Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Shortcuts WP:NPOVNWP:NPOVN WP:NPOV/NWP:NPOV/N WP:RFNWP:RFN Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source.

I am seeking input on the death tolls presented in the infobox of 2025–2026 Iranian protests, as I believe the current presentation violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025–2026_Iranian_protests#New_death_figures_mentioned_in_the_infobox Hu741f4 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on talk page, copying it over here:

The Iranian government, and any IRGC-run press, are WP:NOTRS for this subject.

TIME[4] and the Guardian[5] are reporting that the Iranian government has killed tens of thousands of civilians. There is an obvious conflict of interest here with the Iranian government attempting to downplay this reporting. Quoting the Guardian article: "Testimony from medics, morgue and graveyard staff reveals huge state effort to conceal systematic killing of protesters"

Including Iranian government figures as equally valid would be a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and give WP:UNDUE credence to what the Guardian calls a "huge state effort to conceal systematic killing of protesters." DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is Hu741f4's sixth (!) attempt [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] at trying to minimize the numbers of civilian casualties at the hands of the regime. I think this is a pretty massive indicator of who truly is violating WP:NPOV here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm sorry if I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here but Hu741f4's constant attempts at downplaying the severity of the crackdown in Iran while ignoring reliable sources is mind boggling. And since they are not getting their way, instead of dropping the stick they have now dragged the discussion into another venue in pursuit of a different outcome, which most certainly they will not get. Keivan.f^Talk 05:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating WP:AFG and WP:PA at the moment. Just because a source is reliable does not mean it can be included in an article, again see WP:RS instead of inventing convenient guidelines. Tine and the Guardian have not provided any reliable source for the number of casualties and are instead relying off third party speculation. There is no confirmed number for the casualties in the protests, unlike for the Gaza Genocide in which the number of casualties has been confirmed as reliable my several academic and human right authorities. So it is highly irresponsible of a Wikipedia article to claim that 40,000+ people were killed even if so called “reliable sources” mention that number. Being reliable sources does NOT make them unquestionable sources. SwedishDutch (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You already tried this same failed tactic countless times of denying WP:RS that goes against regime propaganda and altering/removing it [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] and were warned for it. You even claimed to have IRGC (designated as a terrorist group by many countries, and soon the whole EU [18]) connections on your userpage [19]. WP:SPA. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If, for the infobox, we ignore the relative reliability of sources and just want a literal NPOV rather than the overall more nuanced WP:NPOV policy, then we would include the 50k death estimate per "activists and political prisoners" in Iran and "medical authorities" per Reza Pahlavi per The Sunday Times.^[1] However, so far, nobody has argued that Pahlavi, a politician (and hypothetical monarch-in-exile) is a sufficiently reliable source for putting that estimate in the infobox of either of the two relevant Wikipedia articles. In contrast, the Iranian government is known to undercount official killings of Iranian citizens by Iranian authorities by a factor of about eight on average, making it definitely WP:NOTRS. Boud (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "according to... however according to..."? Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the infobox, which already has (have, if we consider both articles) footnotes to the infobox numbers. There is very little dispute about the numbers in the main body of the two relevant articles. There have been some disputes for the leads. Most of the editing disputes are for the infoboxes. Boud (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can still do this in the info box (of one article) we put both the lowest (according to) and highest (according to). Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hu741f4 (talk · contribs)'s persistence on trying echo the Iranian regime's attempts to minimize the impact of an ongoing genocide is indeed highly concerning. I find this editing pattern extremely worrisome. It's also highly possible that SwedishDutch (talk · contribs) is the sock puppet account of user Hu741f4. Ecrusized (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the two of them are not connected, SwedishDutch's attempts at pushing IRGC affiliated sources pretty much gives their game away. Both of them need to be topic banned if this pattern of behavior persists. Keivan.f^Talk 15:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f Accusing users baselessly of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry doesn't go with WP:CIVIL and makes it more difficult to solve edit disputes. Instead of hoping that your fellow Wikipedian be banned, maybe engage with them on the merits of the conversation. Cheers. Perfecnot (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfecnot I appreciate your comment but I didn't accuse anyone of anything, so your comment is a bit misdirected. And I don't see the point in discussion when one party is hell bent on using deprecated sources and erasing valid data. Keivan.f^Talk 17:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was @Ecrusized that accused @Hu741f4 of being a sockpuppet. I retract that.

Can you provide evidence that @Hu741f4 erased valid data? Because I don't see anything of that nature. Perfecnot (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did he actually go ahead and erase the data completely in his edits? No, because we did not let him, but that's what he has essentially been arguing for in his comments. The issue is that we cannot omit information based on user preferences. If multiple sources say that the deaths are in the thousands then that's what we are obliged to report on. As I pointed out on the article talk page, what the user in question fails to understand is that we are dealing with a regime who's cut off the Internet to hide the extent of their crimes; thus why a precise figure cannot be given. Hence why we have a range in the infobox, but they want to alter the range because their main issue is that they do not “believe” that the number could be this high (SwedishDutch) or that because an exact number has not been determined so according to them that means the estimates are somewhat invalid (Hu741f4). Keivan.f^Talk 08:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide is a highly specialized legal term and it there are no reputable/relevant organizations individuals claiming that the crackdown on protestors in Iran was in anyway a genocide.

Secondly, I find that this dogpiling on @Hu741f4 highly concerning. I am among several users who have been putting doubt onto the current state in which the infoboxes in 2026 Iran massacres and 2025–2026 Iranian protests are formatted. I am not opposed to the Time (magazine) estimate being included, just that the range is also expanded to the figure just above 6,000 that media organizations such as the Associated Press are citing as of Jan 27th.[20]

@HistoryofIran linked to 6 purported edits but it seems he has just linked to talk page sections that @Hu741f4 has initiated, as any Wikipedian should do if they have an issue with the article they want to discuss. Perfecnot (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the range would presumably also include the 50,000 estimate by "activists and political prisoners" in Iran and "medical authorities" per Reza Pahlavi per The Sunday Times of 24 January 2026.^[1] (The 80k estimate per military sources per Mohsen Hashemi Rafsanjani per Sana Ebrahimi is not (currently) reliably sourced.) Boud (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I wouldn't be opposed to that. Perfecnot (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfecnot Thank you so much for your reply. I am not opposed to TIME figure being included either, but there should be proper attribution in closed bracket. Check out my reply there https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025–2026_Iranian_protests&diff=prev&oldid=1335479317 Hu741f4 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran linked to 6 purported edits but it seems he has just linked to talk page sections that @Hu741f4 has initiated, as any Wikipedian should do if they have an issue with the article they want to discuss.

So a Wikipedian should create several threads of essentially the same topic, where they disregard user input and WP:RS, until they get their way? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear by now that there is no consensus on the death toll range that should be used. You do not get to decide when and where a Wikipedian gets to discuss a contentious edit.

Regardless, you tried to frame him creating talk pages regarding the death toll and the sources that should be used as trying to minimize civilian casualties. Whether you did that in bad faith I cannot say, and I'll assume it was a honest mistake, but regardless, it's factually incorrect.

This is Hu741f4's sixth (!) attempt [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] at trying to minimize the numbers of civilian casualties at the hands of the regime. I think this is a pretty massive indicator of who truly is violating WP:NPOV here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Perfecnot (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to decide when and where a Wikipedian gets to discuss a contentious edit.

By all means, please point out the part where I did that.

Regardless, you tried to frame him creating talk pages regarding the death toll and the sources that should be used as trying to minimize civilian casualties

Whether you did that in bad faith I cannot say, and I'll assume it was a honest mistake, but regardless, it's factually incorrect.

It is always advised to click and read on the links presented in a discussion, especially when you want to be condescending. Here's the chronological order:

1. [21] Attempted to add IRI regime numbers
2. [22] Proposed to remove WP:RS that went against the regime numbers
3. [23] Again disputed WP:RS that went against regime numbers
4. [24] Attempted to request a third opinion regarding the numbers of deaths, which was rejected as more than two people were already involved [25]
5. [26] Attempted to add regime numbers and downplay WP:RS that went against it
6. And now the sixth attempt here.

Now please tell me, since I am apparently so honestly mistaken - what violation of policies comes to mind when you see this? HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, edits 1-6 display a Wikipedian attempting to reach consensus when no such consensus has been reached about an edit. See Wikipedia:CONBUILD and Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT Perfecnot (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Their attempt at having their way was rejected multiple times by several editors, yet they continued. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IDHT, WP:GAMING and WP:NPOV. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"rejected multiple times by several editors" Individual or even multiple editors are not decision makers. That is not how things work unfortunately. Consensus is an agreement among a swath of editors.

Also, if you want to get to a consensus, you should instead propose a compromise. Which I personally haven't seen. I have not seen a single convincing argument against the inclusion of the figure just above 6,000 deaths, which the AP reported on just two days ago.[27] Perfecnot (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you do not want to read the policies I listed, just like the links up above. I have nothing more to say to you. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed the articles.

