis for important modern pharmaceuticals. An obvious example is the discovery of artemisinin by Tu Youyou, which resulted from her study of hundreds of traditional Chinese medicines. She won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; according to the Nobel Prize website, “Drugs based on artemisinin have led to the survival and improved health of millions of people.” NightHeron (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it can be added based on coverage in WP:RS (another example in addition to the one provided by NightHeron is Willow#History_of_use_in_folk_medicine). This info could also be incorporated into the "Use" section as well, where relevant, per the plants template if a separate section isn't DUE. There's an important distinction between documenting traditional uses by particular cultures which can be encyclopedic vs endorsing the claimed efficacy of those uses. EM (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It all depends on the details of the wording. There's a big difference between saying something generally was used in folk medicine, and saying substance X was "used to treat" some specific medical condition, which takes us into the realm of WP:BMI. It's debatable how due this content is, since it seems pretty much every plant has been tried for something. If a plant is significant as (say) one of the plant sources of anti-cancer agents there will be way more sourcing than an entry in an atlas. Bon courage (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I see, my follow up question would be on wording, initially I mentioned the places, preparation and what it was used for as per Morton and Zefr trimmed it down based on conciseness/MEDDATE and around concerns of reading as endorsing the uses (e.g. Special:Diff/1374956166, Special:Diff/1375085419, Special:Diff/1375087152), I then went on to only mention the countries, not the uses; since it was the Traditional Medicine section I assumed it was fine to include the uses because they were in the appropriate section (so the reader would know those are Traditional/Folk practises, not scientific knowledge), though I can see why one would worry about how to present this kind of information and am fine with omitting the uses and leaving just the countries/regions like I did here: Special:Diff/1375792463, Special:Diff/1375790391, Special:Diff/1375786528 Eduardo7z (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Reasonable people may disagree. If silverweed was used as a traditional medicine in Leicestershire is that encylopedic knowledge or a factoid that falls afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING? In the pre-scientific era many plants were used for many applications, often fruitlessly. Should we also be putting in the mouse article that fried mice were a folk medicine used for whooping cough? Same issue. Bon courage (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The trimmed versions read extremely vague to me to be adding something substantial. I think it's a case by case for each about considering due weight for inclusion. For the ones covered by multiple reliable sources, I don't see a problem with noting it with the location and time period specific facts, which indicates an ethnographic description rather than a medical claim Swirlymarigold (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't plan to include every single entry just for the sake of it since some only had a single or two uses recorded either by Morton herself or a single source, but not adding when it was a whole page of citations felt odd; lets take Lantana camara entry for example here: https://archive.org/details/atlasofmedicinal0002mort/page/738/mode/2up, she cites 16 sources and usage across various countries (the Bibliography section starts at page 1297), it doesn't read to me like a random factoid like the mouse and silverweed example Bon courage gave, should I include something like that in the article? If so, how? Right now it looks like the article has that phrasing many dislike: "L. camara has also been used in traditional herbal medicines for treating a variety of ailments, including cancer, skin itches, leprosy, chicken pox, measles, asthma and ulcers."; should I add a topic on the talk page mentioning the need to revise the section and include Morton's reference or just add the reference and leave for someone else to revise? Eduardo7z (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That article has some real problems with its WP:BMI sourcing. Lantana camara is a toxic plant sold in supplement form as a quack cure for a load of conditions. I am beginning to think this folk medicine stuff is best omitted unless we have some good WP:SECONDARY sourcing to provide commentary (like doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03837-1_7). Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Perspectives on the Morton source:

1. a respected botanist observed herbalism practices some 60+ years ago, publishing her atlas in 1981
2. there seems to be no evidence that these practices remain in the 21st century or have been reviewed in a subsequent rigorous secondary source within the past 5 years
3. her research regions in the 1960s-70s were Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean countries
4. as shown in the respective individual Wikipedia articles, all or most of these countries have modern medicine resources, with herbalism not discussed as a significant current practice (failing WP:WEIGHT)
5. discussion of herbalism observations from the mid-20th century misleads encyclopedia users to regard plants as having medicinal effects believed only by shamans using them
6. if there was a recent review of Morton's observations or existing herbalism practices for a plant, then that source should be cited; otherwise, MOS:TRIVIA and NOTEVERYTHING apply. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Even with adding specificity to the wording in the article, it doesn't convey all the nuance of how particular the context of the source is. Otherwise it sounds like this plant was generally in use and still is in use commonly, which the source doesn't indicate. For L. camara, at least, I think it'd be better to leave that out Swirlymarigold (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Here are nine review articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals in the last five years that discuss these practices. Therefore, they "have been reviewed in a subsequent rigorous secondary source within the past 5 years". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

If a plant is significant as (say) one of the plant sources of anti-cancer agents. I think that's one of the key things here. We need to be really careful about WP:FRINGE (this discussion actually probably would have been better suited for WP:FTN) by even insinuating a plant may be a valid treatment because it was traditionally used for something. Oftentimes if it is a source for a compound that has therapeutic value, just ingesting the plant isn't necessarily going to be effective or give a consistent dose, but that's something that quacks will often gloss over and appeal to traditional use instead. That's instead what I'd be focusing on for any mention of a plant being used for a treatment first.

