Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#China COVID-19 cover-up allegations

Hello, i recently had some issues on this page. In my opinion, the page is heavily biased and shaped to fit anti Zionist narratives.

• The page does not mention ethnic cleansing even once, even though multiple sources refer to it that way.
• For some reason, the opinion of Ella Shohat, an anti Zionist leftist jew of Babylonian Jewish origin, is in the background section, not in "view's on the exodus" as any other opinion on this issue.
• the page doesn't mention attacks against Jewish communities in the background section and tries to whitewash history by painting the picture that everything was fine until the Ashkenazim arrived.
• For example: "During waves of persecution in Medieval Europe, many Jews found refuge in Muslim lands, though in other times and places, Jews fled persecution in Muslim lands and found refuge in Christian lands. Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula were invited to settle in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, where they would often form a prosperous model minority of merchants acting as intermediaries for their Muslim rulers."
• This is a gross oversimplification of Jewish history. There are more than enough sources against the co-existence narrative they're trying to push. "Ottomans allowed Jews in after being kicked out of Europe"—but somehow they leave out things like the deportation of Jews to Cyprus, the Safed pogrom, and countless blood libels. There is no mention of massacres against jews in Morocco or Yemen. No mention about anything.
• You can find the full discussion on the TP.

I had problems with two of the editors on that page. Another one wrote one comment and didn't engage in further discussions. Nobody has actually addressed any of my arguments. Every point I raised was ignored in favor of making their position seem more credible. I was told my sources weren’t reliable, but when I asked why, I got no answer. No one explained why Shohat’s opinion gets elevated to the Background section instead of being treated like any other view on the page. I wasn’t allowed to include references to antisemitic incidents in Muslim countries before the forced mass displacement. Some editors are showing obvious anti-Zionist, anti-Ashkenazi, and pro-Palestinian biases. I’ve pointed this out repeatedly in comments and discussions, only to be met with silence. Instead of honest engagement, I’ve encountered tactical avoidance, all while being accused of doing the very thing they’re doing themselves. Wikipedia has a history of anti Zionism and rather left leaning position towards certain issues. Just for comparison: The Nakba page is everything that a pro Palestinian can dream of. This is an insult to every jew that lived under Muslim rule, including my own family. I'm not asking for more Zionism here, just actual neutrality. All of my contributions to the page were removed—anyone can verify this by checking the edit history. I want to be clear that I did not engage in vandalism or disruptive editing. However, it’s difficult to have a meaningful discussion when concerns are met with silence or deflection. Some editors appear to hold strong ideological leanings, and this seems to be influencing what content is considered acceptable. There are similarities with the 6 editors that were banned for coordinated changes on Jewish-related pages.

• I need help from neutral Editors that have experience with this type of problem.

AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:On the first point of calling it an {{tqq|ethnic cleansing}}, can you provide sources for this, as I have only found two which label it as such (an opinion piece in a University's student paper, and minutes of a debate in the UK House of Commons), and none come up in a quick search of academic sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::@AhmedElMohamedi you pulled a block for edit warring on this article which is not set to expire until April 10 if my math is correct. I would suggest you'd be wise to WP:DROPTHESTICK as I doubt the blocking admin would look very positively on you looking for someone else to pick up your work during an active block. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The user who blocked my account advised me to write here. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, so my search was for a combination of "ethnic cleansing" and "mizrahim", I see that you added a list (multiple times) to the talk page. Some of those sources are usable for justifying the argument, but you have also included journal articles that make no mention of "ethnic cleansing" let alone arguing it is the case, articles who only mention the phrase in quotes from politicians, minutes from parliamentary debates where politicians mention it, minor self-published blogs, and some advocacy organisations. These examples are not ones that are likely to convince people, I would advise looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what are considered good sources in Wikipedia articles, and then look at shifting the wheat from the chafe in your collection of sources to support your argument.

::And as Simonm223 pointed out, leave this topic until your block has passed, as it may not look good to admins continuing the arguments in other fora during your block. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I understand the ethnic cleansing part, but what about the other points? As mentioned, the user who banned my account for this article advised me to post here. There was no mention of waiting for the ban to expire. I can still delete my messages if it's problematic. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::I found some sources that call it uprooting and mention ethnic cleansing.

::*There's the Oxford student article that you mentioned

::*An article by Avi beker with the title

::"'''The forgotten narrative: jewish refugees from arab countries"

::* A book by Malka Hillel Shulewitz with the Title "Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands"

::* An article by the University of central Florida with the Title "The Forced Removal Of Iraqi Jews: Ethnic Cleansing And Its Impact On Global Perceptions Of Zionism And The State Of Israel" which refers particularly to Babylonian jews.

::* Jimena published an article called "Remembering the ethnic cleansing of Egypt's Jews"

::* The European parliament has published an article with the title "Jewish refugees from arab countries"

::* UN Watch has published an article with the title "Jews from Arab Muslim lands"

::* Ada Aharoni wrote an article with the title "The Forced Migration of Jews from Arab Countries"

::* "In 2003, U.S. House Resolution 311 urged acknowledgment of the Mizrahi Jews who "fled Arab countries because they faced a campaign of ethnic cleansing and were forced to leave behind land, private homes, personal effects, businesses, community assets and thousands of years of their Jewish heritage and history." (The Green line, page 112)

::* There are countless articles from Israeli media but i assume that you're not interested in that.

::For some reason I can't link any article, so just giving you the titles is everything i can do. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Responding to these sources:

:::* Malka Hillel Shulewitz is, at best, a heavily biased source and, if found reliable and due (which I would question), should be used with careful attribution.

:::* "The Forced Removal Of Iraqi Jews: Ethnic Cleansing And Its Impact On Global Perceptions Of Zionism And The State Of Israel" is an undergraduate thesis and, as such, does not constitute a WP:RS per Wikipedia policy.

:::* Jimena.org is a heavily biased advocacy group (see also Malka Hillel Shulewitz who is involved with this group)

:::* Can you please provide a URL or other bibliographical information from the European Parliament article? It's unlikely to move the needle much because it would be WP:PRIMARY but might be worth reviewing at least.

:::* UN Watch is an advocacy group again which means it is of questionable reliability and should only be used with attribution.

:::* The Aharoni source is probably due with attribution but isn't sufficient for statements in Wikivoice.

:::* A US house resolution is not of any use here.

:::All in all I'd say your selection of sources is not particularly strong to say, in wiki-voice, that this was ethnic cleansing, however it would probably be appropriate to include an attributed statement to Ada Aharoni. I'm much less comfortable with the statement from Malka Hillel Shulewitz as she appears to be less of an academic and more of a lobbyist. Jimena is, of course, associated with her directly. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:this feels very much like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. OP was banned for editwarring on the article for two weeks and immediately after ban is posting on here to ask for folks to edit on their behalf. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't post here immediately after getting blocked. The user that blocked my account advised me to write here. I'm not asking you to edit anything, I'm asking for advice. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Lol nevermind i get why you're mad. "This user supports one democratic state in historic Palestine from the river to the sea." I was definitely not referring to users like you. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