This is a page where we are trying to reach a consensus on this contentious topic and align the article to a more NPOV. I am proposing the inclusion of a smaller death toll which has been reported on by the reputable news organization the Associated Press. What do you think? Perfecnot (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have editors considered presenting this as a range - presenting a minimum and maximum number, each cited to a reliable (even if biased) source? Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe(?) I was one of the first editors to start editing the death toll in the infobox to a lower number since the high figures were unverified, per the Time (magazine) own admission.

I wasn't personally involved with any of the editors above so apparently there was a separate effort to do the same thing. Regardless, it baffles me how far this has gone when all that is being asked is the inclusion of the lower figures being cited by mainstream press. Perfecnot (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

when all that is being asked is the inclusion of the lower figures being cited by mainstream press

• The "lower figure being cited by mainstream press" is HRANA's confirmed deaths, which is in the infobox and has a general consensus to be kept in the infobox
• That is not "all that is being asked" - one of the main asks, and the most disputed, is the inclusion of Iranian govt figures (which, when mentioned by RS, are universally doubted)

DiodotusNicator (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents on all of this:
  • First and foremost, the Iranian government figures are not reliable and should not be included in the infobox.
  • The infobox currently does not make it clear that the 30k+ numbers are unconfirmed and highly speculative, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Additionally these speculations should not be given priority over the more robust HRANA figures.
  • Accusations that users are trying to downplay/minimize the severity of the killings are not helpful. Describing the killings as an "ongoing genocide" (with no RS support), smacks of WP:RGW.
  • Regardless of Hu741f4's behavior at 2025–2026 Iranian protests, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. A local consensus of editors at one talk page can't override this. As such there is nothing wrong with bringing concerns here to get more eyes on them. EvansHallBear (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2024, I disclosed a COI before proposing a structural rewrite of the existing Claremont McKenna College (CMC) page in September of that year. The rewrite, which can be found in my Sandbox here, reorganizes the content for improved flow and readability. The draft keeps all the content of the existing article, including critical coverage and I specifically avoided adding promotional materials. The goal was to rearrange the copy and information for clarity as additions over the years made it harder to read.

The size of the revision has led to disputes over its implementation, though, with concerns raised about its neutrality and tone.

I’m looking for third-party input on the following:

• Per WP:NPOV, does the Sandbox draft maintain neutrality, and is it the right approach for the school’s content;
• Do the changes align with Wikipedia’s content and neutrality policies; and
• Are there any specific concerns about tone or bias that need to be addressed before the rewrite is published.

For context, it may help to know that:

• This rewrite was originally submitted as a COI edit request that stalled due to the draft’s scale and resulting feedback, which has been addressed.
• The rewrite is just to improve organization.

• Two tables mapping every change was provided for transparency here on January 8, 2025.
• The rewrite on my Sandbox page includes two versions: (1) one dated January 2026, which includes changes requested on the CMC Talk page by editors who did a partial review of the draft, and (2) one dated January 2025, which was the COI edit request referenced above.

I’d appreciate a review of the Sandbox draft by experienced editors who haven’t previously worked on this article and who can provide feedback or recommendations for next steps, such as whether to proceed with the replacement text or whether it needs continued revision. Thanks for the help! Clementine Sandoval (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Clementine Sandoval, I appreciate all the work you have put into this. I think it is a small improvement to the existing article, though the formatting is messed up and that campus map is not properly licensed and may need to be removed. The stuff about the Claremont Colleges needs to stay down in the body of the article not in the lead. Just mention the affiliation in the lead.

The article still reads like material that belongs on a college website or a student recruitment brochure rather than in an encyclopedia. That is the POV problem. The infobox includes a link to the college website which lets people find out more if needed. Most college articles aren't very well done here, I admit, but as an encyclopedia we would like to see the whole history of the college treated rather than just publicizing the current state. Why was the institution founded and by whom? Was it initially part of the Claremont colleges or did it associate later? What were the discussions like surrounding the admission of women? There must also have been other important developments in the college history since 1946. See Pomona College for what the organization and feel of the article should be, and for shorter examples, see Ithaca College and St. Olaf College. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are references for the history of the college given here on the college website. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kapustin (militant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I turn my head for two minutes and suddenly he is no longer neo-nazi, but "far right". The "Political views" section in the article contained only his own denial of being a neo-nazi. I started a discussion on it here. It'd be nice to have some more eyes on the article, lest on Wikipedia he becomes a progressive fighter for equality and human rights. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is more interested in what secondary sources say about a subject, than what a subject says about themselves. Secondary sources are also preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, I have referenced WP:CONTENTIOUS two times, and once in an edit summary. Contrary to the guidelines saying there needs to be in-text attribution for labels like "neo-Nazi" when widespread in reliable sources, Turbo has removed the template about the label's neutrality being disputed and disregarded the guidelines by saying "I don't think attribution is necessary". It's clear this needs third-party intervention. Daisy Blue (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTENTIOUS doesn't mean you get to tag every instance of a label, because the policy says may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. As was shown on the article's talk page, reliable sources overwhelmingly label Kapustin a neo-nazi. Adding the "neutrality disputed" tag is just another attempt at whitewashing. We already have a whole paragraph in the article based on his own denials and his own explanations how he is a "conservative" and not a neo-nazi. And now you want to say the label's neutrality is disputed. What is the end game here? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CONTENTIOUS says labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Labels do not have to always be attributed, it depends on the source. Maybe editors could show source analysis for their positions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "neo-nazi"[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40], Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis.[41]
• "extremist"[42]
• "extreme right-wing"[43]
• "far right"[44][45]
• "nationalist"[46]

TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless their are other undiscussed sources for only far-right that seems clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that MOS:CONTENTIOUS does say that if contentious labels are widely used in RSes, they should be attributed in-text: unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution (emphasis mine). However, another user pointed out that even though the guideline technically requires this, it is not done in the lead sections for various prominent neo-Nazis. Maybe a possible solution is that labels in the lead can be attributed in the body. Helpful Cat {talk} 19:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is about removing the label altogether based on the subjects own opinion about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting phenomenon. "The presence of Russian far-right groups on both sides of the conflict is also a sign of an ideological fracturing of Russia's ultranationalist movement, said political scientist Mark Galeotti, head of London-based Mayak Intelligence consultancy and author of several books on the Russian military." [47]. Still, many recent sources call these guys merely "far-right", which is a more general term (e.g. [48]). This is probably because their actual political views are difficult to ascertain, as follows from the discussion at the article talk page. These guys are defined mostly by their actions, not words. And in terms of his actions, he is mostly known as a leader of the anti-Putin paramilitary groups — Freedom of Russia Legion who fight against Russian Neo-Nazi. Everything else is of relatively little importance. Should he be described as a Neo-Nazi himself or as antifascist? What exactly should be said in the lead of his BLP page is very much debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Should he be described as a Neo-Nazi himself or as antifascist?

  Oh fuck off. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who risks his life every day by fighting on the war against the actual neo-Nazi is de facto an antifascist. But can he be a nationalist and "far-right" himself by his political views? Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just because two neo-Nazis are fighting amongst themselves doesn't make either of them less neo-Nazi. Especially when the motive of the one you're speculating may be anti-Fascist is that the other one is insufficiently neo-Nazi; while he himself uses "multiculturalist" as an insult and runs a White-only militia group. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a lot more complex than two Nazi fighting each other. But I am striking through my comments since they caused such reaction. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who he fights against, or editors opinions about how that should influence the description of him. What matters are sources, TSA+ has shown many sources describing him as a neo-nazi if many recent sources only describe him as "far-right" then show them not just an example. The description should be based on the balance of sources, maybe the article needs to describe how sources have changed their description of him. But one example doesn't outweigh many past sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. I agree that one should look how a person is currently defined by a majority of recent sources. OK, let's check it. I am doing a Google search for "Denis Kapustin" and looking only at RS. What I see?