Basically, if there isn't MEDRS sourcing saying a plant has compound X along with discussion of if/how it actually works or not for a treatment, I'd be vary wary about mentioning anything at all. We can't circumvent MEDRS because there was traditional use, but that's functionally what can happen if we aren't careful about grounding any mention in MEDRS on this subject. KoA (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether something is due for inclusion in an article is always relative to what other information there is available. To run with @Bon courage's example: information on silverweed in the book you have is likely acceptable to include in that article, but the same is not true for mouse.

If we're talking about plants that there is rather little to be said about in the first place, I think that reliably sourced information about historical use or beliefs about the plant is almost always going to be due.

For cases similar to the L.camara example I would simply avoid listing all the ailments, both because it's unnecessary detail ("various ailments" or a list of ailments with no context and seemingly no rhyme or reason to the belief conveys the same information to me) and because it makes it less of a concern from a biomedical information perspective (it is way less likely some impressionable reader tries to cure an ailment with a poison if we do not say what ailments the poison was once thought to help against). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 03:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Speaking on such edits , this content is a mixture of medical and non-medical claims. I think the human health-related content was removed correctly because the source falls short of WP:MEDRS. But non-medical claims could be probably sourced to this book. I would not remove everything. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was coming to this from a purely ethnobotanical/historical perspective, but I recognize the problem on including this kind of information as a inattentive reader may see that and inadvertently think this means it may work or be effective, this could be fixed by having some sort of disclaimer in the traditional medicine section of articles stating that these are merely historical facts and do not represent efficacy, but no article contains that in these sections because it isn't a wikipedia rule/policy, so for now its simpler to just omit the information to avoid the problem altogether, specially on toxic plants; It seems like this issue should be raised to some higher level administrative discussion on how to deal with traditional medicine section in plant articles because they are riddled with material infringing WP:MEDRS and also have that intrinsic problem of gesturing towards medicinal uses when ethnobotanical information is presented without disclaimers Eduardo7z (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But WP:NODISCLAIMERS. I think the solution is to not use poor sources (like this Atlas of plants) and find high-quality on-point discussion in high-quality secondary sources, where it exists. If it doesn't exist, that's an indication the material is undue. Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But it isn't a poor source though, for ethnobotany its a gold mine, the issue is precisely if that information should be presented, and if so, how; the Lantana camara is a very good example of the issue, the book has a plethora of sources, but the plant is toxic, so should the medicinal ethnobotanical information be omitted (inattentive/suggestible readers see that as endorsement) or should it be included (there's a lot of literature on this, it was used by several groups of people on many countries), Datura is another notable example of this (highly toxic, full of traditional medicinal uses around the world). Eduardo7z (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not see the text removed as particularly misleading or problematic because it has a title "Traditional medicine". Still, one should say it was (rather than is) given as a "cure" with such an old/outdated source, and it must be made clear this is not an actual (proven) cure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The removed text didn't include the word "cure" at all. The only present-tense verbs were inside a direct quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is a very poor source for encyclopedic content (though for researchers in the field it would be golden), because it is essentially a WP:PRIMARY compendium of past human folly about herbal medicine, relayed without analysis especially wrt its medical claims. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The book was reliably published in 1981 by Julia Morton. The source is definitely "secondary" since it cites 500+ references. It is a valid RS in the field of Botany, but not in the field of human health. Hence, I think that using it on pages about individual plants is OK, although yes, the more RS the better. And yes, plants have a lot of effects on human health, positive or negative (e.g. toxins). We just need to clearly separate the "traditional medicine" (a legitimate subject described in the book) from the actual modern medicine. That is any claim the plant/drug is an actual cure should follow WP:MEDRS, as oppose to a claim that something was used by shamans, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Citing other sources does not make a source secondary if it just relaying information without the analysis and commentary that characterises truly WP:SECONDARY sources. It just makes it one of the WP:LINKSINACHAIN. For medical uses this "Atlas" is just a compendium of factoids, and if it did try to provide analysis of medical usage it would be unreliable in that as it is not WP:MEDRS. I think the problem is the OP has this source, thinks it's great for Wikipedia, and wants to use it everywhere. But while in the world at large it may be a great and esteemed tome, for the particular niche purpose of writing encyclopedic content about traditional medicine it is of limited use on its own. As noted above, for any particular plant there can be in-depth content that is more useful. Bon courage (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate for WP:RSNB, but no, this is not an indiscriminate compendium of factoids, but a reference work by a notable biologist. According to her page, she was elected a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London in 1974 and well known as a lecturer on toxic, edible, and otherwise useful plants, she wrote 10 books and 94 scientific papers on the subject. This is only in her field of course, i.e. Botany.My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't doubt the achievement of scholarship in pulling together such a lot of source material, or the "reliability" of its content, but it's not a good source for encyclopedic content. In contrast, a source like doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03837-1_7 is. Bon courage (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The book under discussion is actually a Tertiary source, and as such can be used but should be verified by other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the source or the information you've been including; ethnobotany is an encyclopedic topic. However, as in other types of sensitive material (e.g., WP:BLP), it's important to be judicious and thoughtful in describing these ethnobotanical practices, so as not to falsely convey a sense of efficacy. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template suggests a "Uses" section in articles about plant taxa; I think that's more suitable than "Traditional medicine". Similar care should be taken in verbalizing the effects of the plant. "Cure" is obviously inappropriate. "Used for [disease]" is good, although it can become repetitive. I am on the fence about "used to treat". If one assumes that "treatments" are implied to be "effective treatments", then it's misleading. On the other hand, pulling up a ref from my sandbox (finishing a set of fern article led me to ethnobotany), a paper discussing the possible dangers of herbal "anti-diabetics" in Peru uses the phrase "preparations to treat diabetes". See also military anti-shock trousers for a modern example of something described as a treatment, but ineffective. (Although in that case we have secondary discussion that explicitly states it to be ineffective.) Hedging with modifiers like "supposedly" or "believed" could also help; see witch bottle, which describes a folk practice without ever implying its reality in Wikipedia voice through use of those modifiers.