AhmedElMohamedi can be excused for writing here because ScottishFinnishRadish advised them to without being clear enough that it was advice for what would have stopped them getting blocked rather than what they should do during their block. I'm more concerned about their response here to Bluethricecreamman, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1284493748 this comment], which I propose is admission that they are only looking for support from editors who share their pov. Zero^talk 03:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I can explain my comment. "This user supports one democratic state in historic Palestine from the river to the sea." It is concerning that Users like that edit Jewish-related pages, and it let's people question Wikipedias neutrality. They accused me of posting this after getting blocked from that article + that I want other users to edit in my place. I specifically asked help from neutral editors, not someone who has erased Israel and replaced it with an Arab state on their TP. Don't make shallow accusations and you won't get answers like this from me. I explained the issue and I'm not seeking any comfort from others. I want pages that are related to that specific ethnic group to be neutral, something that Wikipedia apparently can't do. With all due respect, there are user's which clearly show their political positions, and you're concerned about my comment? I'm not actively trying to push narratives, that's why I'm here in the first place. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::So no, I'm not "looking for support from editors who share my pov". AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Each time you make a negative comment about another editor, you increase the chance that someone will file a report at WP:AE. If the comments you have already made were included in an AE report, the result is quite likely to be a topic ban. No one needs to waste their time reading what someone thinks of their political positions. This is not social media. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Noted AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Every regular editor of PIA articles has a pov. Including you and me. Excluding the input of someone who doesn't have the same pov as yourself is the essence of edit-warring. Your statement "It is concerning that Users like that edit Jewish-related pages" just confirms what I wrote, since "users like that" really means "users whose views I disagree with". You aren't the first editor to think that their own pov is neutral. Zero^talk 07:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly. But what we think doesn’t matter—Wikipedia’s supposed to be neutral. Our personal opinions shouldn’t have any place here. I’m not asking anyone to exclude any editor’s input. I’m asking for actual neutrality—something that’s clearly missing on any page even slightly related to Jews or Israel. Compared to any Palestinian Arab page, this is a joke.

::::Check the edit history and the talk page. Nobody has responded to any of my points—they’ve just kept ignoring me. Both of them are heavily involved in editing Jewish-related pages. Of course we can deny it and throw around fancy Wikipedia rules, but we all know this site leans left and takes clear stances on certain issues.

::::And all I’m saying—again and again—is that the way you’re trying to present Jewish history here is honestly disgusting. I’ve said it over and over. I’ve made my point clear. No one’s listening.

::::* "Users like that" are the 6 that were banned from editing jewish articles for coordinated editing to portray Zionism and the state of Israel as colonialist, racist and whatever else fits their narrative. "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" is a clear statement and it's no surprise that users like that will do anything to push their worldviews. What I meant was clear and trying to portray this statement as untrue would be simple lying. All I did was move Shohat’s opinion from the background section which has no background information about mizrahi and Sephardic life, especially the rise of antisemitism in Muslim lands since the 18th century. Her viewpoint does certainly not belong there and should be treated like any other opinion on that matter. I don't know how many times you want to read this. You were one of the 3 editors that answered on the TP.

::::Wikipedia should be neutral. And by neutral I mean:

::::** Treat every opinion as equal

::::** Don't push narratives like on the Zionism and Nakba pages

::::** Don't let your own world views influence Wikipedias supposed neutrality

::::You can't say "Wikipedia has a no POV policy" and then defend obvious Anti-zionist editors that do everything to promote pro Palestinian narratives. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Commenting on contributors rather than on content is a sure-fire way to get topic banned. As I advised you on my talk page, {{tq|If you believe editors are violating NPOV in the topic area WP:AE, WP:ANI, and failing that, the Arbitration Committee are your options.}} Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:The reason we use pblocks for edit warring rather than full blocks is to encourage the editor to use WP:Dispute resolution, where NPOVN is listed one of the recommended venues. This is the same reason they're not generally blocked from the talk page. Being partially blocked is not a reason to refuse to engage at a content noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a RFC would have been a much better forum than here to get additional input. But since it's here, I looked through the history of the article and the talk page. In particular, I'm looking at this text which was deleted from the article under a claim of "restoring consensus":

:In The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries, Avi Beker discusses the overlooked and suppressed history of Jewish refugees from Arab nations. He highlights that the number of Jews displaced from these countries exceeds that of Palestinian Arab refugees, with many of the Jews being expelled due to antisemitic policies and ethnic cleansing. Unlike Palestinian Arab refugees, who have received significant international attention and support, the Jewish refugees have been largely ignored. Beker argues that the Palestinian Arabs are the only refugee group, among over 100 million displaced people after World War II, who have a dedicated UN agency that perpetuates their own tragedy. In contrast, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries remain largely forgotten.{{Cite journal |last=Beker |first=Avi |date=2005 |title=The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25834637 |journal=Jewish Political Studies Review |volume=17 |issue=3/4 |pages=3–19 |jstor=25834637 |issn=0792-335X}}"

''

This seems like a completely valid addition to the article as it's an opinion directly on this topic written by a notable writer and statesmen. I don't buy the argument that it must be deleted because this opinion was written 20 years ago (about incidents 70 years ago). It's correctly written as his opinion, not in wiki-voice. With a sniff test, this exclusion does feel like POV pushing. So, I'd suggest at least some of this text be re-added to the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am not sure it's supporting neutrality to include a long section on the opinion of an Israeli politician. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::By wikipedia's own standards he's a notable statesman and writer. He's being cited as opinion, not in his wiki-voice. Where we do agree is that I'd totally support cutting down this text.

::And it absolutely seem like POV pushing if we're going to exclude the opinions of notable Israelis from an article on the displacement of Jews based on them being "Israeli politicians". Bob drobbs (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Secondary sources would probably be necessary to establish if Beker's opinion is due here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm more concerned with the extensiveness of the attributed opinion than the bare presence of it so I do think there's some common ground between us. I'm just a bit anxious about the risk of over-correcting to an anti-Palestinian narrative here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that is a legitimate concern in this context Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If we get rid of most of what he's saying about Palestinian refugees as being off-topic, is there still this concern about an anti-Palestinian narrative?

:::::Maybe something like:

:::::"In The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries, Avi Beker describes there being a population exchange in the Middle East with the number of Jews displaced by Arab States exceeding the number of Palestinian Arab refugees. He alleges that most of the Jews were expelled due to policies of anti-Semitic incitement and even ethnic cleansing. And He claims that, unlike the Arab refugees, the Jewish refugees were largely ignored because of international cynicism and domestic Israeli suppression of the topic." Bob drobbs (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Seems good, my only comment is not to start the final sentence with "And". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe just cut the last sentence (starting with And) and then I'd probably be good with it too. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Per Cdjp1's request, I struck out "And" above and replaced it with "He".

::::::::@Simonm223Can you explain your concern? I don't have a super strong opinion either way, but as the work is called "The forgotten narrative", the idea this group of refugees have been ignored seems pretty core to his thoughts. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think the idea that Jewish refugees were ignored "because of international cynicism" compared to Palestinians is just a bit much from an WP:NPOV perspective. As I said before I'm ok with mention of his discussion but I'm worried this could be used to create a skewed narrative that supporting Palestinian refugees is somehow antisemitic. As such the whole "the world cares about Palestinians but not Jews" part of this argument seems a threat to article neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::How about simply getting rid of the mention of Arab refugees?