1. [49] Kyiv faked the death of a Russian far-right activist fighting in its ranks against the Kremlin.
2. [50]: Ukraine staged the death of a high-ranked Russian fighting on Kyiv’s side to prevent him being killed on Moscow’s orders (no qualification at all!)
3. [51]: The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens (yes, that is how he should be described on the page)
4. [52]: How Ukraine's military intelligence faked the death of Denis Kapustin, a Russian commander fighting for Kyiv

Actually, none of these most recent RS called him a "neo-Nazi" as something he is mostly known for. If anything, he is mostly known as "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens" - as one of these sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's just cherry picking, because I can find more recent sources that call him a neo-nazi:

• Meduza, 1 January 2026
• taz.de, 1 January, 2026
• informat.ro, 27 December 2025
• Novaya Gazeta, 27 December 2025
• t-online.de, 27 December 2025
• Radio Free Europe, 2 January, 2026

and so on... TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given a very large number of sources about this person, one can indeed do cherry picking. To avoid it, I simply did a Google search for "Denis Kapustin" and provided the most recent RS in the order as they appeared in the search. I agree this not a proof, this is a very small dataset, and the search for older sources could provide a different result. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did a source review of 46 sources. They overwhelmingly label him a "neo-nazi". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread many of these sources. For example, you say that Novaya Gazeta, 27 December 2025 labels him as a neo-Nazi. But does it really, or this is your personal interpretation? It defines him in the beginning of the article : The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens fighting alongside the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). Yes, that is what I would too suggest in the beginning of our BLP page about him. It further say in the middle: A former football hooligan and neo-Nazi activist from Moscow who spent much of his youth in Germany. Yes, sure, let's say this too in the middle of our page (and we actually said this already). My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we base the article on a single source? Also, in a comment on the article talk page regarding RFE/RL you wrote I would not rely too much on Russian language sources.[53] despite Radio Free Europe publishing in English. But now you think we should base the whole article on Novaya Gazeta, a source that actually publishes content in Russian. I think it is time that you drop the stick. You're welcome to find sources that support your view or actually dispute the label, but the cherry-picking and the mental gymnastics are getting tiring. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But does it really, or this is your personal interpretation?

Yes, it does. You even cited it: A former football hooligan and neo-Nazi activist from Moscow who spent much of his youth in Germany. How can you ask "does it really?" after copy-pasting the part where they label him a "neo-nazi activist"? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not cherry picking because I took the source you found and suggested to describe the person exactly as this source does. But it does matter what we say in the first phrase of an article about a person per our BLP rules because it defines what he is mostly known for. The article you found does just that. It says (first phrase in the publication): "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps...". So should we. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it defines what he is mostly known for.

Long before he founded the RVC he was known for his neo-nazi activism. That is what he is known for, being a neo-nazi, many sources attest to that. He is also known for owning and operating a neo-nazi clothing brand and operating neo-nazi fight clubs and networks in Europe. He is even banned from the EU because of his neo-nazi activism. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, my reading of the most recent sources I provided above and recent sources found by you (the citation above) is that he is mostly notable as "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps", not as an alleged neo-Nazi. The important key word in the citation of the source above is former. Yes, we also need to say that he is former whoever (and we said it on the page) because this is an important part of his biography, but this is secondary - according to the most recent RS. The ongoing war has changed a lot in Russia and Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They call him a "former football hooligan". I don't see why you're so hung up on this one source when there are other sources published in the last two months that label him a neo-nazi. I already said in a discussion on the article's talk page that I agree with attributing the label in the body, but that it should remain in the lede. If you wish to remove the label you must seek consensus for that change. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar trend among recent sources provided by Turbo. He said this recent source (2nd from the end in the first line) calls him neo-Nazi [54]. No, it does not. It says The founder and leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit fighting alongside Kyiv’s army. My very best wishes (talk)

In fairness, I believe Turbo's counts and labels are based on my list from the article talk where I include The Moscow Times using the neo-Nazi label. Before the news of Kapustin's death being staged, the article did say "neo-Nazi". Daisy Blue (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done a source review and based on that I think the label is appropriate. Additions and corrections welcome. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To those who aren't following the article's Talk page, it's worth noting that I've disputed at least some of the information on that table. It includes labels derived from headlines, contrary to WP:HEADLINES, and in one instance, the label is derived from an image caption. In other instances, the used label may not be the most appropriate of the multiple labels present in the sources. My unfinished draft attempts to address some of the issues. There is currently a distinction between First description and Other description(s), but I may merge them later and say "Descriptions (in order)". Daisy Blue (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source review table