While I approve of describing ethnobotany in general, there is a pattern I see in the literature that I consider pernicious, although I don't actually think it reaches Wikipedia often. Someone will make an extract of some traditional medicinal plant, shove it through an assay, probably at a wildly unrealistic concentration, and when it has some effect in vitro, will imply that this validates claims for traditional use in vivo. For the most part, I think reports that "Extract of species X has in vitro activity Y" are trivial and not to be included in articles about species X. Choess (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if we need to come up with an agreed-upon set of rules for this topic.

"Traditional medicine" (or similar phrases) are usually sub-sections in a ==Uses== section. Editors with an anti-altmed POV have objected to "used for [disease]". Anything less than "This ineffective plant, which is useless at best, does not work for treating anything at all" can be objected to as implying that it might be effective.

For example, Black salve actually cures some superficial skin cancers. An outcome of "complete remission with no residual tumor on biopsy" does sometimes happen per this MEDRS-compliant source. (For reference, a scalpel instantly cures about 98% of these, which is about 10x the cure rate for black salve.) But the article doesn't say that. Instead, we omit information about the small benefit and create a long list of individual patient stories, some of them sourced to newspapers and magazines. I think we are afraid of following the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Common pitfalls: "You emphasise or de-emphasise verifiable facts so that readers will make the "right" choice in the real world" because what if some moron decides that a 10% chance of a cure and a 98% chance of disfiguring scars is better than a 98% chance of a cure and 10% chance of disfiguring scars? (People get scared about Mohs surgery, especially on the nose.) The temptation to push people towards the Right™ Choice is irresistible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing agree, probably would be helpful to come up with further clarification/rules for this topic. WP:PLANTS is a fairly active project, do you think that discussion should be started there, since its related? EM (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe we should start a page somewhere, and invite WP:PLANTS and WP:MED folks to meet there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to mention that there but since you are far more experienced I'd prefer you do, there has to be some consensus on how to put this kind of info in the article because as you said for some editors anything short of "This ineffective plant, which is useless at best, does not work for treating anything at all" is unacceptable; I've just read WP:MTAU and it doesn't exactly address this, seems like assuming a reader knows that traditional medicine entails historical practises and not necessarily medical knowledge would be wrong, thorny topic. Eduardo7z (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

yes that works! and probably better. Any ideas on where the somewhere could be? EM (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Join me at Wikipedia:Herbal medicine. I've written two sentences. Now it's your turn to add a couple of sentences. If we can get several editors to contribute just a little, we'll have some ideas about what would be useful. @Casliber and Elemimele, this relates to that other conversation, and of course you're welcome to join in.

If you need inspiration, then have a look at Wikipedia:Alternative medicine, Wikipedia:Biomedical information, or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Or maybe someone could write a good (or bad!) example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Eyes helpful for Talk:Zionist as a pejorative

Originally was just about Zio as a slur before a three person move request changed it to more expansive zionist as a slur. Currently argument about lede especially about how zionist as a pejorative primarily attacks israelis and jews. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Need for neutral POV for these articles

Igbo wedding, Igbo regalia and headdresses, Ogiri,

They are causing a conflict on wikipedia alongside what looks like possible canvassing, gatekeeping and sock-ing.

Some of the Issues involve igbo adoption of Gele and Asoebi and Ogiri being a Yoruba condiment both in etymology and trace. This seems to have cumulated this evening from my observing and we need neutral editors to view the articles, activities and sources. Dolpina (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

NPOV tags on Ethiopian-Adal War and Ethiopian invasion of Adal (1549-1550)

Magherbin has added NPOV tags to Ethiopian–Adal War and Ethiopian invasion of Adal (1549–1550). Discussion is at Talk:Ethiopian–Adal War#NPOV not adhered (split needed) and Talk:Ethiopian invasion of Adal (1549–1550)#Article should go back to its old title. The issues raised are a proposed split or rename and the infobox result. No sources have been given showing the articles are imbalanced. I would appreciate input from uninvolved editors on whether the tags are justified. Kristos ^talk 01:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Self-identification of Nigerian ethnic groups

Moved from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard § Self-identification of Nigerian ethnic groups

There's a fair bit of back-and-forth editing on articles about Nigerian ethnic groups.

