WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The use of the term .22illegal alien.22

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

Hello,

I recently replaced the following sentence in the article:

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

with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::{{blockquote|“I’ve never seen a media organization fight so hard to keep a secret,” he said. “We’re saying let’s get all the facts out there, not just two stories from two accusers with a financial interest.”|https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/judge-michael-jackson-estate-leaving-neverland-1203342191/}}

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

I'd split that post into two elements:

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

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

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

:Your edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oprah_Winfrey&diff=prev&oldid=1290746772] was a iffily-sourced and somewhat off-topic WP:LEDEBOMB, so not viable. That said I am surprised there is nothing in the lede about Oprah Winfrey's role in the en-wooment of health in the USA{{snd}}surely that is something covered in RS? Bon courage (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

:You added a full paragraph to the lead, which is WP:UNDUE given the body of the article, and filled it with references that mostly don't even mention Oprah. There's the "Sham" book which mentions her several times, and [https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience the vox article]... and that's it. The reality is, Oprah's not all that controversial of a figure. The article should reflect perspectives in rough proportion to their prominence among the best sources, and these criticisms just aren't all that prominent in the grand scheme of Oprah. It's possible a sentence could be justified, but you're going too hard, and making it seem like there's some conspiracy to protect Oprah doesn't help your case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

New changes at Man could use review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following a disagreement at Talk:2025 Guatemala City bus crash#Reaction content, I'd like to open up discussion more generally for how to treat "reactions" sections. When does a reaction meet WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE to warrant inclusion? To use an example from this article, it says: {{tq|Governments such as those of Taiwan, Nicaragua, the Maldives, and El Salvador expressed their condolences to the victims' families and the Guatemalan people.}} The former two countries are sourced to articles from news outlets in those countries, while the latter two are sourced to the statements themselves.{{pb}}I believe that merely being documented as happening does not prove that something is due without additional indication of significance or secondary analysis from sources. I argue that their inclusion fails WP:BALANCE's limitation that {{tq|description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic}} and possibly MOS:TRIVIA's expectation that articles not try to provide examples of every instance of something. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My perspective:

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

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

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

:There was a clear rough consensus on Talk:Gaza genocide against calling it a genocide in wikivoice. The title of the article is irrelevant. Piped links exist for a reason - and even if they didn't, we are not obligated to just link to an article with no other words before/after it. Again, there was a clear (rough) consensus against calling it a genocide in Wikivoice - and that discussion was attended by dozens of editors. Until a wider consensus is formed that allows such, it is not appropriate to call it the "Gaza genocide" in wikivoice in any article. It can, of course, be linked if the link is piped to an appropriate phrase (such as "part of the accused genocide in Gaza").{{pb}}But the title being that does not give people free reign to not pipe the link or not provide context in other articles. That was made clear in the move request, where it was made clear that the move was because the title was more concise and there is no other ambiguous event that would be confused with it. It was not an approval to call the event that in wikivoice across Wikipedia - whether linked or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about we implement what is currently on the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip (credit to @{{u|EvansHallBear}})? Remove Gaza genocide from "part of" and put it in charges, with a wikilink. This will clearly communicate to the reader that genocide is a charge, as opposed to saying Event is part of the Gaza genocide, leading to the erroneous impression some will have that the Gaza genocide is a fact as opposed to a charge. See also - just Gaza genocide is fine. This communicates see the Gaza genocide article. In navboxes, as long as it is under charges even nothing as opposed to an event, just Gaza genocide is fine. Closetside (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip is a significant event; charges in that context are understandable. However, how would one justify a genocide charge for a smaller event like the Flour Massacre?

:When we say "X is part of Y," it means that X is related to Y, implying a hierarchical or structural relationship where X is a subset, section, or component of Y. I still don't understand why you believe this would make Y real. Cinaroot (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think that's the most appropriate course for articles on individual attacks. We should avoid classifying every civilian attack as part of the Gaza genocide and only list in charges if that's discussed in the article. However, for some of the broader articles on genocidal acts (e.g. Gaza Strip evacuations or Attacks on health facilities during the Gaza war), calling them part of the Gaza genocide should still be allowed. I'd argue that only calling these actions part of the Gaza war or a particular campaign within the war is a violation of NPOV as it implies these are just byproducts of the war and not intentional policy. EvansHallBear (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• The whole point of establishing a common name is to use it (in Infoboxes, navbars, see also, etc.), precisely because it's the common name (i.e., the name that the readers are familiar with and expect to see). Links in the article's body are usually adjusted per what is being said (in context). M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

YellowFlag (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently made a substantial update to the lead section of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) article to better reflect the breadth of reliable academic sources per WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

The previous version framed TCM almost entirely through a Western biomedical critique, omitting significant recent peer-reviewed publications exploring physiological mechanisms (gut microbiota, neuroimmune pathways, systems biology, etc.) that are now being actively studied. My update carefully included multiple high-quality sources from:

- [The New England Journal of Medicine](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199301283280406)

- [The Lancet](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61354-9)

- Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Yuan & Lin, 2000 — accessible via ScienceDirect)

- [Frontiers in Pharmacology (2020)](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.00538/full)

- [Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.746923/full)

I believe this is consistent with WP:NPOV’s requirement to represent all significant views in proportion to their prominence, while still acknowledging limitations and ongoing scientific debate.

My edit was fully reverted by User:MrOllie, who asserts WP:FALSEBALANCE applies and that these additions constitute advocacy for pseudoscience. However, the content I added is not promoting pseudoscientific claims of efficacy but summarizing emerging research directions published in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals.