Academic sources Journal / book Article title / book chapter Author(s) Date Quote Label Link Notes The Journal of Illiberalism Studies White Rex, White Nationalism, and Combat Sport: The Production of a Far-Right Cultural Scene René Nissen, Kiril Avramov, Jason Roberts 21 December 2021 Connecting European far-right actors was apparently one of White Rex’s goals from the beginning. There is no question that the brand promotes far-right ideas. Kapustin has said so openly and often. The logo incorporates the “black sun,” a neo-Nazi symbol. Additionally, White Rex events have featured far-right hatecore bands, and fighters supported by the brand maintain close ties with far-right extremist groups., By stoking extremist sentiment with his far-right fights, Kapustin was able to grow the markets for both his ideas and his clothing brand., Before the travel ban, Kapustin was active in spreading his “white ideas” in Western Europe., supporting the formation of a trans-European far-right cultural scene is also in keeping with Kapustin’s political and ideological agenda. By providing a model for new organizations and contributing to its development, Kapustin has also played a substantial role in the formation of a transnational white nationalist identity shareable—and now demonstrably shared—by far‑right extremists across Europe., n 2017, he conducted combat training sessions for members of the far-right Swiss Nationalist Party (PNOS) and the National Democratic Party of Germany, as well as for the neo-Nazi activist group Aktionsblog Rostock., White Rex often features violent, white nationalist, xenophobic imagery and text, By financially promoting and supporting far-right fighters from across Europe, Kapustin has attracted white nationalists with real-life versions of their mythical “Euroethnic warrior.” "white nationalist" [55], [56] Combating Terrorism Center In the Shadow of Christchurch: International Lessons from New Zealand’s Extreme Far-Right Milo Comerford, Jakob Guhl, Elise Thomas July/August 2021 Action Zealandia podcasts have also featured Denis Kapustin (better known as Denis Nikitin), the founder of the White Rex clothing brand, a mixed martial arts promoter, and prolific white nationalist networker. Nikitin and Rundo are frequent collaborators on a range of projects, and both reportedly have links to neo-Nazi armed groups such as the Azov Battalion in Ukraine.61 "white-nationalist" [57] Contemporary Social Movements: Historical and Descriptive Accounts Ch.17 White Supremacist Movements Worldwide Heidi Beirich 8 December 2025 This network of “sports clubs” was first conceptualized by American neo-Nazi Robert Rundo and Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin, a key MMA organizer who is banned from EU "neo-nazi" [58] Book chapter is behind a paywall, the quote comes from Google Scholar search results Obrana a strategie Ukrainian Right-Wing Extremists: Exploring Their Involvement in the Ongoing War and Outlining Potential Threats for Post-War Ukraine Martin Zilvar June 2024 Besides, the Revanche Battalion maintained the pre-2022 ties with Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin "neo-nazi" [59] New Eastern Europe Who are the Russians fighting on the side of Ukraine Agnieszka Pikulicka-Wilczewska 2024 Many far-right watchers, including Antifascist Europe, have referred to him as a neo-Nazi. "neo-nazi" (attributed) [60] Quote comes from Google Scholar search result, article can be bought for 5,40 € Connections: The Quarterly Journal Incubating Terror: The Implications of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine for Global Terrorism Peter Kent Forster 2025 Denis Kapustin, an avowed neo-Nazi, has organized a neo-Nazi mixed martial arts “empire” across Europe and trained members of Germany’s neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. "avowed neo-nazi" [61] Javnost - The Public “The Last White Country”: Mapping the Far-Right Ideology in Russia during the Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine Elizaveta Gaufman 23 April 2025 The views of its founder and commander Denis Nikitin (KapustinFootnote1) as well as some members of the group have been described as far-right and neo-Nazi (Alperovich Citation2023), although sometimes they veer into ethnopluralist territory, probably in an attempt to launder their views into mainstream. "far-right and neo-nazi" (attributed) [62] Media sources Source Date Quote Label Link Notes RFE/RL 2 January 2026 a known neo-Nazi "neo-nazi" [63] Describes his politics as white nationalist ideology North Rhine-Westphalia (a German state) March 2025 one of the most influential neo-Nazi activists "neo-nazi" [64] (in German) This report is cited by several RSs[65][66][67] El Pais 2 January 2026 far-right activist "far-right" [68] Source also mentions that he has been barred from entering the European Union on charges of promoting neo-Nazi groups The Guardian 2 January 2026 Kapustin, according to the AFP news agency, has a controversial past linked to the far right and football hooliganism, and some of his fighters have voiced neo-Nazi views. no label [69] Vice 17 February 2021 neo-Nazi, hooligan and MMA fighter "neo-nazi" [70] Der Spiegel 14 February 2019 Clothes, tournaments, sports nutrition, gyms - the neo-Nazi wants to be involved everywhere "neo-nazi" [71] (in German) Article title: The Neo-Nazi Warrior BFM TV 24 May 2023 néo-nazi Denis Kapustin "neo-nazi" [72] (in French) Novaya Gazeta 15 March 2023 Rosfinmonitoring included the neo-Nazi and founder of the Russian Volunteer Corps (DDC) Denis Kapustin in the list of extremists and terrorists. "neo-nazi" [73] (in Russian) The New Republic (newspaper) 9 July 2019 Denis Nikitin, a notorious neo-Nazi who has personally trained far-right extremists across Europe in combat, and has been called one of the most dangerous figures on Europe’s far right "neo-nazi" [74] Reuters 11 May 2023 The Antifascist Europe monitoring project says he is a neo-Nazi and white supremacist., He also launched his own clothing brand, White Rex, featuring the Black Sun logo favoured by neo-Nazi groups. no label [75] SRF.ch 26 May 2023 He maintained contact with Thorsten Heise and Thommy Frenck, two leading neo-Nazis from East Germany. Kapustin, meanwhile, has been given a ban on entry to the entire Schengen area. This also applies to Switzerland., he offers T-shirts with a “88” inscription, in the far-right scene a well-known code for the greeting formula «Heil Hitler» "neo-nazi" (attributed) [76] (in German) Direct label only in title: Denis Kapustin – this is how the Russian neo-Nazi ticks in Ukraine Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger 8 March 2023 Neonazi Denis Kapustin "neo-nazi" [77] (in German) Schengenvisainfo 3 September 2019 the Russian hooligan, neo-Nazi and martial artist Denis Kapustin, who is also known as “Denis Nikitin” "neo-nazi" [78] ADL 27 September 2022 Denis Kapustin (also known as Denis Nikitin) is a Russian neo-Nazi "neo-nazi" [79] taz.de 12 September 2025 The Russian neo-Nazi, whose real name is Denis Kapustin "neo-nazi" [80] The Moscow Times 27 December 2025 Kapustin, a Moscow-born far-right nationalist "far-right nationalist" [81] Robert Claus (SME)[a] quoted in the Baltimore Chronicle 27 December 2025 Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis. "neo-nazi" [82] Al Jazeera 9 October 2020 neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin, “They are violent neo-Nazis training for physical violence,” said Robert Claus "neo-nazi" [83] Deutsche Welle 31 January 2024 Similarly, in 2019, authorities in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia ensured that Russian extremist Denis Kapustin was denied entry to the entire Schengen area after he had organized martial arts events for neo-Nazi groups across Europe. "extremist" [84] Al Jazeera 25 May 2023 Kapustin, who is known as an extreme right-wing Russian nationalist "extreme right-wing nationalist" [85] The Washington Post 3 March 2023 Russian Volunteer Corps, a group of Ukraine-based Russian far-right white nationalists. Kapustin is a well-known far-right figure "far-right" [86] Kyiv Independent 27 December 2025 Kapustin was a known far-right activist, banned from the Schengen area for his neo-Nazi views and involvement in far-right football hooliganism. "far-right" [87] BBC 24 May 2023 Denis Kapustin is known as a Russian nationalist, and his group openly says it wants a mono-ethnic Russian state. "nationalist" [88] Novaya Gazeta 27 December 2025 A former football hooligan and neo-Nazi activist from Moscow who spent much of his youth in Germany, Kapustin "neo-nazi" [89] Meduza 1 January 2026 According to multiple media and watchdog reports, RDK’s leaders espouse far-right and neo-Nazi views. Kapustin (also known as Denis Nikitin and “White Rex”) has been identified as a neo-Nazi by the Anti-Defamation League. "neo-nazi" (attributed) [90] Article title: ‘White Rex’ lives Ukrainian military intelligence says it faked killing of neo-Nazi militia commander to fool Russia Informat.ro 27 December 2025 Kapustin, a neo-Nazi born in Moscow "neo-nazi" [91] t-online.de 27 December 2025 Denis Kapustin, ein Neonazi "neo-nazi" [92] TVP World 2 January 2026 ‘White Rex’ is a Russian neo-Nazi who heads a volunteer corps fighting Putin’s rule. "neo-nazi" [93] Only in the caption of his image TRT World 1 January 2026 an anti-Kremlin Russian fighter "anti-Kremlin fighter" [94] The Chosun Daily 29 December 2025 Former neo-Nazi slain in Zaporizhzhia, there he became engrossed in the neo-Nazi (new Nazi) skinhead culture and even operated a white supremacist clothing brand. After being banned from entering by German authorities, he moved to Ukraine, defining himself as a ‘right-wing conservative’ and continuing his activities. "former neo-nazi" [95] The New York Times 26 March 2023 In fact, German officials and humanitarian groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, have identified Mr. Kapustin as a neo-Nazi. "neo-nazi" (attributed) [96] Article title: Anti-Kremlin Group Involved in Border Raid Is Led by a Neo-Nazi Searchlight (magazine) 29 December 2025 https://searchlightmagazine.com/2025/12/key-international-nazi-with-uk-links-killed-in-ukraine/, a career that fused violent neo-nazi activism, combat entrepreneurship, and a flair for self‑mythology. "nazi" [97] Declassified UK 6 June 2023 Denis Kapustin, a violent racist linked to a banned British neo-Nazi group,, While the RDK’s far-right ideology was belatedly noted in media reports, the fact its leader spent time teaching neo-Nazis in Britain has so far been forgotten. "violent racist" [98] Article title: Russian neo-Nazi fighting Putin taught at far-right camp in UK World Socialist Web Site 26 May 2023 According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Kapustin, who is known as “Rex,” is considered “one of the most influential figures” in the European neo-Nazi scene by German authorities, The forces carrying it out were blatant neo-Nazis with vast international connections, above all in Germany. Of particular significance is Denis Kapustin, Other members of the RVC are also notorious neo-Nazis "neo-nazi" (attributed) [99] Article title: Russian fascist with ties to leading German neo-Nazis led Ukrainian-backed incursion of Russia The Seattle Times 26 May 2023 Kapustin and prominent members of the armed group he leads, the Russian Volunteer Corps, openly espouse far-right views. In fact, German officials and humanitarian groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, have identified Kapustin as a neo-Nazi. "neo-nazi" (attributed) [100] Telegraph.co.uk 4 March 2023 a Russian neo-Nazi football hooligan, Once described by extremist experts as one of the most dangerous neo-Nazis in the world, Mr Nikitin has become something of a pin-up for white supremacists and neo-Nazis. "neo-nazi" [101] Robert Claus writing for The Moscow Times 28 November 2017 Denis Nikitin, a supporter of the extreme right from Moscow and the founder of the Neo-Nazi martial arts brand White Rex., Nikitin is both neo-Nazi and businessman. "neo-nazi" [102] The Guardian 21 September 2023 Nikitin was known as a notorious Russian nationalist, who built links between far-right groups across Europe, Nikitin, who grew up in Russia and Germany, has been banned from the Schengen zone since 2019 and has a reputation as one of Europe’s most notorious neo-Nazis., He has never used the phrase “white supremacist”, he claimed, and said he is only called a “neo-Nazi” because he is against “LGBTQ propaganda and cultural Marxism”. But, pressed on his views about Nazi Germany, he admitted that although “genocide and gas chambers are bad, regardless of who does it”, there was much he admired about the Third Reich. “I extremely like the culture, the style. I extremely favour the military,” he said. "nationalist" [103] RUSI 29 August 2024 It is believed that Kapustin holds neo-Nazi views, and he has even been labelled as a ‘key figure in European extreme far-right circles’ and ‘one of the most dangerous neo-Nazis in the region’., Russian neo-Nazis have expressed support for RVC on their social media (such as the Telegram channel ‘National Socialist’) "holds neo-nazi views" (attributed) [104] Euromaidan Press 27 December 2025 Kapustin, known by his callsign "White Rex," was a controversial figure—a Moscow-born neo-Nazi activist who founded a far-right clothing brand and organized MMA fighting tournaments for European extremists. "neo-nazi" [105] ProPublica 5 July 2018 Observers of the far-right in Europe are concerned about the infiltration of neo-Nazis into the boxing and MMA scenes — and they’re particularly worried about Nikitin. “He is seen as dangerous by those who monitor the far right” due to his “outright neo-Nazi ideology — preaching racial war and the need to ‘reconquer’ the ‘living space’ of the white man in Europe,” said Pavel Klymenko, a Ukrainian researcher with the FARE Network who tracks soccer hooligans. "neo-nazi" (attributed) [106] The Guardian 24 April 2018 Denis Nikitin, a Russian neo-Nazi who claims he once kept a framed photograph of Joseph Goebbels in his bedroom "neo-nazi" [107] Southern Poverty Law Center 2 September 2025 Denis Yevgenyevich Kapustin, a neo-Nazi of Russian-German descent who uses the pseudonyms “Denis Nikitin” and “White Rex” in the white supremacist movement. "neo-nazi" [108] ^ a researcher and author who specializes in far-right extremism and football[1], a German journalist and author of a new book on combat sports and the European far right.[2], as well as having been published himself in the same area[3]

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• RFC is closed. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussions at Talk:2020s Minnesota fraud scandals#RFC - Lead and Talk:Nick Shirley#RfC: Political descriptor. Some1 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

for the second time in 10 days due to edit-warring. See article history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Africa&action=history

• Fully protected 23:45, January 28, 2026 to 23:45, 4 February 2026
• and more recently: 03:36, February 6, 2026 for two weeks per Talk:North Africa#Full protection

The article could use some more eyes, especially with there being three ongoing RfCs on its talk page:

• Talk:North_Africa#Request_for_Comment_-_Inclusion_of_Content_Ethnic_Groups_Section
• Talk:North_Africa#Request_for_Comment_-_Images
• Talk:North_Africa#Request_for_Comment_-_Sentence

Some1 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr of my two cents having looked over things:

1. The article should be revised to make sure it's more of a North Africa article, and less Maghreb-centric;
2. Reasonable compromises should be reached on mentioning and properly framing non-dominant minorities which are endemic but not primarily North African. Not erasing them, nor framing them as locally equivalent to more prominent groups which are primarily North African.