::::::::::" He claims that, unlike the Arab refugees, the Jewish refugees were largely ignored..." Bob drobbs (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:The point in coming here is to avoid the discussion among the same people and get outside views. That doesn't seem to be happening, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::maybe we close this section, point folks to resume convo on the article talk page, and just move on? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::or maybe just move this discussion over to that page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Looking into this Beker paragraph further, it would need to be rewritten to more clearly attribute these statements/analyses to Beker and to avoid them being in wikivoice. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC) Striking as off-topic. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{archive top|This was decided as a result of an extensively attended RfC in 2020, see Talk:Taiwan/Archive_30#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state", where over 2/3 of participants voted to call Taiwan a "country". Relitigation of this by non-established users is a waste of time. Established contributors can open a new RfC on the Taiwan talkpage if they wish to try to overturn this consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)}}

{{quote|The mainland Chinese government (the PRC) claims Taiwan as its territory. However, Taiwan is under de facto self-administration (the ROC), and to the traveller is effectively a separate country. This page does not endorse the claims of either the PRC or ROC. |source=Wikivoyage:Taiwan}}

{{quote|Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. |source=Taiwan}}

Some editors are suspected of WP:gaming the system to ensure their written arguments remain unchanged. No matter how eloquently these editors defend themselves, intuitively, the arguments in Wikipedia are far from neutral as those in wikivoyage.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=is+taiwan+a+country Top-ranked websites on Google will not directly give an arbitrary answer that Taiwan is a country]. (except User-generated content)

I am not leading to say that this is not a country. I just think that in a situation where 183 countries recognize one China, 12 recognize the Republic of China, and about 1.3 billion, 23 million and even more people, Pan-Blue Coalition and Pan-Green Coalition have different opinions, choosing a position seems not neutral.

New here. If there are any procedural issues, please assist in improving them.23.163.8.24 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:On the question of whether Taiwan/ROC as a political entity is a country the Pan-Blue and Pan-Green Coalition are in agreement that it is... You're also misrepresenting the concept of one China, most conceptions of which do not rule out Taiwan being a country (one China, one Taiwan is one of the one China conceptions for example). I would also note that if China's opinion counts for that much then this discussion should also include Ukraine whose statehood is denied by Russia, if NPOV means what you think it does we can't be describing Ukraine in that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::China's opinion has successfully influenced some countries.—At least Trump would not say Taiwan is a country. 23.163.8.24 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/china/map/ Even the CIA made a map showing Taiwan as a part of China.] 23.163.8.24 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Trump [https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/trump-tariff-list-names-taiwan-as-country/ listed Taiwan as a "country"] when he made his tariffs announcement. BD2412 T 17:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::: That map is intended to show the official Chinese position... And not that it really matters what the CIA thinks but they also publish a "Country" page for Taiwan[https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/taiwan/]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The United States doesn't recognise Taiwan as an independent country, so it's not a surprise that the CIA map would not show them as independent. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The United States does recognize Taiwan as an independent country, thats how its able to sell them F-16s[https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/6083531] and whatnot. If Taiwan were either part of China or not an independent country the US could not sell them armed F-16s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:It is a country, it just isn't an independent {{strikethrough|/sovereign}} country (nor do they claim to be). According to the [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/country Cambridge dictionary], a "country" is {{tq|"an area of land that has its own government, army, etc."}} Taiwan has a government, an army, and it controls the territory it occupies. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::They most certainly do claim to be an independent/sovereign country[https://www.voanews.com/a/taiwan-must-protect-its-sovereignty-know-its-own-history-president-says-/7706631.html]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"Taiwan, whose people elect their own leaders and whose government controls a defined area of territory with its own military, passport and currency, enjoys de facto independence even if that is not formally recognised by most countries."}}

:::They're de facto independent, but not de jure.

:::{{tq|"Taiwan's government says the Republic of China is a sovereign state and that Beijing has no right to speak for or represent it given the People's Republic of China has no say in how it chooses its leaders and has never ruled Taiwan."}}https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-is-taiwan-independence-is-taiwan-already-independent-2025-02-17/

:::OK, I was wrong. They are sovereign, but not independent. I am going to modify my comment. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::They also enjoy de jure sovereignty/independence, the difference is that while only one thing can be de facto true at a time multiple things can be de jure true at a time (this is why many de jure truths are called legal fictions)... For example under Taiwanese law Taiwan is a sovereign independent country... But under Chinese law Taiwan is a province. Both legal claims are true in a legal sense, but only one is true in a factual sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"under Taiwanese law Taiwan is a sovereign independent country..."}}

:::::True, but they also never officially declared independence from China. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Why would they need to? They've been officially independent of China (meaning the PRC) the whole time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

: There was a whole massive discussion (called a Request for Comment) about this on the talkpage which ended up with this current consensus, so the objection of 1 IP user, no matter how forceful, is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{archive bottom}}

Can we get some more eyes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#c-TurboSuperA+-20250414114700-North_Korean_troops_are_no_longer_involved on this] please? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I was not clear enough in my OP. The dispute is not about removing North Korea from the infobox, it is about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1285548134 amending the footnote]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is rough, but I'm not experienced enough to know where to start. Any ideas/advice? Thanks!! Sock-the-guy (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I edited the article a bit, namely the vague part about "Palestine terrorism" and named the group they were linked to, because the provided source names them. Other than that, I don't really see any NPOV issues with the article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

A large number, if not all, articles related to Thelema appear to have been written by adherents and present the tenets of the faith in Wikivoice pretty uncritically. I just took a hatchet to Abrahadabra ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abrahadabra&diff=1286420761&oldid=1282741575 diff]), which made claims like

{{blockquote| This word is not just a magical utterance but encapsulates the essence of the new Aeon, representing a shift in spiritual consciousness and practice.}}

{{blockquote|…}}

{{blockquote| In meditative practices, practitioners use the word to focus their minds, channeling its energy to connect with the divine and achieve mystical insights. The word's power lies in its ability to harmonize the practitioner's internal state with the universal forces it symbolizes.}}

{{blockquote|…}}

{{blockquote| Meditative practices involving "Abrahadabra" often lead to experiences of heightened consciousness, deep emotional release, and a stronger connection to one’s inner self. This transformative power is attributed to the word’s symbolic and energetic resonance, which helps to dissolve internal barriers and align the practitioner with higher spiritual realities. These impacts are not limited to individual growth but also extend to enhancing one's relationships}}

There are dozens of articles like this. For example, Thoth Tarot lacks a single source from outside the pool of believers. The template is Template:Thelema series is basically a list of articles needing an WP:NPOV cleanup, merger, or AFD. a

At this point it rivals its Hinduism equivalent despite being so niche a faith that there are no reliable membership statistics beyond “maybe a few thousand”.