Requesting review of article "Protest paradigm"

The article I wrote — Protest paradigm — has been marked with an {{essay}} tag at the top of the page, saying it reads like a personal reflection or essay. Throughout the article, some suggestions were made to clarify "according to whom" some claims were made. I disagree with this characterization, since the article is corroborated by scholarly sources when it makes uncontroversial Wikivoice claims that are not WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED based on RS available. Therefore I am requesting that an editor reviews this article and leaves feedback as to whether the tags throughout the essay are appropriate. Thank you. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the framing. The lead does not accuratly describe this as an academic concept and should discuss its origin and context in the first sentence. Compare against propaganda model and media circus:

The protest paradigm is a set of propagandistic news coverage patterns common in the mainstream media that delegitimizes, downplays, and unfavorably represents protesters.

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to explain how propaganda and systemic biases function in corporate mass media.

Media circus is a colloquial metaphor or idiom describing a news event for which the level of media coverage—measured by such factors as the number of reporters at the scene and the amount of material broadcast or published—is perceived to be excessive or out of proportion to the event being covered.

I further agree with most of {{according to whom?}}, {{by whom?}}, and {{who?}} that currently litter the article (although they might be a bit too dense in places). These templates link directly to the editing guideline that justifies them: did you consider replacing scholars and others throughout with more precise attribution?

Additionally, § Examples needs cut out the excerpts. If you are going to try to use some concrete examples in the article, there shouldn't be paragraphs of unrelated background information. Just start with the statements about the protest paradigm in action in those situations and throw in a wikilink to the relevant article for background information. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your input and for leaving specific improvement suggestions. I pretty much copied what you wrote word-for-word and improved the lede based on your suggestions. Do you think this is sufficient to remove the {{essay}} tag from the article if we leave the {{by whom?}}/related templates to be corrected over time? Or do you still think it is problematic enough, even with the {{by whom?}}/related tags that the tag at the top of the page is needed? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I used the lead sentence as an example indicating how the rest of the article is essay-like. It needs to be significantly rewritten overall to not read like an essay. Also, your NPOV repair attempt was to just copy over the lead sentence of propaganda model. That's not what I suggested you do and the article lead is now nonsense. You should take heed of all the suggested constructuve changes on the talk page rather than fight with other editors there. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not fighting with anyone. I asked for additional feedback, which I have received using a collaborative tone. Let's try to be civil please. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

We live in a constitutional republic

We live in a constitutional republic. Calling something "nonsensical", e.g. "absurd", in wikivoice, is a blatant violation of WP:OPINION, WP:NPOV's requirement to not say opinions / value judgements as fact. No matter how well cited something is we cannot put value judgements like good or bad or stupid or weird, no matter how common that opinion is. Plenty of sources call Hitler evil but we cannot say [x] is evil or [x] is good in Wikivoice. Bringing this here for more eyes. This article as a whole seems to have a very non-neutral tone and WP:SYNTH issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, just the lead itself is unencyclopedic and nonneutral Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. Pinging @Chetsford as they’re the primary author of the article. Some1 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It would have been simpler and more logical to leave "nonsensical" out of the first sentence and then add a second sentence saying "These statements have been described as ... by ...". The sources are already there. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I think Hemiauchenia's rewrite is fine. I also think the original was fine (I think it's within the bounds of WP:EDITDISC to substitute seven words that are synonymous or closely similar used by RS with a single encapsulating word to promote readability). Either way, since there seems to be no objection and no question from anyone, this could probably have just been handled at the Talk page or by WP:BOLD. Chetsford (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, I don't believe the term "absurd" was ever used, which is likely a violation of NPOV outside of limited uses related to absurdism. "Nonsensical" (the term actually used) is qualitatively different and simply indicates something lacking coherence or being without an intelligible meaning (e.g. "we live in a constitutional republic" or "the sky is made of red"), which is the essence of the consensus RS cited. Chetsford (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Policy Statement: Systemic Gatekeeping, Asymmetrical Enforcement, and Editorial Bias Across Trans- and Gender-Related Articles

Just a bot arguing with any of the regulars willing to do more than collapse AI comments. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