Hopefully the sides can reach an amenable agreement on this. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw attention to the article Relationship of Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, and Jeffrey Epstein, and to the notice I posted on Talk:Relationship of Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, and Jeffrey Epstein about why this content in my opinion is strongly biased, and in conflict with the NPOV policy. At the Norwegian language (bokmål, not nynorsk) edition of Wikipedia, similar content has been removed with reference to the Norwegian POV policy. (See: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#Dekning_av_Epstein-saken - discussion conducted in Norwegian.) I ask that the enwiki community please review said article at enwiki. Annelingua (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely misleading, false account of discussions at the Norwegian Wikipedia and a transparent attempt to import a dispute from another project, where a couple of editors have tried to remove all mention of the Epstein affair, and faced strong pushback from an equal number of established editors. ABC News reported[109] that "Few countries have been as roiled by the Epstein revelations as Norway", so the fallout in Norway has been severe and involved a former prime minister and a royal[110][111] Also, no one has been "barred" from "posting" anything on this affair at the Norwegian Wikipedia, we have ongoing content discussions on our village pump and the article's talk page, that is it. A couple of "pro-royal" editors found it objectionable to mention the Epstein affair and its connection to the Norwegian royal family, and when they didn't quite get it their way there (the article now does in fact mention it), they apparently tried to continue the dispute over here. But this is not the Norwegian Wikipedia. There is broad consensus on the English Wikipedia to cover the Epstein affair in detail, this article is part of a suite of many similar articles on Category:Relationships of Jeffrey Epstein, and indeed, even the German Wikipedia and other editions have similar articles on the Epstein–Mette-Marit connection. You have already been told by User:331dot that if you object to the existence of the article, you are free to nominate it for deletion via WP:AfD. I'm entirely confident that this article will be kept, along with the half a dozen other similar articles on the relationships of Jeffrey Epstein. --Sveinkros (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that referencing discussions on another wiki are likely to be productive; our policies and articles are different from theirs. You'd have more luck being more specific about the problems you believe are present in relation to enwiki's policies - eg. what statements do you believe are poorly-sourced, and why? --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've encountered an NPOV issue when it comes to representing the various scholarly POVs surrounding Thuggee. There are sources that seek to deconstruct the colonial-era representation of the phenomenon, which are taken by several historians to imply that these scholars hold thuggee to be fictitious. However, I only recently came to understand that the existence of these implicit conclusions is contested by another historian close to their position (one reputable enough to feature in literature reviews of the subject). FYI, the scholarly POVs currently represented in the article are various revisionist interpretations that point to something behind the colonial-era portrayal and this POV of thuggee as entirely fictitious.

My judgement was that I should be doing away with these implicit conclusions since they're contested and just focusing on citing these sources directly but it would remove the POV from the article that thuggee didn't exist-- this is a fairly significant change to the article and I feel I need to run it by more editors to check if this is the appropriate way to handle it. I posted in the talk page but, other than a brief post a few days ago, it's generally been fairly quiet. Full post with relevant passages: Talk:Thuggee#Neutrality issue on presentation of denialist scholarly POV

Thanks.

TL;DR: the nature/ existence of the conclusions some scholars imply is contested, raising a neutrality concern on how or if to present them. I've tentatively judged that we should be dealing with the sources themselves directly but would like more input. Joko2468 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the Historical evaluations section in the article a little unclear, I amended this in my sandbox-- just waiting until seven days have passed for any objections. done Joko2468 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The scholarly consensus on Thuggee is that this phenomenon was fictional, and was created by the British officials. The recent past version of the article reflected it until you overhauled it. Zalaraz (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide sources to back that up? My changes are faithfully based on the scholarly sources-- the previous version of the article wasn't. I don't understand how you think I've written this material if it actually says something opposite, I'm not some villain. If you think I've cherrypicked sources then please provide sources that conclude that thuggee was entirely fictional, it would seriously help me out. I've edited totally in good faith. The consensus is that the colonial-era portrayal was fictional and constructed by British officials, but your assertion that the sources hold nothing to have existed behind it is divorced from the sources and based on a version of the article that misrepresented them. Again-- if you have sources that support this POV then please share them, it would make this a lot easier though I've read widely around the subject and haven't found anything that conclusively states this (other than these contested implicit conclusions). Joko2468 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I only want the article to be accurate to the best sources. Shankar (2001) is cited in the previous lede to support that thuggee was fictional and though he talks about a discursive version of thuggee being invented by Sleeman, he states on the next page (p.30): The "thugs" that Sleeman wrote about, however, were most likely, as Gordon argues, ordinary robbers operating in gangs at a time of considerable social confusion in a particular area of central India. This is the scholarly consensus (barring van Woerkens who claims they were motivated by religion) and it is what is presented in the Historical evaluations section-- the scholars explicitly denote this "thuggee". The next source cited to support this POV is Wagner (2011) and, though it conveniently omits a page number, it says: Amal Chatterjee describes how the British invented Thuggee but as I've shown here (and evidenced by the passages on the talk page post), the fact that Chatterjee says this is contested by Lloyd. If you have anything further to this, then please share. Joko2468 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wagner also says: Having read this, one is left with the impression that Thuggee was wholly and thoroughly a product of the British imagination. This is where the point of contention with Lloyd arises from. Joko2468 (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, I'm not happy with the lede sentence: Contemporary historians generally view the colonial-era portrayal of thuggee, at least to some extent, as a colonial construct..., "at least" reads to me as argumentative. The source said: Contemporary historians and postcolonial literary analysts often differ in their interpretations of Thuggee.1 But scholars from these two different fields usually agree on one thing: that to some extent Thuggee was constructed, or at least redefined, by British colonizers in India. If you have a better wording for this, then I would be grateful. Joko2468 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Zalaraz, you need to actually engage in substantive discussion about sources and the literature if you want to oppose the changes. Repeatedly saying something without evidence and eschewing discussion could be construed as WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING, but consensus relies on quality of argument anyway (WP:DETCON) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here but involves potential changes in multiple pages: Talk:Poland#Poland_-_system_of_government. I believe the user arguing in favour of calling it semi-presidential is pushing fringe and/or WP:UNDUE sources that aren't shared by majority of the sources. --wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 18:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion here (The discussion was initiated by a sock but later broadened after the original issue was resolved), about whether a section should be included in the article on the Sangh Parivar, over the classification of the organization as fascist by scholars and academics. In the course of this dispute, an editor added an excerpt from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the paramilitary which originally founded the Sangh Parivar, where an argument is made by a scholar against the classification of the RSS as fascist. However, neither the excerpt nor its sources mention the Sangh Parivar, which is why I consider the addition WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK. The editor has since said they will not participate further in the discussion, so I have come here seeking a resolution. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For editors, I am pasting the disputed excerpt here, as the discussion at the talk page of the Sangh Parivar might be too long to get through:

Jaffrelot argues that although the RSS, with its paramilitary style of functioning and its emphasis on discipline, has sometimes been seen as "an Indian version of fascism",^[1] the "RSS's ideology treats society as an organism with a secular spirit, which is implanted not so much in the race as in a socio-cultural system and which will be regenerated over the course of time by patient work at the grassroots".^[2] He argues that Golwalkar's ideology shared, with Nazism, an emphasis on ethnic homogeneity^[3] but that the "ideology of the RSS did not develop a theory of the state and the race, a crucial element in European nationalisms: Nazism and Fascism"^[1] and that, according to Jaffrelot, RSS leaders were interested in Hindu cultural homogeneity as opposed to racial sameness.^[4]

— EarthDude (Talk) 12:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that the discussion on Talk:Criticism of copyright between three users (including myself) has gotten beyond any of our control, and we are in need of outside help to establish some kind of norm from which to have a productive discussion. I am one of the belligerents, and I don't claim to have engaged perfectly here. This dispute began on February 1, under the "NPOV/Wikivoice" header.

The dispute is primarily over what is considered a fact as opposed to an opinion in an article that is about critiques of a policy. My position is that design features of copyright are facts, so they can be said in wikivoice. Their position is that the article is about critiques of copyright, which is widely approved of, so the article should be extra cautious and treat everything that critics observe to make critiques of copyright as inherently opinionated.