This appears to have spilled over into other articles that touch on religion, with Divinity getting a massive overhaul by a now banned user that I don’t want to touch for fear of gravedancing but which probably needs a second set of eyes and, at least at first pass from me, some heavy handed pruning. A big section on Thelema-adjacent practices ended up in the article about Jewish Kaballah despite two articles dedicated to the form of Kabbalah used in Thelema. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:That does look very bad. My advice would be to cut articles like Thoth Tarot down to a single sentence with an WP:RS if need be. I will add them to my watchlist. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I actually couldn’t find more than passing mentions to Thoth Tarot in papers which do a general overview on the various usage of Tarot, so despite it being on-wiki since 2003 it may not actually pass WP:GNG. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Warrenmck}}, please remember that Thelema is a recognized and practiced religion, and you may be diving into its articles without the framework and knowledge of the topic. Yesterday I had to correct an edit you made as to when the religion's main text was written. You were off by five years, and changed longtime language to reflect your view! The tarot deck you refer to is one of the major tarot decks, and has been since the 1940s. To be clear, I am not a member of this religion, have never attended one of its meetings, and have never read its main text. I do know its place in the overall timeline of people being able to read and discuss esoteric and "banned" views, setting the stage for much of what occurred in the human potential movements of the 1960s onward. To change some of its main articles, such as the abrawhatever you took a large deletion pen to in removing sourced information very relevant to the practice and traditions of this religion, there is a concern in intent and practice, as mentioned. Yes, removing data from Wikipedia's voice is very important, here and in other religious article, but please edit carefully and take reputable sources, such as books, into consideration as you go forward, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Do you have a specific objection to the removal of the above material? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What material? The entire Wikipedia collection on Crowley and his religion? Not clear on what you mean. What comes to mind is the meditative sections you removed on the Abrahadabra page, apparently techniques used by adherents to focus their mind in meditative practice/states. I must make clear that I have this and other noticeboard pages and many of the Thelema pages on my watchlist, as to not be accused (again) of hounding Warren, who edits, watches, or reads some similar topics. As to your mention of gravedancing above, I'd submit that any major cuts to Thelema pages hints at gravedancing, as the recent and questionable interaction with you by {{u|Skyerise}}, the main editor who worked on these pages, resulting in a ban because she foolishly let an accusation get the best of her and doubled down on criticisms during her banning discussion (apparently if she can't get back soon her "overself" or whatever it is called in various religions and practices, in Thelema "True Will" or "Guardian Angel" would do, wants the novel - and if she works on the novel, hopefully it contains the best of her knowledge) may or may not fall into that wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::When bad editors make bad content, it's good to clean it up surely. Bon courage (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Of course, but not let's gravedance on {{u|Skyerise}} by calling her a "bad editor". I think she was on the verge of her ban being lifted or reduced when she doubled-down on criticism and name calling of {{u|Warrenmck}} on her talk page, which has resulted in an indef which, hopefully, will be lifted at some point by another admin who will research the entire chain of edits and discussions to locate where and why it got very personal on various sides. One of the strangest series of events I've personally seen on Wikipedia, to be honest in assessing it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Randy, do you have a substantive objection to the edits I made or are you just continuing to follow me around the project insisting every edit I make is undoing "good content" regardless of any policies? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Please strike that comment as being totally false. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::As for objections, more like concerns ("please remember") that you will do what you did at the book page, make a major mistake right in the lead as to when the main text of a religion was written. Just saying please be more attentive to facts. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::She WAS a bad editor, and cleaning up the abomination of a mess she made all over the site is not gravedancing. Even aside from her massive civility problem, her constant attempts to assign undue important to fringe religions was a significant problem. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:7C47:D78E:7D0D:CC6C (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of reported UFO sightings § Context. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I’m a new editor on Wikipedia, and my primary focus for now has been improving the Australian Citizens Party (ACP) article, which seems to historically been skewed toward portraying the party in a negative light. I’ve made significant changes to address this, as noted in my posts on the talk page and edit summaries, but I’m still concerned about the article’s current level of neutrality and believe it still needs work to align with Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV policy.

I discovered that the article’s creator, User:Adam Carr, made extremely negative comments on the talk page in 2005 (e.g., calling the party “neo-Nazi cultist filth”), which seems to have introduced a strong bias against the party that affected the article’s tone for years. Early edits from 2005 reflect this bias, which persisted in the article’s tone decades later. I also noticed that the ACP was the only Australian political party with a dedicated “Criticism” section, which I merged into the rest of the article to improve balance. To counteract the negativity, I added an “Achievements” section. However, I believe a lot of the wording still needs to be changed, and additional citations are needed for topics like the party’s climate change skepticism, its LaRouche movement ties, and some historical controversies.

I was hoping more experienced editors could review the article and suggest improvements to ensure it meets NPOV standards. I’ve been making edits over the past few days, so you can compare my current version with what used to exist. Please also take a look at the article’s talk page for more context on my changes. Thanks everyone.

NoBudee (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have copy/pasted the neo-nazi allegations section into my sandbox and separated the text into "defense against allegations" and "pro-allegations". It is clear that the section is heavily skewed towards the defense against allegations. Even the 2014-2022 section (when editors supposedly agree that they were neo-nazi) has more text defending them and justifying their neo-nazism rather than explaining the allegations.

I think this is WP:FALSEBALANCE, but I could be wrong. That's why I am asking this noticeboard whether the section needs work to balance it out (in which case I am happy to get started on it) or is the section fine as is (in which case I will leave it alone)?

Pinging interested/involved editors @TylerBurden @Simonm223 @Slatersteven @Sonnyvalentino TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:We already mention the allegations. All you are doing is just adding more opinions, that add nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think the point of "adding more opinions" is to make sure the article doesn't look like apologia for neo-nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll note that my attempt to remove the opinion that Ukranian people can't recognize nazi iconography was hastily reverted. Simonm223 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::But something only needs to be said once, unless it is said by academics (and even then only a couple of examples are needed). What we do not need are 15 talking heads. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Then cut the opinion that Ukranians don't know how to recognize nazi icons.Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No issue with the same criteria being applied in reserve, removal of material sourced to the media. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Then why was my removal of material sourced to the media restored with the typical lampshade of "well they were interviewing a scholar." We both know a journalistic interview of a scholar is not the same level of reliability as an academic publication by a scholar. But apparently when the scholar is making the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Ukranians don't recognize Black Sun (symbol) and Wolfsangel as Nazi symbols that's apparently something that must stay in. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Did I remove it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I removed it. The same editor who has been accusing other editors of being Russian propagandists put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I acannot answer for what someone else did. So until they give their reasons, I can only guess. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The point I'm making is that the end-result of the POV you and this other editor have been advocating for has been to remove sources that call Azov Nazis but to leave in sources that claim they're not Nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::We do have sources calling them Nazis' we include the accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I didn't say all sources had been removed. Only that one POV is being clearly prioritized. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::What do the bulk of RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I keep telling you the problem is that there are two different reliability standards being applied with much stricter standards for including claims they're nazis than for claims they are heroic patriots whose nazi iconography is just a humourous misunderstanding. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::And I disagree, as I said if you want to remove any claims made by non-academics, I will not oppose you. Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Some of the opinion could be trimmed, and it's definitely worth condensing the main points into summaries rather than engaging in nose-counting, but it looks like the most lopsided coverage is after the invasion. It is possible that coverage shifted after that point as a backlash against the way Putin used it to justify the war. That's... not great, but if it's what happened then our article will inevitably reflect that shift. That is to say, you ought to consider the possibility that it's not that our article is lopsided, it's that actual recent coverage is lopsided. We have a few options depending on the situation (eg. pushing for more high-quality sources and fewer opinion-pieces) but if actual high-quality sourcing has become lopsided like that out of concern for validating Putin's invasion, then ultimately trying to correct for that would run into WP:WGW / WP:FALSEBALANCE issues itself. If you don't think that that's the case, the thing to do is to demonstrate undue weight by doing an in-depth source search and comparing existing sources on both sides (with an emphasis on, ideally, high-quality secondary sources covering the entire controversy), then decide what to add or remove based on that. But it's worth at least considering the possibility that recent sourcing criticizing Azov Brigade has dried up because many sources, even high-quality ones, don't want to say things that could be seen as validating Putin's rationale for the invasion. --Aquillion (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I mean considering that @TurboSuperA+ has been accused of being a Russian propagandist for trying to increase the prominence of opinions that the Azov Brigade are neo-nazis I think some of that fear of being "seen as validating Putin's rationale for the invasion" is coming from inside the house. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I also see a greater level of uncertainty creep in as the war intensifies... You see sources repeatedly saying that ascertaining anything about Azov with certaintly just isn't possible under wartime conditions. What I find most interesting is that both "sides" in the debate seem to agree on that point even if they don't agree on what it means. In a general sense I would privilage what gets published before and after the war over what gets published during it, but that is a hard principle to operationalize when a conflict is ongoing to the most recent sources are going to be the subpar ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