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

---

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Policy Statement: Systemic Gatekeeping, Asymmetrical Enforcement, and Editorial Bias Across Trans- and Gender-Related Articles Submitted to: Wikipedia Talk / Policy & Neutrality Noticeboard Subject: Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), Due Weight (WP:DUE), and Administrative Overreach under Contentious Topics Frameworks 1. Executive Summary & The Primary Evidence A critical concern regarding Wikipedia’s coverage of gender identity, gender-critical feminism, and associated public figures (including Graham Linehan, J.K. Rowling, Riley Gaines, and Sophie Cunningham) is the existence of an entrenched, persistent cohort of editors exercising disproportionate control across these topics. The primary clue to this structural bias is the article titled Trans-exclusionary radical feminism. The page itself—starting with a title that uses an adversarial acronym ("TERF") rather than the primary self-identified descriptor ("gender-critical")—is framed in a distinctly non-neutral manner. The primary indicator of systemic gatekeeping is that the exact same network of editors who maintain and defend the non-neutral framing on the Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page actively fan out across the encyclopedia. They exercise identical gatekeeping tactics on related pages for public figures, athletes, and commentators (such as Graham Linehan, J.K. Rowling, Riley Gaines, and Sophie Cunningham), ensuring an overarching ideological alignment across all related biographies and topic entries. 2. The Mechanics of Gatekeeping Across Overlapping Pages The gatekeeping observed across these pages relies on a coordinated set of behavioral and procedural mechanisms that violate the core principles of an open, neutral encyclopedia: A. Overlapping Editorial Oversight and Echo Chamber Consensus An examination of edit histories across high-profile pages—ranging from the main Trans-exclusionary radical feminism page to biographies of living persons (BLPs) like Graham Linehan, Riley Gaines, Sophie Cunningham, and J.K. Rowling—reveals a consistent core group of active gatekeeping editors. The Result: When a new or non-aligned editor raises a valid WP:NPOV concern on a talk page, they are rarely met by an open-minded review of sources. Instead, they face a unified block of long-standing editors who immediately close ranks. Manufactured Consensus: The group invokes "prior consensus" from archived discussions on the main page as an absolute shield against edits on related biography pages, using their combined presence to present an artificial majority and claim that any challenge to their preferred framing is "disruptive." B. Aggressive Enforcement and Procedural Weaponization The designation of gender and sexuality pages as Contentious Topics (WP:GENSEX) gives administrators expanded sanctioning powers. Gatekeeping editors systematically weaponize these enforcement mechanisms: Chilling Effect: Opposing contributors—particularly those bringing forward legal, medical, or political developments that challenge the page's narrative—are met with hostile, churlish, and passive-aggressive pushback on talk pages. Rapid Escalation: Minor procedural errors or persistent NPOV arguments are immediately reported to administrative noticeboards (WP:ANI, WP:AE). Gatekeepers routinely label valid policy-based objections as "pushed agendas," "transphobia," or "failure to drop the stick," resulting in swift topic bans, blocks, or warnings for critics. This "jump the shark" over-enforcement alienates constructive contributors and systematically purges alternative perspectives from the editorial pool. C. Tolerance of Hostility and Ad Hominem Conduct While civil rules (WP:CIVIL) are strictly enforced against editors attempting to introduce balance, gatekeepers themselves frequently exhibit aggressive, dismissive, and churlish behavior without consequence: Talk Page Intimidation: On talk pages concerning public figures like Sophie Cunningham or Riley Gaines, arguments challenging derogatory framing or unfair characterizations are frequently met with condescending language, bad-faith assumptions, and personal insults. Double Standards: When hostile framing or ad hominem commentary directed at gender-critical figures is tolerated or validated by gatekeepers, it creates a hostile editing environment that signals to neutral contributors that questioning the narrative is unsafe. 3. Core Policy Violations The ongoing gatekeeping directly breaches several foundational Wikipedia policies: Policy Violation Observed Gatekeeping Application Correct NPOV Application WP:NPOV & WP:SAY Uses loaded verbs ("believe," "claim") for self-identified positions, while using adversarial terms ("TERFism," "anti-gender") as objective facts in Wikivoice. Uses neutral, descriptive verbs ("state," "assert") and attributes contentious labels to specific critics rather than adopting them as encyclopedia fact. WP:DUE & WP:RS Exclusively relies on specific academic fields (e.g., Gender Studies) to define subjects, while dismissing High Court rulings (e.g., Forstater) and national health policy updates (e.g., the Cass Review, NHS policy) as "irrelevant" or "non-expert". Balances academic commentary with legal reality, binding judicial rulings, and official medical/policy guidelines across jurisdictions. WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) Focuses BLP leads on hostile commentary, controversies, and ideological attacks regarding figures like Linehan, Gaines, or Cunningham. Summarizes a person's primary career achievements neutrally, placing controversies in dedicated, attributed sections without framing the overall biography as a polemic. 4. Remedial Actions Proposed To restore neutrality, protect constructive editors from procedural harassment, and break the monopoly held by this editorial cohort, the following structural remedies are required: Uninvolved Administrator Review: Administrative noticeboards must evaluate editing patterns across the entire cluster of gender-related articles to identify and sanction coordinated gatekeeping, tag-teaming, and bad-faith administrative reporting. Enforcement of Civility Standards: Editors who consistently use aggressive, passive-aggressive, or condescending language to shut down talk page discussions should face topic bans under Contentious Topic sanctions, regardless of their editing longevity. Re-calibration of Due Weight (WP:DUE): Articles must be updated to incorporate multi-disciplinary sources—specifically binding legal decisions, national health policy determinations, and descriptive self-definitions—rather than relying solely on hostile, single-discipline academic critiques. This discussion thread remains open for community review and input regarding specific textual edits and administrative oversight on the affected pages. ~2026-55673-54 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect the same editors as ever, will enforce their ban on this one either churlishly or churlishly ~2026-55673-54 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect you need to read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Case in point, see above, ~2026-55673-54 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Pre-emptive WP:AE Notice: Pointing out this structural bias will inevitably be logged as 'disruptive editing' and met with the usual flurry of WP:CIVIL warnings, WP:BATTLEGROUND accusations, and an administrative topic ban under WP:GENSEX. Let's see how quickly this noticeboard submission gets closed and the reporting editors blocked for simply highlighting the pattern." ~2026-55673-54 (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Just going to point out that this is text is AI-generated. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, @~2026-55673-54, please read WP:NQP and WP:HID ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Cass Review could use more input

