Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Colloidal Silver

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)

:Notice-board hopping? You got it wrkng; it's not "Jesus was real because a religious guy that wrote a book said he was. End of discussion.", but "An overwhelming majority of both religious and atheist scholars conclude Jesus was an historical person, in endless publications spanning two centuries." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:45, 4 May 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)

Article reads in a non-neutral tone IMO. Can someone investigate? 203.111.6.143 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Anything in particular? On a first skimming, the article seems neutral to me and it covers both perspectives. Do you think one side is getting more coverage than WP:RS would justify? If so, which one? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:BOLD. if you think there is something wrong, feel free to edit it, the page is not protected, iirc. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it should even be entirely deleted. The article's sources are shitty, seemimgly relying on less than a handful of studies that are liberally interpreted to fit a predetermined conclusion. The talk page seems to only contain "back patting". Wallby (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Upon looking into this further, this article is so poorly written, misrepresenting sources to convince rather than inform, and containing entirely irrelevant art of a sexual assault case "as if that somehow is relevant context".

:If this article cannot be rewritten entirely to actually inform, then I am of the opinion that this article is best deleted. Wallby (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::This does look like a WP:TNT candidate to me. Simonm223 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Absolutely WP:TNT

:::* It's poorly written, sectioned, and formatted.

:::* Numerous statements are unsupported by sources when I spot check or the sources that do exist are poor:

:::** An FAQ by an advocacy org[https://malostratos.org/asociacion-malos-tratos/asociacion-victimas-violencia-de-genero/]

:::** This is a commentary piece[https://www.psychiatria-danubina.com/UserDocsImages/pdf/dnb_vol28_no4/dnb_vol28_no4_349.pdf] where the authors argue sex work is a mental illness: {{Tq|Authors found women who engage in prostitution are immature. They have compromised morality as a psychological function in the way that most prostitutes reason and behave antisocially and without adequate moral feelings (remorse, guilty conscience), i.e. they exhibit antisocial personality traits.}}

:::** A study of 55 people generalized throughout the article as global statitistics {{tq|Most women (78%) reported that sex work negatively affected their personal romantic relationships}}.[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4627728/]

:::** A case study of one person is used to say in wikivoice {{tq|There is a high prevalence of victimization in childhood and adulthood among sex workers, with secondary trauma disorders. Recurrent victimization, known as "Type II trauma," can cause pathological psychological changes that are difficult to classify. Proposed diagnoses include developmental trauma disorder for childhood and complex post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD) for adulthood, though these are not included in official diagnostic manuals.}}[https://revistardp.org.br/revista/article/view/173/153] - AFAICT, not a word of this is supported by the source

:::** An advocacy org is cited for statistics (which it gives no source for)[https://www.caase.org/mental-health-impacts-of-sex-trade/]

:::** A paper on the "sex industry" (prostitutes and strippers) is repeatedly cited for broader statements about prostitution it doesn't support[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508959]

:::** A citation about a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Disasters_of_War#/media/File:Prado_-_Los_Desastres_de_la_Guerra_-_No._09_-_No_quieren.jpg Goya artwork] depicting rape (not an image related to the article)

:::** This paper[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1910657] is used to say in wikivoice {{tq|The consequences of being repeatedly bought and sold for sex with strangers result in a variety of medical issues, including malnutrition, pregnancy-related problems, old and new injuries from sexual assaults and physical attacks such as burns, broken bones, stab wounds, dental trauma, traumatic brain injuries, anogenital injuries (rectal prolapse/vaginal injuries), internal injuries, sexually transmitted infections, and untreated chronic medical conditions.}} - Not a word of this, from detail to wording, is supported by the source

:::* That was just a quick check of the first ~10 sources, without even touching the dozens of citations to Melissa Farley, who's been heavily criticized for years for distorting data and spreading misinformation on this topic.

:::I saw this notification, checked out the article, decided to try salvaging it, and gave up when I realized it's in such a poor shape salvaging anything worthwhile would be more difficult than rewriting from scratch. This article should be deleted and the prostitution article should have a paragraph, sourced to reliable literature reviews / WP:MEDRS, summarizing the research on its effects on mental health Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I had precisely the same experience except I gave up before checking the source on the "bought and sold" line. Simonm223 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::created nearly entirely by @Wilfredor [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Impact_of_prostitution_on_mental_health]

:::interestingly, this was created from a redirect from Quebec family reunification delays, which was also entirely created by Wilfredor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1228349730]???