For reference, the citations I included are fully accessible and verifiable:

- Eisenberg DM, NEJM 1993 ([10.1056/NEJM199301283280406](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199301283280406))

- Yuan & Lin, Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2000

- Tang et al., The Lancet 2008 ([10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61354-9](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61354-9))

- Zhang et al., Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020 ([10.3389/fphar.2020.00538](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.00538/full))

- Zhang et al., Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021 ([10.3389/fphar.2021.746923](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.746923/full))

I would appreciate third-party input on whether this constitutes WP:NPOV compliance or whether WP:FALSEBALANCE is being applied too rigidly in this case. Thank you.

:WP:NOTNEWS. If these research directions pick up widespread acceptance, Wikipedia will report on it. In the meantime, it remains fringe content. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a move request and a related related RfC at the Besor Stream article that could do with more input. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Over recent years, considerable content has been added to the Critical Response sections from very biased political viewpoints. I've opened Talk convo on one specific movie page, The Opposite of Sex, but it hardly ends there. See: The Opposite of Sex.

This has become particularly true from far-left viewpoints, as far-right viewpoints seem to be edited out of the site quickly. For reference, I align to neither.

Under Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" policy for content removal, I'm adding the topic here for broader discussion. See: Wikipedia:Editing policy. Neither these posters nor myself should be the arbiter of truth nor should one political viewpoint be considered valid "Critical Response" while the opposite is edited out. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

: It looks like you removed relevant content cited to a piece in the New York Times and a book by an academic published by Columbia University Press. Removing that content definitely worsened the neutrality of the article, and the editors that reverted you were right to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::It is an editorial in the NY Times, and not a fact-based topic. The author referenced has their own brand of toxic feminism complaints. Neither are unbiased and fact-based. The movie itself, which I love -- to be clear, could more seriously be hit on it's depiction of southerners as dumb hicks or religious followers as incompetent. My broader point: anyone can find a reason to be offended, but that doesn't make it a fact. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC

::: Almost every source used in Critical reception sections is an opinion, editorial, or review piece. The whole point of the section is to aggregate the opinions of reviewers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, these are not if the movie. They are of the political opinions of those people -- using the movie to further their cause. That's different than fact-based commentary of simple facts about the movie. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, these are not if the movie. They are of the political opinions of those people -- using the movie to further their cause. That's different than fact-based commentary of simple facts about the movie. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd recommend reading up on the broad literature of Literary criticism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The issue is one of focal point. An author with a political perspective using another work to justify their own viewpoint does not make the view fact or an unbiased opinion of the referenced work. List the opinion on their author's page, that the focus. But adding to the work's page (the movie listed, in this example) is clutter. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::And here's an example, which i'm posting here and on the movie talk page, of how I'm suggesting the comments should be handled -- i.e., not on the movie page -- and how Wikipedia operates currently:

:::::Consider the group Parents Television and Media Council. They are a conservative political group which had relative success impact business decisions for TV networks, so relevant for good or bad. On their wikipedia page is a positive note for the TV show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. However, they are not listed in the Critical Reception section of the TV show.

:::::When the focal point is the political perspective of a group or individual, it should be listed on the page of that group or individual -- just like this example -- but not on the referenced work... as that TV show or movie is just a tool for that political expression.

:::::So, the quesiton is why a particular political view gets elevated as on page for The opposite of Sex. I'd suggest this violates the Undue Bias guideline for Wikipedia. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is approaching WP:PUSH territory. Considering your edits to the article, the talk page, and now the noticeboard - your feelings on the matter are obviously not in doubt. It may be worth taking a step back and allowing the discussion to breathe rather than feeling the need to personally retort to every response from every person. If you're correct, someone else will take up the baton. If your perspective requires repeated input from you and you alone, perhaps it's just not all that convincing. ···sardonism · t · c 18:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Check. First participation w WikiP. Learning as I go. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Check. First participation w WikiP. Learning as I go. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Od}} As a literary critic I have to say that there is no such thing as an objective, non-opinion review. Criticism is a art form as much as it is information and the critic's views are central to the art. As such, the neutrality test here will always be WP:DUE. This will be contextual but I cannot think of a time when either New York Times or Columbia University Press publications would be undue for critical reception. I would encourage editors working with critical response to look beyond "media good / media bad" and instead look at things like allusion and metaphor in the review as these can help to build links between disparate artworks. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not disagreeing with you generally here, but I'd argue that just because the NYT publishes something in its opinion section doesn't mean that it's DUE. If it's from an actual NYT employee or contributor, sure - but those are mostly going to be published in the actual newspaper sections (even though they're mostly opinions). The opinion section is more likely to contain "guest" contributions - and they have an internal policy of giving that space to any public official who asks for it within reason. They don't let them just publish crap, but if a congressperson wants to publish an essay they wrote about something, they are generally afforded the opportunity to (as an extreme example). I would doubt that the views of a random congressperson are DUE for inclusion in a critical response section, unless there's something bigger (such as it being directly referenced in a bill that was proposed, or mentioned on the floor, or similar).{{pb}}My point here is that I don't think we should be treating the NYT opinion section as always DUE just because of how big and well-respected it is. There's no telling whether the NYT published the opinion because they actually found it well-supported and well-written... or because they were giving someone space to publish an opinion and they happened to mention (insert topic here). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please note what I'm saying is explicitly about NYT media criticism and is not a position I would generalize beyond that. If the NYT pays a freelancer to write criticism then, yeah, WP:DUE would hinge on the author more than the outlet. But I would say most freelancers hired by the NYT have established names. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)