There are currently discussions on Talk:Cass Review that could benefit from outside input. The discussions are What it is and Ignoring Onus & Gaming 0RR (the background for that discussion is Talk:Cass Review#Criticism in lede).

Additionally, if editors have time and interest, I would encourage others to review the article page which stands at 202k bites and 9k words. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

POV-stacking and missing defense context in 1993 Michael Jackson allegations (Strip search section)

Hello, I'm requesting a brief review of the "Strip search" section, which currently suffers from a severe imbalance. The text repeats versions of the words "corroborated", "matched" and "confirmed" five times over two paragraphs to hammer a law enforcement theory, using flat declaration verbs ("said", "stated") instead of the 2005 original journalistic framing ("prosecutors contend"). Meanwhile, the text completely censors the official 2005 court motions where the defense challenged the scientific basis of these claims, as well as Judge Melville's exact ruling quote: "I find the prejudicial effect would far outweigh the probabitve value." I welcome guidance to restore a neutral, encyclopedic balance by including the defense's legal counter-arguments and the Judge's full language. Thank you. Vanauleyley (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson, the Michael Jackson sexual abuse topic area has been the subject of extensive off-wiki coordinated editing/meatpuppetry. Vanauleyley is a SPA dedicated to this topic who has become active after the case was closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Hemiauchenia for your input. Most of the article had been indeed written by people who have been recently banned. After a long time, I've resumed editing it using only WP:RS, with claims directly verifiable according to WP:V, presented proportionally with respect to WP:DUE/WP:WEIGHT, and in a chronological order. Recently, the user has been insisting that the section "Strip search" is not neutral and there was no equal weight. They even added a POV tag above the section, which I find unnecessary, especially after I have provided a comparison between the old version and the current one, with the list of WP policies involved.

The user insists that

• too much space is given to claims made by the prosecution
• we need to directly mention the content of court documents, despite being WP:PRIMARY and potentially WP:BLPPRIMARY
• the choice of words is not neutral ("said", for example)
• the chronological order is not neutral
• and, I quote, This all creates a textbook narrative bias

According to their requests, the following information has already been added:

• Jackson's claim that he had discussed his skin condition in February 1993
• Claims made by Jackson's attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. (x2)
• Jackson's claim during the 1995 ABC interview with Diane Sawyer

My understanding is that

• per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, the space given in an article/section is proportional to the relevance given in WP:RS. In this case, the defense of Jackson has never released any official statement about the match/mismatch of the description made by the first accuser; there's literally just an interview with Jackson and an unidentified source "close to Jackson": both have been included in the section per WP:DUE. The investigators involved, on the other side, have released several statements over the years (the last ones in 2026). To avoid bloating the article and in accordance with a comment made by another user, only those directly involved with the strip search and/or the description made by the boy have been quoted (Smith, Weis, Sicard, Dworin). The user feels it is unbalanced, while I believe they're WP:DUE.
• per WP:ONUS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, an article about the 1993 allegations doesn't need a detailed description of all the motions happened in 2003-2005. Currently, the section only states that in 2005 the DA wanted to introduce the photos of Jackson and the drawing/description made by Jordan Chandler but the request was refused, because Chandler wasn't willing to testify. The user feels it is necessary to cite the multiple motions that led to the final decision, but in my opinion so much detail would only be WP:DUE for the article about the 2005 trial.
• per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV e MOS:SAID, words like "said" and "stated" are neutral when reporting a declaration or statement made by someone, contrary to "alleged", "suggested", "meant" etc.

Despite the final claim in the section Because the photographs and Chandler's original drawing remain unavailable for public comparison, the conflicting claims cannot be independently verified., the user insists that it's the prosecution's narrative on entertainment TV trying to push back against official court.

If any of you could provide a feedback and some directions, I'd be grateful. DanieleJava (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

This is pretty obviously AI slop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

no, it isn't. I actually write like this. You can see my texts from 2010 that are basically the same. DanieleJava (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Your earliest Wikipedia edit dates to 2023, well after ChatGPT was launched. I don't really care about whether your writing is AI or not, other users can decide that for themselves. You are in any case an obsessive WP:SPA, rather a serious Wikipedia contributor. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

First of all, WP:AGF should help you there. I don't use AI for my edits, apart from Deepl, that I use to translate from my native language and I'm not even sure it counts as AI.