OK a double standard has been alleged, which academics calling Azov neonazi's have been removed? Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|which academics calling Azov neonazi's have been removed?}}{{pb}}Funny you should ask. On 30 December 2024, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1266186423 removed] Martin Zilvar ([https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-eQ5nRYAAAAJ&hl=en Google Scholar]) ([https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1679-3284 orcid]), a published [https://www.politicsincentraleurope.eu/waiting-for-a-tragedy-exploring-the-czech-republic-s-ability-to-detect-radicalised-individuals] [https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1250649] academic. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::PhD student with a extremely low cited publications in Czech journals...? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes. Are you going to decide who is an academic and who isn't?{{pb}}Meanwhile, Andreas Umland is mentioned in the article 10 times. He is described as {{tq|a scholar from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies}}, but his Wikipedia page says {{tq|He is a Senior Expert at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future in Kyiv as well as a research fellow at the Swedish Institute for International Affairs in Stockholm.[1] He lives in Kyiv, and teaches as an Associate Professor of Politics at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.}}{{pb}}To recap:

:::* An academic who thinks Azov are neo-nazi is removed

:::* An academic living and working in Ukraine who thinks Azov are not neo-nazi is quoted 10 times and the fact that he works for a Ukrainian university is not even mentioned

:::{{pb}}This is a clear NPOV violation. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The citation was removed because of verification issues, specifically a quotation was asked for. But sure twist it into how people are POV-pushing. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|The citation was removed because of verification issues, specifically a quotation was asked for.}}{{pb}}What happened to WP:AGF? {{pb}}If you want to include an opinion that Azov are neo-nazis, then it's *reverted* "seek consensus on the talk page", "read WP:ONUS", "is this WP:DUE?", "what about WP:V?", and so on... But then once an opinion that they are not neo-nazi is included then the opposite is demanded -- one must seek consensus on the talk page to remove it. It's a blatant double standard.{{pb}}{{tq|"specifically a quotation was asked for."}}{{pb}}It looks as though it was provided, yet it was still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1266290923 reverted]. This time by Manyareasxpert, an editor whom the community decided to ban from the topic area because of their defense and whitewashing of Nazis.{{pb}}Are you picking up where he left off? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Why are you pointing to the action's of an editor who is now banned as if he represents the other editors? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not pointing to the editor, I am pointing to the actions that the community decided were problematic, especially when it comes to alleged Nazis and Nazi-adjacent topics/subjects: the incessant asking about sources, removing statements under the pretense that the sources don't support them, verification issues, and so on. {{pb}}This was the statement included in the article: {{tq|Others such as political scientist Martin Zilvar have argued that Azov remains a Neo-Nazi movement, though one that masks its identity 'by implementing pseudo-democratic views.' in order to participate within a liberal-democratic system.}}{{pb}}And this was the citation provided in support of the statement: {{tq|"Despite this rather monolithic theoretical framing, the right-wing extremist milieu must be perceived as a heterogeneous ecosystem comprising various coexisting currents. Centring on contemporary Europe, Pauwels (2021) outlined anti-Islam and anti-immigrant movements, identitarian movements, far-right sovereign citizen movements, and single-issue extremists as its most prominent current cornerstones, aside from the traditional ones, i.e., neo-Nazis and neo-fascists (ultranationalists) (Ibid. 4-5). Knowing this, one must also acknowledge the inside evolution of this political spectrum. While the latter two exist on its fringe and are often subjected to repression in European countries, the others have quite successfully consolidated their existence in a way that allows them to participate in the liberal democratic arena, as those actors intentionally mask anti-democratic beliefs by implementing pseudo-democratic views. Therefore, even many neo-Nazis and neo-fascists have started associating with the less stigmatized currents (Umland and Shekhovtsov 2013, 36-37). To bridge the theoretical with the empirical, the following Ukrainian political parties and subcultural groupings—having from lower tenths to a few hundred activists—reflect the outlined definition of right-wing extremism. While the All-Ukrainian Union Party 'Svoboda,' National Corps, and Right Sector constitute the former, the Azov movement's affiliates, i.e., Centuria, Wotanjugend, NordStorm, Avangard, Alternativa, Solaris, Tradition and Order, Revanche, Freikorps, and Karpatska Sich, as well as the Brotherhood, C14, the OUN Volunteer Movement, the UNA-UNSO, and the Revolutionary Right Forces represent the latter."}}{{pb}}And here are the links to the article: [https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1250649] [https://www.obranaastrategie.cz/en/archive/volume-2024/1-2024/articles/ukrainian-right-wing-extremists.html]{{pb}}What verification issue do you see here? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"the Azov movement's affiliates...." not the Azov movement, not an Azov brigade, groups linked to it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Merriam-Webster:
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affiliate affiliate] noun
{{tq|an affiliated person or organization}}
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affiliated affiliated]adjective
{{tq|closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position}}{{pb}}Britannica:
[https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/affiliate affiliate] noun
plural affiliates
{{tq|an organization (such as a television station) that is a member of a larger organization (such as a national network)}} TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3221?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true "Generally, an affiliate is an entity that is related to another legal entity. The specific relationship between entities that are affiliates may differ based on the industry, legal requirements, type of transaction, or definition in a particular contract." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/affiliate#google_vignette "to cause a group to become part of or form a close relationship with another, usually larger, group, or organization:" So, no it doesn't always mean "a member of a larger organization", this is why we have wp:v, as RS must say it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::From the same article:
{{tq|After scrutinizing the data, the article identified the following Ukrainian right-wing extremist groups:
Blood & Honour Division Ukraine and Combat 18,2 Wotanjugend, Misanthropic Division,3 Right Sector,
Azov, Revanche Battalion, Karpatska Sich, NordStorm, and Centuria.}} TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::As this is a quote, the source would be the article the quote is talking about, so what source is it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::It's [https://www.obranaastrategie.cz/filemanager/files/3702121-en.pdf the same] article we are talking about. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::So it is referring to itself, also is not Martin Zilvar a PHD STUDENT? Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|14}} {{tq|So it is referring to itself}}
You said the source has to say it. I found where the source calls Azov a far-right extremist group. Would you oppose the addition if "neo-nazi" was changed to "far-right extremist"?
{{tq|is not Martin Zilvar not a PHD STUDENT?}}
He is a published academic. Nowhere does it say on wikipedia that one must have a PhD to be considered an academic or expert. You need to stop inventing rules and policies. Or better yet, keep going, it makes the stonewalling obvious for all to see. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I asked what article your source is referring to, is it referring to itself when it talks about " the article identified...", it is a simple yes or no. Also wp:undue comes into it, a BLP has to have the highest standards of sourcing, and a PHD thesis may not be one. Not when it is being used to (in effect) challenge professional political scientists (parity of sources matters). Find better sources, professional academics, not PHD students. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|17}} {{tq|a BLP has to have the highest standards of sourcing}}
The Azov brigade article is not a BLP.
{{tq|and a PHD thesis}}
It is not a PhD thesis, it is an article published in a peer-reviewed{{refn|name=CEEOL|name=a|Since 2007, all received articles are subject to a peer review, which consists of a selective approval process performed anonymously by the Editorial Board as the first round and an anonymous review typically provided by two expert reviewers, in the second round.}} [https://www.ceeol.com/search/journal-detail?id=139#information journal].
{{tq|professional academics}}
He is a professional academic because he is published in academic journals, a PhD is not a requirement. A PhD takes years, sometimes decades to complete, and PhD "students" also work in academia during that time. I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, you should know this.
I'm done with this discussion. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Per wp:blp "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts", are you saying all members of Azov are dead? Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::BLP does not apply to groups... You're arguing so hard you've abandoned reason along with P+G. Please take a step back and consider stepping away from this topic area all together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So my last comment here, BLP and undue are clear, only SIGNIFICANT opinions should be added to this article, not random politicians or students who happen to say the right thing. Find high-quality sources, of the same caliber as the ones that put the other side. We do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You mean like Gabriela Baczynska? [https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielabaczynska/ Senior Media Officer, European Investment Bank (EIB)], who is cited [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Brigade#cite_note-reuters-20150325-80 six times] in the article, despite the fact she's [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Gabriela+Baczynska&btnG= never been published in a peer-reviewed journal].{{pb}}How did she slip under your radar? I trust that you will be removing any statements sourced to her. After all, we do not engage in that sort of thing. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|Slatersteven}} BLP clearly does not apply to large groups of people or organizations... Where in the world did you ever get such an idea? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::"This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." So my argument stands as "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." There is doubt (within RS). Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is not a small group or organization, or a medium one, it is a large one. There is no doubt about whether BLP applies... It does not. I see no significant doubt in the RS as to whether or not Azov is a large organization, if you do you will need to present it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|TurboSuperA+}} I take your point about uneven treatment of sources but I'm not sure that Zilvar is a great example, that is genuinly borderline and someone saying it shouldn't be in the article isn't really strong evidence of anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|someone saying it shouldn't be in the article isn't really strong evidence of anything.}}
On its own, no. But the sources are treated unevenly and any change to the status quo is challenged:

:::* The whole first paragraph (878 bytes) in the 2022- section is sourced to a [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/ Washington Post article] written by two journalists and two people with a BA in Middle Eastern studies. This sentence {{tq|The Azov Regiment has been a recurring theme of Russian propaganda.}} in the lede is also sourced to that article, implying all allegations are Russian propaganda.

:::* Statements by active Azov officers are two paragraphs to deny the allegations.

:::* After 6 paragraphs of defense we get to the first paragraph that includes the allegations, but the paragraph ends with a "debunk" of the claims by [https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/lev-golinkin-azov-ukraine-neo-nazis a journalist].

:::* After that is another paragraph in defense of Azov, for good measure. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220609082202/https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2022-06-01/ty-article-magazine/.premium/understanding-ukrainian-nationalism-and-claims-its-tainted-by-nazism/00000181-1a0c-d9b4-a199-be1e4a3c0000 Sourced to a journalist].

:::* Last paragraph is supporting the allegations. Cited to the same paper three times.

:::That's 7 paragraphs in defense of Azov (4,549 bytes) and 2 making the allegations (1,119 bytes). Even in the 2014-2022 era, when editors agree that they "began as far-right", 4,317 bytes are used on defense and 2,838 are used on the allegations. That is not balanced. Third section has 1,614 bytes in defense of Azov, 423 bytes on the allegations.
In the section that is called "Neo-Nazism allegations", 10.480 bytes of text are used to defend Azov, while 4,380 bytes are used on the allegations. That doesn't seem balanced to me.{{pb}}The whole article reads like a defense of Azov, with blatant editorialising to boot. I think with that I'll step away from this topic for a while. There's not much more I can add and I don't want to be accused of bludgeoning. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree that there appear to be issues here, but I wouldn't be so quick to conflate balanced coverage with equal coverage. NPOV is more complex than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Does seem like bludgeoning, and I can't say the idea that this may be pro-Russian propaganda didn't occur to me on first noticing this discussion. Is there anyone else pushing for the changes you want, {{u|TurboSuperA+}}? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

This is my first attempt at a request; I know I'm going to get it wrong, so please help instead of scolding.

I know that articles involving "god" are one of the most hotly debated on wikipedia, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to wikipedia's standards, including neutral point of view (NPOV). The article, Historicity of Jesus needs to be looked at for NPOV. Several articles on the subject seem biased; a good example is this archived discussion on this board: Here where people are presented with three choices; Historicity of Jesus deals with the theories of Jesus' existence (so, only theories that he existed are allowed here); Historical Jesus deals with the "scholarly reconstruction" of Jesus (i.e. the theory that he was a real historical figure) (again, the reader is only presented with different models of a real Jesus); and Christ myth theory deals with the theory that Jesus is an entirely frictional character (this is where disagreeing sources about Jesus as real are [cherry] picked apart using questionable sources). This leads me to an unfortunate partner to this non-NPOV story, the source material used is largely secondary, and it is common (if not the norm) to find statements like (and I paraphrase), "Jesus was real because a religious guy that wrote a book said he was. End of discussion." So, my request? Is that editors review the article Historicity of Jesus and determine if it is an article that should present both sides to the argument in a NPOV manner or not.StarHOG (Talk) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The nomination raises WP:NPOV and WP:OR concerns about its scope, and the discussion is going nowhere despite two relists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This is part of a broader dispute with @Epenkimi, who contributes prolifically to identity-related topics concerning Egypt's Coptic minority, regarding the ethnonationalist framing and wording employed in such edits. This led to a protracted dispute and extended discussion on the main Copts article, which ultimately resulted in an RfC consensus and the implementation of a roadmap aimed at addressing the numerous WP:NPOV concerns identified throughout the text.

However, the dispute has now spilled over into the Coptic identity article, where similar issues persist. Much of the problematic language has been carried over verbatim from the main article, including the introduction of religious terminology and the presentation of Christian theological narratives as factual assertions.

Attempts at cordial discussion and compromise have repeatedly failed, often devolving into circular exchanges that yield no real progress. What is urgently needed at this point is substantive, third-party input that can decisively guide the process forward in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies.

Some examples of these NPOV issues:

{{tqb|• Today, Copts and many Egyptian Muslims reject Arab nationalism and Arab identity, emphasizing indigenous Egyptian heritage and culture as well as their own unique ethnicity and genetic makeup, which are completely different from those of the Arabs.}}

{{tqb|• Over the centuries, they have always rejected and fought against other identities that foreign rulers attempted to force upon them, stressing their own Egyptian identity.}}

{{tqb|• During the reign of Yazid I, the Arabs killed and looted the Copts}}

{{tqb|• Coptic identity is the historical and modern identity of the Copts (Coptic: ⲚⲓⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ni.Remenkīmi, literally: the Egyptians).(CONTEXT: This name is not used specifically for Copts; it simply means Egyptians. Its invocation here reflects an etymological fallacy, employed to bolster the broader narrative of "the true Egyptians". There is no supporting evidence that this has historically been used to refer specifically to Copts)}}

{{tqb|• Copts are the native inhabitants of Egypt, and the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. (CONTEXT: This version is being used to replace a formulation that acknowledged both Copts and other Egyptians as descendants of the ancient Egyptians, a compromise version that was reached through an RfC consensus to replace this exact sentence)}}

{{tqb|• The blood of these Christian martyrs and their dense network of shrines across the country provided for the Copts a narrative of the sanctification of the Egyptian landscape, giving the country an especially holy character. Undoubtedly for the Copts, the Flight into Egypt by the Holy Family provided the ultimate sanctification for Egypt, making the country an extension of the holy lands trod by Jesus Christ.}}

In this specific case, I spent considerable time and effort introducing a version of the article that systematically addressed the numerous WP:NPOV concerns identified. However, as expected, the user reverted these changes, sometimes rewording portions in a way that preserves the same problematic essence, but largely reinstating the original formulations, including an entire section of just quotes (WP:QUOTEFARM) that spins on this "true Egyptians" theme.

Given that the neutrality issues are interwoven throughout the entire article, it would be impractical to list every instance individually. Instead, I will summarize the dispute by presenting two representative versions of the text: one reflecting the current, contested state, and one reflecting the proposed revision (also contested by @Epenkimi).

Version 1 (current): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&oldid=1287727334 Epenkimi]{{br}}

Version 2: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&oldid=1287505275 Turnopoems]{{br}} Turnopoems (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Some of these differences seem like they would need closer examination of sources to verify or find inappropriate. However, the last quoted excerpt, {{tq|The blood of these Christian martyrs...}} is so absurdly at odds with Wikipedia tone that discussion with anyone seriously proposing it be included seems like a non-starter (as a side note, that specific claim is cited to Bagnall, a source seemingly used repeatedly throughout Coptic identity but which never appears to have been defined properly). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Rosguill Those are just a few examples of a problem that is, to varying degrees, pervasive throughout the entire article. For example, how does an individual, let alone an entire ethnic group, emphasize its genetic makeup? What does that even mean? It appears that this article has long been treated more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic entry. If a reassessment was requested now, it would almost certainly lose its B-class status.

