Hey Toddy1. Saw your note in the edit summary. The reason I tagged the page is pretty straightforward: the current revision reads way less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a hagiography or a PR. It’s tripping over a few major policy lines.For one, the tone isn't neutral. Can we treat their perspective as fact or use puffery like "fighting disinformation" that implies heroism? We should just stick to what they actually did (e.g., "published fact-checks").Also, labeling the opposing site as "Hindu" right-wing without good-quality independent analysis framing it that way creates an associative bias (making it look like Alt News vs. Hindus) rather than just a fact-checker vs. a disinformation site.
The weighting is also off per WP:UNDUE. We've got nearly 40% of the prose focusing on the founders' legal issues and martyrdom narrative, but absolutely zero "Criticism" or "Reception" sections regarding their methodology. It creates a false balance by omission.
I’m also seeing likely WP:COI in the "Other key people" bit. The section on Sumaiya Shaikh reads like a résumé listing tangentially related books/orgs to boost her credentials.
Finally, the science section is problematic. It cites a claim about extremists having a "dopamine-driven high," which is a biomedical claim attributed to the subject. Unless that's backed by peer-reviewed journals per WP:MEDRS, it’s giving undue weight to a fringe theory.I think we need to keep the tags up until we can scrub the loaded language and fix the sourcing on those claims. Jībanmṛtamessage 19:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Tagging @Toddy1 Jībanmṛtamessage 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- The section about Sumaiya Shaikh was the result of a merge when the Sumaiya ShaikhSumaiya Shaikh article was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumaiya Shaikh. I've removed the medical claim in Special:Diff/1327100975, in which I also renamed the "Popular work" section to "Content". I oppose the cleanup tags that you added in Special:Diff/1300861526/1325848943, but I do not see a problem with adding a "Reception" section. A "Criticism" section would be non-neutral, per WP:CRITS. — Newslinger talk 16:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)