For example, should the article say that copyright creates artificial scarcity in wikivoice? I say that the scarcity is a fact that can be said in wikivoice because it is an intended design feature (or tradeoff) of copyright. That is, copyright can be understood factually as a system in wikivoice and then critiqued separately because not everyone agrees that those design features are good or justified. The others say that it is controversial whether copyright creates scarcity because not everyone agrees that it does. They have substantiated this assertion that not everyone agrees that copyright creates scarcity with a variety of arguments ranging from the fact that there are artists who have gone bankrupt because of unauthorized copying, that the value of the copyright is diminished when copies proliferate, that copyright is a widely-adopted policy, that Wikipedia supports copyright as policy, among others. To be fair, the other two do not perfectly agree on the where to draw the line, so their theories also compete to a degree.

That should be enough to get a third party started. Thanks. (Courtesy pings: @Aim551551551:, @Objective3000:) lethargilistic (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you stated someone else added the text with which you disagree. So it is three against one. We are trying to keep the article NPOV. You are changing the article to state opinions in wikivoice as if they are indisputable facts. All we are trying to do is state that opinions are opinions. I don't see how anyone can argue against this. And frankly, your last statement there that those who disagree with you are evangelists for a certain policy, and they want to treat their preference as a cultural default. is outrageous. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the third person is. I would obviously recommend that anyone interested in helping here start at the discussion two weeks ago rather than something I said after two weeks of building frustration and accusations on all fronts. That comment from me is what prompted this plea for assistance, as it happens. I have tried to AGF as much as possible, but emotions are powerful things. We need outside help. lethargilistic (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make attacks. Look, it's very simple. Opinions should be labeled as opinions or criticisms and attributed. Basic WP:NPOV. They should not be stated as truth in wikivoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, and I don't mean this to be any way derogatory, your user page states that you intend to write a series of books on this exact subject. I tend to avoid articles related to my own areas of work IRL. It works better as it is easier to maintain NPOV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage hasn't been updated in many years, and it is irrelevant. I work in criminal law, not copyright. lethargilistic (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide a summary of the current situation.

I felt that the article Criticism of Copyright does not make a reasonable effort to maximize its neutrality of tone. Seriously contested and controversial pieces of information that represent minority views are written in Wikivoice in the article.

Your example is good: the words "artificial scarcity," depending on the context and how they are worded, could be perceived as stating that copyright prevents abundance, which would be problematic to state in Wikivoice if you don't have evidence that it is not a minority view.

"As a policy choice, many states have established copyright systems, which create scarcity by punishing people who make unauthorized copies."

This paragraph in the article is deeply problematic from a neutral point of view. For example, "established" (which could imply it was imposed against the will of the populace in this context: a grey area, so better wording would help), "scarcity," and "unauthorized" are problematic when it comes to neutral point of view. It is also written as direct statements in Wikivoice.

Furthermore, there is a problem with original research; many assertions and wording choices are not supported by or do not accurately reflect the sources cited in the article.

This example is only one among others; several wording choices in the article suffer from very similar problems. Aim551551551 (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this. Let me give an example of the problem with declaring that copyright necessarily creates “scarcity”. The web contains massive amounts of free information that is copyrighted. As it is free, how can it be scarce? I’ll give a specific example from personal experience. I wrote a several hundred-page book which is sold by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. But, I also put a free version up on my website that anyone can read. No sign in needed, no need to give me your email, no popups. Just read it. So it is not “scarce”, artificially or otherwise. Why is it copyrighted? Someone copied multiple chapters of it (making a mess) and published it on another site claiming they were the author and copyright holder. As I was, I issued a DMCA complaint to the website and they removed it. I could not have done that without a copyright protecting my intellectual property rights. As I have stated many times on the ATP, I have no problem with including claims made by critics. We just shouldn’t be stating them in wikivoice as if they are “truth”. Let us make certain the article is neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One additional point: even though whether a fact is disputed can help determine if content is neutral, it is not the only factor. Even facts that everyone agrees on must be presented fairly, neutrally and avoid biased language.

For example, imagine an article included this sentence:

"Copyright law legally blocks Wikipedia from including material from copyrighted books, ensuring that this knowledge remains locked behind paywalls rather than being freely shared."

This statement might be factually accurate and accepted by experts and general readers alike, even by those with differing views. However, it still should not be used. The reason is that it relies on emotionally charged language. Terms like "blocks" and "locked behind paywalls" carry a negative tone and present only one side of the issue. They frame copyright law as inherently harmful rather than simply describing its function. Similarly, the phrase "rather than being freely shared" lacks neutrality in this context, as it implies a value judgment by contrasting restricted access with an idealized alternative.

An example of a more neutral alternative would be to write:

"Some critics argue that copyright restrictions prevent platforms like Wikipedia from incorporating content from copyrighted books, which are often available only through subscription or purchase."

Notice that I'm not using Wikivoice, I did NOT write "Copyright restrictions prevent[...]." Is this sentence perfectly neutral? No, but it's a good-faith attempt compared to the first one; the editing process could improve it further down the road. Aim551551551 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Hindutva#Lead paragraph, on whether or not the statement "Borrowing ideas and concepts from European fascism, the Hindutva movement was affiliated with Italian fascism and Nazism during the interwar period and the Second World War." is WP:DUE for the lead paragraph on the article Hindutva. We request any input from third parties. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking an outside opinion regarding a series of deletions and accusations of "POV-pushing" by User:Impru20 across several articles related to Spanish politics.

The core of the dispute involves the article 2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal and related mentions in biographies of figures like Yolanda Díaz and Alberto Núñez Feijóo.

Background:

I have been adding information supported by credible English-language media regarding the ongoing scandal (e.g., Reuters, The Guardian). However, User:Impru20 has:

• Requested the deletion of the main article (Link to Talk:2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal).
• Systematically removed well-sourced content from the main article and related political biographies.
• Accused me of malicious intent and "POV-pushing" in a manner that borders on personal attacks.

My Position:

I have explicitly stated my willingness to:

• Rename the article for better neutrality.
• Expand the coverage to include the defense of the accused, police actions, and court rulings.
• Include similar scandals in other Spanish parties if sourced, though my current research is limited to English-language media.

The Issue:

I believe that removing content supported by reliable sources from the pages of government and opposition leaders—who are actively commenting on a scandal that media outlets describe as "shaking" the PSOE—is not justified. While I acknowledge that my addition to the "Sexual harassment" general article was misplaced (and it has been removed), the deletions on political pages appear to suppress relevant, sourced information.

Request:

I would like to ask the community to evaluate whether including these well-sourced developments constitutes "POV-pushing," and whether the systematic removal of this information aligns with Wikipedia’s NPOV policies.

Evidence (Diffs):

• Yolanda Díaz (diff)

• Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (diff, diff)

• 2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal (diff)

• Alberto Núñez Feijóo (diff)

• Adriana Lastra (diff)

• José Ramón Gómez Besteiro (diff)

• Premiership of Pedro Sánchez (diff

• Pedro Sánchez (diff, diff)

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Important context is being left out by the above editor:

1) Chicken or the egg?: They conducted most of the conflicting edits mentioned above after the AfD on the aforementioned article was filled, not before (which one could think by reading their "Background" section). The AfD was not a result of them "adding information supported by credible English-language media regarding the ongoing scandal"; rather, and following the AfD's opening, the above editor attempted to enforce links to that article and some of its contents into other articles on topics without any direct and/or relevant connection to this issue (such as sexual harassment, diff, then reverted by me; Alberto Núñez Feijóo, diff, then reverted; Yolanda Díaz, diff, then reverted; Adriana Lastra, diff, then reverted; José Ramón Gómez Besteiro, diff, then partially reverted; and others), while presenting the topic in an obviously disparaging, negative light towards a political party and members of a government without any kind of balance that the sources themselves do include.

2) Reasons for the proposed AfD: These are explained in full where due (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal, as well as Talk:2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal), though they involve:

• A lack of "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" as required under WP:EVENTCRITERIA (most particularly, a lack of WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE); lack of widespread impact, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (allegations on independent sexual misconduct cases were notable for a few days, but media interest has died down so far, together with some judicial proceedings having been archived, with no relevant follow ups at the moment);
• As per WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that something is verifiable does not mean that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, much less to justify a stand-alone article;
• The article constituting a WP:REDUNDANTFORK (as the topic is already included at Premiership of Pedro Sánchez#Scandals and, to a lesser degree, at Pedro Sánchez#Scandals, Spanish Socialist Workers' Party#Sánchez leadership (2014–present) and Next Spanish general election#Background);
• Serious WP:POVPUSH/WP:UNDUE issues that question whether the purpose of the article itself is to be used as some form of soapbox to overemphasize scandal mongering or gossip directed towards some political party or politicians in particular. This includes:
  • Massive cherrypicking from sources;
  • Excessive weight being given to cases of members of a singular party, as opposed to no mention being made to cases in other parties that are explicitly covered by the provided sources (for example, The Guardian source the above editor does mention, as well as Spanish media [112] [113] [114] [115]);
  • Lack of inclusion of contradicting views (the accused people denying wrongdoings, judicial proceedings being archived, etc.);
  • Entirely unconnected cases (such as the alleged arrangement of meetings with sex workers by another politician and his aide, which has never been connected to the other cases) being thrown into the article's scope to give the impression of a single major scandal affecting one single party rather than individual multi-party allegations briefly covered in the news cycle in Spain; etc.)
  • WP:BLPCRIME issues (culpability of those accused is automatically assumed despite no one being convicted and some cases not even resulting in judicial proceedings, as of yet at least).