There aren't just many topics where I can help with my knowledge. I have recently translated an article from Japanese and I'm working on another article about a book by Robert Epstein. My field of knowledge is connected with youth rights, so the Jackson case is obviously something connected to it, just like that movie and the book.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but please, keep it to yourself. DanieleJava (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You are right though that Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations is a complete dumpster fire. Almost all of the recent discussion on that page other than you comes from two different users: Vanauleyley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another highly suspicious SPA only active since September this year, and Elfast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also looks quite sus even though they have a considerable number of historic non-Jackson related contributions. There's clearly a need for some kind of enhanced protection in the Michael Jackson topic area to keep SPAs out. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Or just tban the spas User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to a clear justification beyond just "they're SPAs" though. Also, if they're banned they can just keep creating new sock accounts. I wouldn't be surprised if Vanauleyley in particular is a sock of someone blocked in the MJ arbcom case (or at the very least was canvassed by one of the participants), but I am not familiar enough with the case to say who they might be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@DanieleJava

DeepL now uses AI. Katzrockso (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is that I sometimes use the translation tool. I'm not using LLMs to generate my texts, contrary to what Hemiauchenia implies. I'm a polyglot and I occasionally use DeepL to check how to express something naturally in English when I'm not sure about a particular phrasing. There is literally a function where you click on the translation and you can see different possibilities to rephrase the same concept.

I teach English, so I don't really need it, but sometimes I get a lapsus and I prefer to check twice. If there are people who speak multiple languages here, they might confirm this is an actual issue and it occurs even with one's native language.

But just like I've demonstrated with texts written 16 years ago, I tend to write a lot and I tend to use bullet points and so on. It's not AI slop, I'm just autistic. DanieleJava (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not a native speaker and sometimes use AI to try and figure out phrasing that I'm struggling with. And I also tend to write a lot and I tend to use bullet points and so on, and I definitely have thoughts about the next part of what you wrote... Not that I think I'll ever get a diagnosis, but whatever.

@Hemiauchenia I haven't dealt much with issues of LLM use and socking, but I'm pretty sure that just like other matters of conduct, making such accusations and implications is inappropriate in this forum and without substantial evidence. You're a far more experienced editor than me, but I find that sometimes people need a reminder for these simple rules that are meant to keep us all a bit more sane and orderly. If there is indeed socking happening here that is a huge issue and an SPI should be filed.

With regards to both the questions of content and conduct, I do not have further opinions here, and do not currently intend to delve into it.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

ERR "I'm also not a native speaker and sometimes use AI to try and figure out phrasing that I'm struggling with", so accusing you of using AI is not unsubstantiated; you admit you use it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you speaking to me? No one accused me of using AI. I suspect that you might have lost the plot on characters in this discussion. I took issue with the comment "This is pretty obviously AI slop", which I find inappropriate. Either way, I have no issue "admitting" how I use AI, as I have before:

1. I use it to look for sources (alongside google, databases, etc.), both for and against positions that seem to me like the correct ones, and in reading through those sources I develop my opinions on the matter at hand, and improve articles and/or participate in discussions.
2. When I can't think of a word, or a phrasing I come up with feels awkward to me, I sometimes ask an LLM, either in Arabic or in English, how I could phrase my meaning better in English. It's quite helpful both for writing better in the moment, and for improving my English over time.

Is either of those use cases at all problematic? غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Frankly most of the key parties at that page should probably just be reported to WP:AE and face topic bans. I tried to intervene once in this rolling MJ conflict and it was deeply tedious. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know if you include me in the "key parties" list, but I don't think I'm violating any rule in any of the edits made. I'm putting sources for both sides, checking every single article manually and I'm addressing any issue in the talk page by sticking to the policies. The thing is that, just like before the Arbitration jumped in last time, there are users who apparently are seriously worried about Jackson's reputation, to the point that any discussion contains hints to a prosecution conspiracy, which we cannot include on Wikipedia.

  I invite you to read the previous version of the section and compare it to the current one, which - in my opinion - does not deserve the POV tag.

  Just for a quick comparison:

  PREVIOUS VERSION:

  • Mention that MJ had vitiligo
  • Mention that the information about his vitiligo went viral
  • Claim allegedly made by Pellicano that Jordan Chandler (first accuser) had allegedly seen MJ's vitiligo
  • Dramatic description of the strip search
  • Mention of Reuters, without mentioning that it was a close source of MJ's estate
  • Unverified claim that Jordan Chandler had said Jackson was circumcised (WP:FRINGE to say at least)
  • Repetition of Reuters, because you never know
  • Katherine's questioning
  • Long description of motions to return the photographs

  CURRENT VERSION (CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

  • Strip search protocol
  • Jackson's reaction + Lawyer's reaction
  • Authorities refuse to comment on match/mismatch
  • Chandler's request
  • Jackson's request
  • Claim that the match is disputed
  • 1994 - Reuters, specifying the source was close to Michael Jackson - NO MATCH
  • Katherine's questioning
  • Closure of the investigation
  • 1995 - Jackson's reaction - NO MATCH
  • 2004 - Dworin's claim - MATCH
  • 2005 - Zonen's request
  • 2026 - Weis' claim - MATCH
  • 2026 - Smith+Sicard claim - MATCH (<--- added on request by @Elfast)
  • 2026 - Claim that the photos are still sealed