::: placing large portions of the text into either gptzero or zerogpt suggests maybe half the text could be from an LLM, though there is no clear signal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::hmm, this is actually a translation from the portuguese version of the article: https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impacto_da_prostitui%C3%A7%C3%A3o_na_sa%C3%BAde_mental&action=history

::::or maybe the spanish version: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impacto_de_la_prostituci%C3%B3n_en_la_salud_mental [

::::WP:MACHINETRANSLATION should apply. that these are triggering LLM detectors probably is because they are machine translations. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Moving a sandbox often results in the first few revisions being unrelated to the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that the article has serious sourcing and structural issues, and that a full rewrite is needed, if the community consensus is delete it because WP:TNT, I makes sense to me, but, My purpose was focused on the Brazilian point of view, where prostitution is often tied to poverty and lack of alternatives, rather than personal choice, as is more common in some developed countries. This can cause deeper psychological consequences. IMHO, I didn’t manage to support it with strong enough sources. IMHO the article doesn't meet current standards, but I still believe the topic deserves to be handled with visibility, who usually don't have a choice. Merging it into the main prostitution article, which is already quite overloaded, also doesn't seem like the most useful option. If someone decides to rebuild it from scratch, with better sources and a clearer focus, I believe it can still offer something valuable as a standalone article. Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::what exactly happened here? why was this previously redirection to Quebec family reunification delays? And where did you take this from?

::I am actually curious, it seems evident that you are translating between different language wikipedias at least, correct? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I edited my comment above to answer this, there was an editing conflict. Wilfredor (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::you did not answer my questions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, this was a translation of the Portuguese version I also created from scratch. I must have created around 500 articles or more this year alone related to prostitution and its psychological impact on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Wilfredor (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::The problem with your intentions is that you're going at it unencyclopedically, starting with an expectation and cherry picking things to fit your goal. That is not reporting. If you really are interested in understanding something better, I think you should start with doing thorough research not with evangelicism "on behalf of" people you don't seem to even know. Wallby (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry if that came out too harsh. Anonimity is no excuse for being a jerk. I don't know whether "you know" any person in the situation you mentioned, and making such an accusation purely based on an assumption is bad form.

:::Though not excusing my heated response, I think writing information posing as reliable can do serious harm. If you want to contribute and are not sure whether you know enough about a topic, you can consider creating a topic on a talk page instead of adding it directly to an article. Wallby (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It’s a very sensitive and controversial subject, and everyone interprets it based on their own personal or cultural perspective. Some see prostitution as something empowering and liberating, often without discussing the possible consequences, especially because they come from developed countries where it’s more of a choice. Others, however, completely condemn it, arguing that it poses a risk to society due to inequality (as seen in Latin America). I’ve never been to a brothel, and that doesn’t make me a better person, but I have spoken with women who have lived and still live through this reality, which affected me deeply and led me to write about the topic. But like abortion or politics, it’s an issue that divides people. Prostitution has been used both to support and to attack various causes. I understand if you decide to delete the article. Honestly, I’d rather avoid conflict, so I’ll leave the discussion with this closing comment. I don’t care if you reply supposedly attacking me. For me, the discussion is over.

::::BTW, just as a curious note, when I ran this comment through a scan, it flagged it as AI-written. Maybe that’s a side effect of the translation too. Wilfredor (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::almost certainly. most automatic translation uses AI now.

:::::If you used AI, see WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, that's another reason to WP:TNT and WP:STUBIFY Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have no opinion on whether this is notable or should have its own article, but WP:STUBIFY would be one option if it's leaning toward TNT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have redacted much of the page, but there is still a lot to go. Any help would be appreciated. Wallby (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Honestly if the decision is to WP:TNT it (which I support) I'd just take it to AFD. Maybe start from scratch after that, but that would depend on there actually being enough good sources on this for an article. Loki (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm sure sufficient material exists to support an article. It's just that this version isn't it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've stubified the article, as upon reading through more of it I concluded that the potential benefit of trying to keep some of the references was outweighed by the danger of the amount if misinformation present, which I can only describe as if reading through a recruitment ad for religious conversion therapy. Wallby (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes

David and Stephen Flynn are a pair of twins who have promoted fringe medical claims. For over six months, there have been repeated issues with (reverted) promotional editing and attempts to reframe fringe theories as legitimate health advice. These editors often cite NPOV as a reason for their edits, and many of the named accounts appear to be single purpose accounts that only edit the article or start related noticeboard discussions. Aspening (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

So, this has been simmering for a while now, the entire talk page archive has been more or less the same thing, I figured it'll be better to get it somewhere there are actually people, since clearly the few editors who have the page watched (myself included) have been unable to get to a consensus that others recognise exist.