In any case, the article's future is an issue for the AfD to deal with.

3) Verifiable information vs. cherry-picked information: I have never questioned the reliability or credibility of the provided sources. Rather, I have criticized the above editor's POVish selection of information from those same sources. For example:

• Their edit at Alberto Núñez Feijóo, in which they openly accused Sánchez of "siding with sexual abusers over victims" in a way that was not even framed like that in the Guardian source they provided and sounded like some form of soapbox to Feijóo (a political rival to Sánchez and his party)'s positions;
• Their edits at Yolanda Díaz [116] and Adriana Lastra [117], revolving on passing-by "comments" without evidence of subsequent follow ups nor any justification on why these particular comments were relevant to these people's biographies (over other comments these people have made throughout the years on other issues);
• Their edit at José Ramón Gómez Besteiro had to be reworked because they had created a specific section without any justification why, as well as omitting relevant information (i.e. the accused asserting his innocence), plus the addition of an almost copy-pasted sentence on "the party's political future in the region" that had no relevance there;
• Some of their edits were entirely misplaced and focused on giving relevance to this issue even within articles where this made no sense: for example, at sexual harassment ([118]), whose scope does not revolve on particular cases in countries and where this was presented as if a conviction or some form of culpability was already established (and directing it at the prime minister of Spain, for some reason). This was so egregious and wrong that they have acknowledged it (for the first time, btw) in this thread.

And I could go on.

4) My position vs. the above editor's: It is not true that I have intended to "suppress relevant, sourced information"; my purpose has been to counter the addition of multiple POVish material everywhere and without any coherency. I have said so multiple times (most notably in this discussion). Even at this present point, and despite my extensive comments to them, the above editor still seemingly fails to get the point on what they are doing wrong, being unable or unwilling to admit on the visible one-sided nature of their edits. On top of that, I have always attempted to explain my reverts to their edits in the edit summaries, whereas the above editor has made no attempt to even justify theirs (typically resorting to generic "update" or "add info" summaries, even after they were questioned on their edits' motives).

5) The above editor's alleged good will: Some of the above editor's claims of good will or apparent lack of knowledge are not coherent with their actions. For example, here they claimed that they "support renaming the article and adding additional information, such as the accused politicians' assertions of innocence, court rulings, or related sexual scandals involving other political parties", and that this was "challenging" for them, as they "don't speak Spanish". Yet this is perfectly stated in The Guardian and other English-language sources they themselves added to multiple articles, and they still made no attempt at introducing this additional info, the accused's assertions of innocence or other cases (and this despite repeated warnings and reverts). At best, they did not fully read the sources they claim to use as a basis; at worst, it is deliberate. The fact that possible criminal acts allegedly committed by living people are being discussed should have introduced an element of extreme care and caution in the above editor's edits, as per BLPCRIME; instead, they have exhibited recklessness in the addition of such info and an apparent intent to add it to as many articles as possible. All of the info they added had a very specific POV, and no attempt was made to either acknowledge or correct this, nor to justify why they introduced it in so many articles.

My conclusion: All of the above + the fact that this mostly started after the AfD was filled + the above editor's persistence in adding a link to such article in almost every one of their edits, only reinforces the idea that the article itself is being used as some sort of platform to overemphasize scandal mongering or gossip directed towards a political party and/or some politicians in particular. Impru20^talk 15:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on discussing the article content during conversations, rather than editor conduct, in accordance with WP:FOC.

@Impru20: claimed: "allegations on independent sexual misconduct cases were notable for a few days, but media interest has died down so far, together with some judicial proceedings having been archived, with no relevant follow-ups at the moment."

The scandal has actually been ongoing for many months, and the situation is still developing. It is probably being reported in the Spanish media, though I don't speak Spanish. Francisco Salazar, a close ally and aide to Prime Minister Sánchez, resigned in July 2025 following allegations of sexual harassment, which were also reported by foreign media. The media is also linking meetings between Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos and sex workers to the broader PSOE sex scandal.

The scandal escalated further during 2025, with additional allegations of sexual misconduct against high-ranking PSOE officials and politicians emerging. In December 2025, it was widely reported by foreign mainstream English-language media, citing statements by senior PSOE members, members of the Spanish government—including Prime Minister Sánchez—and leaders of the Spanish opposition. Most of these reactions were deleted from the main article about the scandal (diff), as well as from other articles.

I would like to remind you that, according to WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia strongly encourages preserving content rather than deleting it, adhering to the principle that articles should be improved rather than removed, as they are a "work in progress."--Tobby72 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this noticeboard (to which you yourself voluntarily came) is about discussing adherence to WP:NPOV. I discussed article content, as well as concerns on editor's edits adding or removing such content. If you consider that violations of NPOV should not be discussed, please consider adhering to the NPOV policy in your edits :)

So, in your second paragraph you basically acknowledge that you do not even know whether the scandal is currently being reported in Spanish media, and again come with "I don't speak Spanish" as an excuse? Can you at least provide some examples of ongoing reports in English-language sources, at least? As commented, the "I don't speak Spanish" excuse does not work for you when it comes to explaining why you repeteadly left out key elements from the English sources you yourself provided.

The rest of your reply does not add anything else of relevance to the discussion and seems like an attempt to WP:GASLIGHT readers from your own actions as have been described (and, again, without the slightlest attempt to acknowledge any wrongdoing from your part, despite many examples having been provided). Please note that PRESERVE encourages preserving "appropriate content", but does not work as a barrier for not touching contested edits. When so regarded, I preserved part of your content while reworking it. When the entire addition of the content was controversial, it was removed. The reasons for the revert of your edit in the main article are explained in the diff you provide: once again, there is no inherent right for your edits to be automatically preserved or kept just because you added them. If these are controversial or contested by others, these can be reverted.

Finally, you should also understand that, because this noticeboard is about discussing adherence to NPOV, it is not a venue to contest or circumvent an AfD discussion. Impru20^talk 11:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You completely ignored my point that the scandal has been ongoing for months.

@Impru20:: "Can you at least provide some examples of ongoing reports in English-language sources, at least?"

Here are a few examples after a few minutes of searching:

—Spanish rail disaster ramps up pressure on Sánchez , Politico, 28 January 2026.

—Salazar: “I Have Always Respected My Companions as Women and as Professionals”, Ground News, 5 February 2026

—Trio of Spanish regional elections spells trouble for Sánchez, Politico, 5 February 2026

—The PSOE acknowledges that it has not been up to par in handling the complaints against Paco Salazar, Ara, 16 February 2026

—La Algaba Mayor Under Scrutiny: Sexual Harassment Allegations Spark Political Crisis and Calls for Accountability, Ekhbary, 17 February 2026.

—Spain's police chief resigns over rape allegations, The Local, 18 February 2026.

—Spanish govt under fire as police chief quits accused of rape, The Straits Times, 18 February 2026. -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first block of text reads like LLM generated. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore your point: I repeteadly stated that it is not ongoing. I did so above (lack of "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect"; lack of widespread impact, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (...) but media interest has died down so far, together with some judicial proceedings having been archived, with no relevant follow ups at the moment), at Talk:2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal#Removal of "Reactions and impact" section and proposed AfD (where I basically stated the same) and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal (I literally told you that What is the documented, long-term impact of this to justify a stand-alone article; The sources you had in that version of the article were mostly from 12 to 15 December 2025. That's four days: so where is the "long-term impact"?).

On the links you are now adding, I may beg your perdon but: why are you adding links to unrelated cases here? The two Politico links focus on the 2026 Adamuz train derailment and the 2026 Spanish regional elections; they only make passing-by mentions of the sexual misconduct allegations as a recent, but past ordeal (see WP:GNG and, particularly, WP:SUSTAINED). Equally for the Ground News source you add, which relates to a Senate intervention from Salazar regarding the Koldo case: it does not cover the scandal nor depicts it as "ongoing"; and the latest three sources you provide relate to entirely unrelated cases. Why are you mixing these together?

Now, your above reply actually proves my points addressed above:

• Firstly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you keep presenting the topic in an obviously disparaging, negative light towards a political party and members of a government without any kind of balance that the sources themselves do include (I explicitly asked you about this multiple times, some in this very same discussion). Actually, your latest reply does confirm your attempt at presenting sources and material in such a disparaging, negative light towards a particular side. You omitted the assertions of innocence, and PP's Landaluce case, contained in The Guardian source you yourself provided, rather cherry-picking the information you wanted to use to POVpush a particular view while discarding others. You also keep ignoring to address this concern.
• Secondly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you deliberately excluded cases on other parties (and keep doing so; why didn't you add this, this, this, this, this, this, or this, to name just a few? Are these also "in Spanish" or are you otherwise unable to read or search for these?).
• Thirdly, because you seem to refuse to explain why you kept adding such material into unrelated articles, giving it an undue relevance in these, following the AfD request on the 2025 Spanish Socialist Workers' Party sexual misconduct scandal article.
• And finally, because your reply further reinforces the idea that you have a clear and persistent intent on 1) mixing up various, unconnected cases into a single major scandal for the sake of it, and 2) demonstrating culpability of some form, rather than sticking to the sources and balancing them to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME.