::In the main Copts article, consensus was reached to remove similar NPOV violations by following the roadmap I proposed (despite the protests of this same user). While transferring that consensus to this article is relatively straightforward for many portions of the content, it is more complicated for others as it would require a degree of interpretive effort. Without broader participation, the dispute risks becoming little more than my word against his.

::I have raised the issue of improperly formatted sources multiple times. During the rollback, the user removed the maintenance template I had introduced to flag these improperly formatted references, claiming to have addressed the problem. However, the issue persists (as you just noted): the editor pretty much only uses manual short citations without providing the corresponding full citations, leaving the references incomplete and unverifiable, and does not seem to understand that this is an issue. I suspect that particular one is Egypt from Alexander to the Copts by Roger Bagnall, but it could also be one of his other books. Another source, Guindy, heavily cited throughout the article, yet also undefined, is Sword Over the Nile by Adel Guindy, a work published through a vanity press. Turnopoems (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rosguill: I can understand you may disagree with one or more sentences in the article, and I am certainly open to discussing your objections and reaching a common agreement on wording, but can you please explain how your action of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287791511&oldid=1287727334| mass reversal where you deleted tens of referenced and documented statements] is something justifiable or constructive?

:::The same applies to @Turnopoems: You have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287627238&oldid=1287505275| blanket reverted everything I did, which amassed to hours of work, good faith attempts to incorporate your edits, and good faith attempts to fix the references]. Again, how is this something justifiable? What would have been your reaction if I had done the same thing to you, and reverted all your edits on the article? Please let me know, because I would like to follow your example in that case and do what you would have done had someone blanket reverted all your edits that you spent days composing. This is not ok. Epenkimi (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Rosguill & @ Turnopoems: The quote you are objecting to and that you used to do a blanket revert of all my edits comes from the book Roman Egypt by the professor of classics and history at Columbia University, Roger S. Bagnall. Here are pictures of the cover of the book and the pages from where the quote is taken.

::::And here is the exact quote, word for word:

::::Besides telling the story of the suffering and sacrifices that went into the establishment of the Egyptian church, martyrdom accounts complement several other texts to offer a narrative of the sanctification of the Egyptian landscape. The bodies of the martyrs were buried in shrines that formed a dense network, giving the country an especially holy character. It was also at this time that the story known as the "flight into Egypt," recounting how Mary and Joseph took the baby Jesus to Egypt to escape King Herod's massacre of all babies in Judaea, became popular and was told in much more detail than the initial short mention in the gospel of Matthew allows (Mt 2:13-23). For any Christian, this was the ultimate form of sanctification, as it made Egypt a part of the holy lands that were trod by Jesus. Epenkimi (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I stated on the article’s talk page, there is no issue with presenting this text as a properly attributed quote within a larger body of neutral, contextualized factual narrative, illustrating how such religious perceptions form part of Coptic identity. Once again, the vast majority of your contributions have been reworked, not removed, in order to bring them into alignment with WP:NPOV, including this exact text. It's included in my version as well.

:::::However, you have repeatedly taken issue with and mass-reverted these reformulations, even though, like your own contributions, they represent hours of careful work. I understand the frustration of seeing it reworked, but that is not a valid argument for inclusion on its own. It provided a valuable basis for improving the article, which is ultimately the best outcome for everyone.

:::::Looking at the article’s history, I notice several instances where you have removed other editors’ properly sourced contributions. In many cases because it did not align with the ethnonationalist "true Egyptians" narrative you are trying to present, like the text about Greek migrants in Fayoum. This suggests that you are aware of the general principle that no one is entitled to have their edits remain unchanged, or even retained at all, on Wikipedia. When we contribute here, we volunteer our time, knowing that everything we add is subject to the collaborative process of consensus-building and content curation.

:::::I have personally created numerous articles that later evolved in directions very different from what I initially envisioned. That is simply the nature of Wikipedia: we do not own the articles, nor do we own the content we contribute. The best we can do is follow the various policies and guidelines to the best of our abilities and argue our case when a dispute arises. While this reality can be frustrating on an individual level, it ultimately strengthens the platform’s integrity. It ensures that articles are shaped by broad consensus and editorial scrutiny, rather than by individual perspectives, and that is precisely what prevents entries from devolving into the state this article was previously in.

:::::After the previous situation, I am not particularly interested in engaging in another circular discussion marked by hostility and personal attacks, where I explain my position, you disagree, and we ultimately reach no resolution but mutual frustration. Beyond clarifying the rationale behind these edits, which you have framed as "vandalism" both here and on several user talk pages, I have no desire to endlessly debate the whys and hows with you. I hope we can focus on building consensus for our respective versions, as can I not see any potential for collaborative effort between the two of us after the last time.

:::::Please note that these books are copyrighted material, so posting images of them is probably not appropriate. I’ve removed them from here, and you should probably delete the files. It’s better to simply quote the relevant excerpt with a proper citation and page number instead. Turnopoems (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@User: Turnopoems Yes, you have reworked my work, and I have reworked yours in return, keeping many of your edits and trying to reach some type of compromise. And what was your reaction? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287656048&oldid=1287655245| Mass reversion of all my work]. When I restored my work, another user mass reverted it again. Not a single person engaged in the discussion on the Talk Page objected to your action and the mass deletion of referenced material. Contrary to what you are claiming, I have NOT removed a single reference that you added from the article. On the other hand, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=next&oldid=1287459638| you have removed multiple well sourced statements] simply because you disagreed what their content, in spite of these references being written by experts in the fields of Coptology and Egyptology and history. You have done the same in the other article Copts. You are editing these articles based on your own biases that downplay both what independent historians say about Copts, as well as what the Copts say about themselves. You treat these articles as if they owned them, and you remove whatever you personally disagree with instead of actually respecting what the experts in the field say in the references that you remove. There is zero integrity and zero scholarship in this kind of behavior.

::::::As for the book pages I took pictures of, it was because both you and the other user (User: Rosguill) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_identity&diff=1287791511&oldid=1287727334| who also mass deleted are my edits in the article] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1287790930&oldid=1287768928| questioned the validity of the quote].

::::::Like I said on the Talk Page of the article:

::::::"It is very clear to me based on this conversation that there is no hope for me contributing to Wikipedia because at the end of the day, a number of users will gang up and mass delete everything I write even when everything I contribute is supported by references. Last time there was a disagreement on another page, the same user who mass deleted my work on this page got another user blocked on Wikipedia because that other user was supporting my edits. I had high hopes that administrators on this website would take actions against the mass deletion of my work, which happened twice. Had I been the one to mass revert what the other user changed, I would have likely been accused of edit warring and got banned. Moreover, it is very obvious that what academia says matters very little to Wikipedia. What matters is what some Wikipedia users want Wikipedia articles to say. When I write an entire section supported by academia and scholarship, and a handful of users dislike what that section says, their own personal opinion and bias ends up trumping the opinion of the experts. This is unfortunately not an encyclopedia. It's a joke. You guys can go ahead and enjoy editing the articles to your liking. Best of luck." Epenkimi (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::[From talk page] First of all I want to dispense with the mischaracterization that you merely "reworked" my reformulations, as you mentioned on the noticeboard. In reality, you reverted them wholesale in favor of your contested version, with few exceptions. I have already provided both versions side by side, so this objection can be dismissed outright. In doing so, you disregarded not only the substantive editorial reasoning behind the changes to the formulation, but also the established conventions of formatting and structure as outlined in WP:MOS. Paragraphs were once again fused into dense, monstrous blocks of text, meaning that your blanket revert failed to acknowledge even the most simple and non-contentious improvements I had introduced.