  I believe this is balanced, proportional, unbiased and in total respect of WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. DanieleJava (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I think @Simonm223: is referring to the banned users, he seems not to know they're banned (although one user was only warned, and one seem to have re-appear (or is he a socketpuppet of the warned user ?) ; and although Vanauleyley has the same purpose as them, but he's a newcomer (but he's not a socketpuppet, I've explained everything to Hemiauchenia, as he was mentioning me, in his talk page, in case you want to take a look...)). Elfast (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I've just read it, thanks for the kind words <3 DanieleJava (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed summary Daniele. Indeed, here is what currently appears at the ending of the strip search section:

- 1994 MATCH DISPUTED

- 1995 NO MATCH

- 2004 MATCH

- 2005 MATCH

- 2026 MATCH

- 2026 MATCH, MATCH

- The 1993 photos have never been made public

My original request hasn't been addressed yet. Any input on this from neutral editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Vanauleyley (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Rumble (company) — Request for independent review of due weight

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting independent input concerning the neutrality of Rumble (company). There is a discussion at Talk:Rumble (company)#POV concerns, focussing on the the article's negative tone and bias, which has been met with hostility. My concerns relate to three issues: 1. The prominence given to relationships with Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, JD Vance and Truth Social, relative to other significant aspects of the company. 2. Whether the wording describing Rumble's relationship with Trump as helping attract a $25 million investment represents a causal claim explicitly supported by reliable sources. 3. Whether the lead proportionately summaries the company's video-hosting, cloud infrastructure and AI businesses, alongside its political significance. I am not requesting the exclusion of reliably sourced political information. I am asking whether the existing presentation satisfies WP:UNDUE, WP:V and MOS:LEAD. In particular, I would appreciate independent editors assessing whether the prominence of these details reflects their treatment in reliable secondary sources. My objective is an accurate, proportionate encyclopaedic summary rather than a more positive or negative portrayal of the company. Jaguar83 (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Feral cat

More eyes could be useful at Talk:Feral cat#"Community cats" as a misnomer. The current dispute is over the paragraph in Feral cat#Definitions starting Activists who seek to normalize feral cats in the environment...

This is based on one article arguing for that POV. In my opinion, there are multiple POV issues with this text; I've pointed them out in the discussion and have tried to include a wider range of sources about the term "community cats", including ones that provide a more global view. However, this has been reverted, all sources have been dismissed, and my questions have not been addressed. Input from more editors could be useful. Thanks. Helpful Cat🐈 00:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

More specifically, Helpful Cat does not think that this source is DUE and is seeking to water it down.

Status quo ante text: Activists who seek to normalize feral cats in the environment are attempting to rebrand feral cats as community cats. Biologists say that this new term is euphemistic and distracts from feral cats being an environmental problem, and that it has connotations that falsely imply that feral cats exist with the consent of the communities where they live, and that the public has a moral obligation to support them in the outdoors. Studies have shown that the public does not support there being large numbers of free ranging cats in the outdoors, but that the use of language in surveys appears to influence the levels of support for different management options.[15]

Helpful Cat's preferred version: Some researchers have criticised what they argue is the overuse of the term to refer to free-roaming cats in general. Which is not an accurate summary of the paper. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I suggest interested editors review the discussion, my problems with that text, and the additional content and sources I've proposed and/or tried to add that Geogene is blocking. Repeating all those points here doesn't seem useful unless necessary. Helpful Cat🐈 00:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Bosch

I am concerned about temporary accounts adding an undue amount of information to Bosch about the holocaust that lacks a neutral point of view and whereby the extent of it is undue. Specifically from this account and this account. I tried to start a discussion about this, with no response. I feel a check user may be necessary to see if there have been problems with the underlying IP. I am also concerned because each time this edit is reinstated, I am experiencing off-Wiki harassment. As such, I would like someone else to sense check if they feel I have done the right thing and to also consider the check user option. Someone seems very keen to include a lot of content regarding WWII (which is already discussed in the history part) and within the context of the company's overall history it seems undue and lacking in a NPOV, particularly given things like this, this, this and this. Thank you. LateFatherKarma (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

These are very serious allegations. If you're experiencing off-Wiki harassment, then you should either contact an oversighter or report it to ANI(I'm not sure which one, it's best to ask someone more experienced than me about that). ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I will consider that, off-Wiki issues aside, if anyone here has a view on the NPOV issue, specifically how I've dealt with it (content removal, discussion, leaving messages on the TAs) and whether other people agree with my rationale or not etc please let me know. LateFatherKarma (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I've left my thoughts on the talkpage. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the current version that you've incorporated into the history section but with a separate subsection for during the Nazi regime. Per WP:BALASP that's an appropriate step and yes separate controversy/criticism sections are better avoided. I suggest renaming "Effect of Nazi regime" to "During the Nazi regime" since we are giving a time-based overview. Swirlymarigold (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. I think this is largely resolved now the controversy part is incorporated and their resistance activities are discussed in the article too. Feels more balanced and neutral now. Thanks for the help with this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)