I am notifying Iljhgtn, Ixocactus and North8000 as the participants of the current discussion, as well as C.J. Griffin, Llll5032, Doug Weller and Hob Gadling, who I believe are the main editors who have edited the page in the last year or so.

The locus of the dispute is, as far as I can tell, essentially boils down to the only third party coverage the organisation having received being mostly focused on their COVID shenanigans. Editors often argue this is WP:UNDUE or biased, but we don't really have independent, reliable secondary sources covering more (presumably) positive aspects of the organisation, at least as far as I can tell, and nobody's bothered to send me any or post them to the talk page. The preferred versions of the articles appear to instead more heavily rely on first-party sources, primary or otherwise, which I believe is contrary to policy on the matter.

Personally, I don't believe the organisation actually merits an article, for the same reason we have notability guidelines in the first place (WP:WHYN): lacking WP:NORG sources, we are unable to write an article people are happy with, but I am disinclined to nominate the article for AFD for a second time (though I could be convinced otherwise).

I would like to invite thoughts from outside the half dozen or so editors that frequent the page though, so here we are. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd rather not split or attempt to duplicate the discussion. But one comment might be useful: I wouldn't classify the missing content as "positive", I'd classify it as the missing information on what they do. If it's straightforward factual information where it's veracity is not disputed and people aren't arguing that inclusion distorts coverage, IMO primary sourcing is OK. Lots of basic enclyclopedic information about organizations (particularly non-profit ones) is enclyclopedic and necessary for good coverage but not covered/repeated in secondary sources which typically consider that too boring or a repetition of basic facts. Wikipedia's systemic bias-enabling issues can enable knocking out enclyclopedic coverage of organizations but we shouldn't let that happen. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The Killing of Jason Corbett page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jason_Corbett is filled with errors, rumor, and bias from the victim's family. Their point-of-view is important but the page excludes relevant evidence from the court case - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nc-court-of-appeals/2046211.html - and any additions from court documents get removed. There is also minimal attempt to describe or substantiate Molly or Tom Martens' arguments of self-defense, though there have been a trial, an appeal, and a sentencing hearing full of information that is excluded here. 324jhafdsoubr233 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:not withstanding that the Jason Corbett page has been seen by almost 250,000 people in the last month or so without any problems & its only today a couple of editors decided to raise an issue .... every sentence of the Jason Corbett page is backed up with references to articles from high quality newspaper articles, which also includes the trial / appeal / resentencing. There are zero rumors or errors, anything thats not an established fact is qualified with "claimed" or "alleged" and it is not biased from anyone as everything is sourced from reputable newspapers. The Martens' legal teams arguments of self-defense are fully examined in the trial section, and it is of public record that Molly herself chose not to describe or substantiate arguments of self-defense by refusing to testify. The prosecution however did an excellent job of demolishing the self-defense arguments by narrating to the jury evidence from third parties / crime scene photos / forensic evidence / blood splatter analysis /etc .... seeing as the jury took less than 4 hours to return guilty verdicts for both defendants. The 'caselaw' link you reference is not suitable as it is Overly Detailed and focuses on legal technicalities rather than the facts of the case which were tried by a jury in a court of open law, suffice to say that the Martens' got their conviction quashed and the DA offered a plea bargain. If you really insist of combing through reems of court records i suggest you create a separate article on the trial itself and add a link, so people can review it if they like WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, for the most part. The main issue, as I see it, is that court records are never allowed to support claims about living persons, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. We simply cannot use that source to say anything regarding either defendant, which explains why it keeps getting removed. Woodroar (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: (Posting here on NPOVN because some new neutral participants would be welcome to this more general WP discussion which might otherwise only get attention from niche editors.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:09, 13 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)