In this regard, thank you for your latest reply for proving all of my points. I sincerely hope you address them at some point. Impru20^talk 00:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I had not spotted that the OP's opening post could be LLM generated, as pointed out by another user above. Should that be the case, we would be discussing a potential breach of WP:LLMCOMM here, aside of the aforementioned concerns. Impru20^talk 10:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like we're going in circles. Alongside new, unfounded assumptions, you continue to repeat the same accusations against me while disregarding most of my points.

Impru20: What is the documented, long-term impact of this to justify a stand-alone article"; "The sources you had in that version of the article were mostly from 12 to 15 December 2025. That's four days: so where is the "long-term impact"?

Even if the scandal regarding sexual harassment allegations suddenly ended and everything was closed, which is not true, the scandal lasted at least from Salazar's resignation in July 2025 to December 2025, when the accusations and resignations of several politicians and high-ranking members of the PSOE party were reported by foreign media.

Impru20: On the links you are now adding, I may beg your perdon but: why are you adding links to unrelated cases here?

All the articles I have listed here either fully address or at least mention sex scandals in Spanish politics, primarily related to the Spanish government and the PSOE.

Impru20: Firstly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you keep presenting the topic in an obviously disparaging, negative light towards a political party and members of a government without any kind of balance that the sources themselves do include

I keep saying over and over that I am open to adding the defense of the accused to the main article and to other related articles, as well as including information about the sexual scandals of other parties. By the way, you are also free to make such edits; I would not delete them. Yet, you keep accusing me repeatedly of not wanting to do so, ignoring what I have already said. It has become difficult to edit anything when you automatically revert most of my changes regarding sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics.

Impru20: Secondly, because you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you deliberately excluded cases on other parties

As I have already mentioned multiple times, I would not object to renaming the main article to Sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics (2025) or something similar, since allegations of sexual misconduct have involved politicians and officials from other parties as well, although probably not to the same extent as in the case of the PSOE.

Impru20: Thirdly, because you seem to refuse to explain why you kept adding such material into unrelated articles, giving it an undue relevance in these

You still have not reasonably explained why pages about Yolanda Díaz or Alberto Núñez Feijóo should not include their own statements regarding the sexual misconduct allegations that, according to media reports, have shaken the PSOE.-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is going nowhere and, frankly, just going in circles, I am considering WP:DISENGAGE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I know my username, so no need to repeat it five times for no reason.

"you continue to repeat the same accusations against me while disregarding most of my points." You have made no new points. I have already answered all of your points. Now, replying to your comment:

1) "Even if the scandal regarding sexual harassment allegations suddenly ended and everything was closed, which is not true" Can you provide evidence that the scandal is still open? I am also curious on how you are able to say this, considering that most of the sources involving this case are in Spanish and you have acknowledged yourself to "not speak Spanish". How can you make a definitive assertion on whether the case is open or not if you have acknowledged to not being able to understand the main language of the sources covering it? Also, you have been told (with sources) than judicial proceedings on the specific case on Salazar have been closed, yet you still claim that it is still open somehow. "the scandal lasted at least from Salazar's resignation in July 2025 to December 2025" And this is, at best, partially false. The case was in the media for a few days in July 2025. Then, it came up again in December 2025, in a different fashion (the July story was about the allegations themselves, the December story was about the party's handling of the allegations). It was not in the media from July 2025 to December 2025. You attempt to depict this as it this was some form of continuously developing story, when it was only routine coverage and political reactions for a few days in those months.

2) "All the articles I have listed here either fully address or at least mention sex scandals in Spanish politics, primarily related to the Spanish government and the PSOE." So, you acknowledge the POVpushing here? Firstly, because you have not focused on "sex scandals in Spanish politics" as a whole, but only those "related to the Spanish government and the PSOE". You have omitted multiple other cases affecting other parties (and even the regional PP government in Madrid). At this point, since you have kept doing this even after you were noted on it multiple times, it must be assumed you do so deliberately. Then, just because something tangentially mentions something that you think may be used to build some story does not mean you should do that. WP:SYNTH is a policy; you cannot just mix a bunch of unconnected cases into a single major scandal just because you feel like it. Many of the sources you provide do not mix all of these stories together. These are not connected to each other, neither in time, nor in scope, nor in location, etc.

3) "I keep saying over and over that I am open to adding the defense of the accused to the main article and to other related articles" So, why haven't done it so far and keep ignoring to do it as we speak? You have had multiple opportunities to demonstrate your willingness to do this, yet so far you have refused to do so. All of your edits are focused on the same POVpushing. Also, please note that "adding the defense of the accused" is not something that can be done at your pleasure, but rather, a direct consequence and requisite of WP:BLPCRIME. You are basically accusing people of committing crimes in your edits and you have cared little to nothing to provide their own viewpoints as reported by the same sources you attempt to use to back you up. This is not just a NPOV breach, but also has potential for causing trouble for Wikipedia as a whole. "It has become difficult to edit anything when you automatically revert most of my changes regarding sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics." Not a single one of your edits added a single line containing anything other than POVpushing against this political party and the Spanish government and assuming the culpability of the accused. You made no attempt at adding the defense of the accused (despite this being reported in sources), you made no attempt at adding stories affecting other political parties (despite these being concurrent and being reported in sources), you made no attempt at adding different viewpoints (again, reported by sources) than those that matched your own view of the issue, nothing. Please do not pretend as if the diffs on your edits do not exist nor cannot be checked by other users.

4) I am insisting on my point that "you keep ignoring to address my concerns on why you deliberately excluded cases on other parties". You proposing to "renaming the main article to Sexual misconduct allegations in Spanish politics (2025)" does not preclude the fact that, neither in your edits nor in your replies in this discussion, you have made the slightlest attempt at covering these. You excused yourself in that you "don't speak Spanish", yet you have been provided English language sources (some of these provided by you) that did cover these. On the arguments for or against the article's existence we already have the AfD; I must insist that this is not the venue to address it.

5) "You still have not reasonably explained why pages about Yolanda Díaz or Alberto Núñez Feijóo should not include their own statements regarding the sexual misconduct allegations that, according to media reports, have shaken the PSOE" But I did? Multiple times? I repeteadly asked you to explain why these particular statements are more relevant to these people's biographies than any other statement of theirs. These two people may make dozens of statements each per week on multiple topics. Why are these statements, on these particular allegations "that have shaken the PSOE" (this is you, once again, POVpushing a particular viewpoint), relevant to these people? They are not even PSOE members. They have no direct or indirect involvement in these allegations. Why are these particularly relevant there? And, conversely (and taking your own arguments), why haven't you covered the PP cases in Alberto Núñez Feijóo's article, considering than that's his actual party and that he has been questioned on them? For example, the Spanish prime minister has recently criticized the PP for their different response when it comes to addressing reported cases in the PSOE as opposed to reported cases within their own party. Don't you think that this would merit some mention by you either, under your own arguments?

Each new reply from yours only keeps reinforcing the idea that you kept POVpushing a particular story against PSOE and/or Spanish government-related politicians, amplifying their story and minimizing others. I understand that, in light of the existing arguments against you, you prefer to DISENGAGE, though I should remind that it was you who brought us here. Best regards. Impru20^talk 16:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion here [[119]] that I think could use more input. I’m interested in hearing how others think we should balance completeness with restraint here, and whether existing policy provides enough guidance or if clearer consensus is needed. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m bringing this here because the talk page for Gender-critical feminism feels stuck. Right now, the lead uses Wikivoice to call the subject "fringe," but that doesn't really square with what’s happened in the last couple of years. Since 2024, we’ve had the Cass Review become the medical standard for the NHS, and the Forstater/Higgs rulings in the UK have established these views as protected beliefs in law. It’s hard to argue something is "fringe" when it’s literally being used to write national health policy and high court precedents. I tried to bring this up on the talk page with specific sources, but my comments were collapsed and ignored because people didn't like my formatting or thought I was using an LLM. I’m just a guy trying to get the page up to date with 2026 reality. Can someone neutral take a look at whether the "fringe" label and the "trans-exclusionary" descriptor still meet WP:NPOV and WP:DUE standards? It feels like the page is lagging behind the real-world institutional shift. ~2026-38678-7 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ANI § Temp accounts using LLMs to POV-push at gender-critical feminism
• User pasting communication from their chatbot: Diff/1338005285

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The UK media and political establishment being captured by fringe voices also doesn't make those voices suddenly not a bunch of weird bathroom inspectors. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]