Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Neutral

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)

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)

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

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)

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

New changes at Man could use review:

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

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

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

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