:::::::When several uninvolved editors raise objections to your contributions, citing substantive concerns rooted in Wikipedia’s core content policies, it is worth reflecting on why that consensus has emerged, rather than dismissing it as conspiratorial or biased. When I started editing nearly fifteen years ago, I too made missteps born of inexperience. What distinguished those misjudgments from a persistent pattern of editorial conflict, however, was a willingness to absorb critique, adapt to community standards, and allow the project’s collective ethos to refine my contributions. I did not wield inexperience as a shield against legitimate criticism, nor did I interpret disagreement as rejection of my voice. I learned, I adjusted, and I remained committed to building encyclopedic content.

:::::::If you find yourself unable, or simply unwilling, to work constructively within a model that privileges consensus and neutrality over individual conviction, then it may be worth considering whether this is the right platform for your efforts. Wikipedia is not a venue for molding articles according to your preferred narrative. It is a shared space, governed by principles like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE, where content must be supported not just by sources, but by sound editorial judgment.

:::::::The tone and content of your messages cross the line into petulance. Your broader complaint boils down to indignation that your edits, despite being "sourced", were not accepted without question. Over several weeks, I and multiple editors have explained in detail, on your user talk page, across multiple articles, why certain formulations were problematic and suggested ways to move forward. Yet the response was that you continued to dig in your heels, as @SMcCandlish aptly noted, while stalling with promises of compromise that ultimately served only to repackage the same problematic content in slightly different language. This led to a never-ending, circular discussion. No one wants to be drawn into a cycle defined by the repeated reintroduction of disputed material and a reluctance to engage in genuine, policy-based dialogue, especially when it drags on for weeks. That’s why I eventually abandoned that approach in favor of building broader consensus without your input, which is perfectly valid per WP:CONSENSUS. There is no imperative that you be part of the final resolution. Consensus does not hinge on the participation or agreement of any single editor, as @Rosguill noted.

:::::::You suggest that another user was blocked simply for supporting your edits, but according to the sockpuppet investigation, that account was blocked because it was highly likely to be your own sockpuppet. Using multiple accounts to manufacture consensus is a clear violation of WP:SOCK, which is why the admins (read: not me) decided to block it.

:::::::If you genuinely want to improve articles, the constructive way forward is to engage with policy, seek consensus, and present your arguments with maturity. Throwing a tantrum when the community disagrees is never a sound strategy. Ultimately, whether you continue contributing is your choice. That said, I will be requesting an admin review for the content you've posted on your user page that implicates me in your self-constructed victimhood narrative. Oujai, awo nofri ehou! Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Short version: Of the two versions presented above, Turnopoems's is clearly the more encyclopedic and the better supportable with reliable sources (and proper interpretation of them). But certain elements of Epenkimi's version could be reintroduced in toned-down form (not emotive, subjective, or spinning a novel and ethno-religiously promotional story out of disconnected claims from different sources).

I'm no longer an entirely neutral party in this, though I don't have a particular connection to or deep interest in the topic. I began by providing a WP:3O, with an eye to moderation and resolution, not long after the initial dispute broke out at the main article. After some later discussion, that explored some of what I suggested exploring in that 3O, I've pretty consistently found the objections raised by Turnopoems (and by Rosguill and others) to be correct as to source-handling policy, writing guidelines, and the actual meaning of the sources when I can find and examine them. I think Epenkimi generally means well, but is excessively determined to weave a narrative that presents a particular and somewhat promotional viewpoint, both from an ethnic and religious standpoint, and this is clearly problematic, and now becoming more so as it moves from article to article.

In particular, it is not okay to move claims and phrasing and poor (OR, etc.) sourcing from an article where an RfC has rejected them, and just rehash them in a different article. That's WP:POVFORKing and we don't permit it. I think some of the particular claims and sources that Epenkimi wants to include can be included in some form, stripped of emotive wording, unprovable subjective claims, aggradizement, and novel synthesis (of which there has been a significant amount in my view), but this is not really practicable if Epenkimi is going to continue reverting attempts to produce policy-compliant and source-accurate compromise wording.

On the other side, I have criticized some blanket-revert actions by Turnopoems and I think by someone else. It takes work, but the most construcive approach is to remove something objectionable, with a clearly spelled out objection in the edit summary and on the talk page, and leave non-objectionable parts. Even to excise or substantively improve two or more objectionable parts in different edits, so that what the objections are (and to what, precisely) are very clear, instead of someone being led to feel like every attempt they will make to edit the page is going to be stonewalled. That said, if Epenkimi's input and behavior don't adjust, and their edits pretty consistently include objectionable material, then blanket reverting looks more and more like a viable approach. Especially when Epenkimi has started to accuse the opposition of "vandalism" for disagreeing with that editor's preferred version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::@SMcCandlish: I acknowledge that this approach may not have been the most constructive and risked edging into edit-warring territory. However, engaging issue-by-issue has proven uniquely difficult in this case. The user in question has repeatedly reverted comprehensive reformulations in full, only to reintroduce a volume of new, problematic material on top of the disputed version. This pattern compounds the editorial burden, requiring not only the rehashing of previously addressed concerns, but also the review and correction of fresh additions that inherit and amplify earlier problems, effectively nullifying prior improvements and the effort that went into them. I can’t say for certain whether this is being done deliberately to complicate these efforts, but the editing pattern certainly suggests that possibility.

::In addition to the dialogue with the user I have already dedicated many hours to improving the issues in these articles by going through and reformulating large bodies of text, including drafting a detailed roadmap on the Talk:Copts page to guide constructive revision. Unfortunately, that effort was neither acknowledged nor substantively engaged with by the user. I must admit to feeling a tinge of frustration and hopelessness when attempting to assume good faith here. My initial outreach was cordial and collaborative: I left a constructive message on the user's talk page and spent weeks engaged in sustained dialogue, with nearly a hundred messages during the RfC for issue 1 alone (out of a dozen). Yet not a single point of consensus was achieved with the user, despite repeated efforts to clarify, compromise, and align content with established policies.

::Following your recommendation, I refrained from further reverts after the user restored the contested version. However, I find it regrettable that this user appears to interpret good-faith editorial refinements as problematic, even when their contributions are preserved almost entirely in substance but revised for neutrality, tone, and compliance. To me this behavior suggests a prioritization of narrative framing rooted in the user's ethnonationalist agenda, rather than any real concerns about the contributions being represented in the article, as the user attempts to characterize the dispute. The way I see it, this is precisely what makes the dispute impossible to resolve through compromise: my stance is rooted in a refusal to compromise on core content policies (to the best of my understanding of them), while the other user refuses to compromise on an ethnonationalist/religious narrative that repeatedly conflicts with said policies in nearly every formulation.

::That said, I want to extend my sincere gratitude for your invaluable help in propelling this process forward and for the balance you have brought to this discussion, after so many difficult impasses. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 08:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Editors who are upset have expressed dissatisfaction about associations between the IDW and the Alt-Right have argued that it is undue to use the peer-reviewed source: Sheedy, Matt (2022). Owning the Secular: Religious Symbols, Culture Wars, Western Fragility. Routledge Focus on Religion. London: Routledge. pp. 89–90. doi:10.4324/9781003031239. ISBN 978-0-367-46802-6 on the asserted basis of WP:DUE. Additional participation would be welcome. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)