Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This is about . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we should have a discussion about this. I think it's genuinely unclear how we should handle this issue- I'm inclined to say we should put 1 BC first, but I understand why that might seem like an NPOV violation.

As far as I can tell, the latest research on Herodian chronology (basically since Steinmann's 2009 article) overwhelmingly favors the 1 BC date for Herod's death. I haven't seen anyone from the 4 BC side respond to the new arguments, such as the testimony of Appian and Dio Cassius favoring a 36 BC date for Herod's siege (and hence a 1 BC death), or the coin evidence showing that Philip reckoned his reign from some time between Tishrei 6 and Elul 5 BC (not 4 BC), or the evidence from the Caligula statue crisis showing that the 4 BC date implies an incorrect Sabbatical year cycle. Nevertheless, Steinmann (2009) has been cited over 40 times, so it's not like he's being ignored. The other side just hasn't responded.

That said, most scholars outside the very narrow field of Herodian chronology still seem to be citing the 4 BC date without questioning it. I think the question here is: what is the relevant set of experts? Herod specialists, or historians from adjacent fields? Montgolfière (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Marshak, Adam Kolman (9 May 2023) [11 January 2018]. Herod the Great (Report). doi:10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0251. Retrieved 5 March 2026. Clearly sides with 4 BCE.

Pope Benedictus sides with 4 BCE, although one might suspect that for a Pope 1 BCE would be more convenient.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aehrmanblog.org+herod+steinmann has only two results. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some of these 40 citations and the reliable ones i saw seemed to follow a general trend: the consensus or majority view is 4 but point out the opposing view of Steinmann. Not familiar with all the issues here but seems a natural and not too difficult bit of content for the article. Creating "sides" and a "Herod specialists" group of authors or sources doesn't really seem to follow policy in basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources. If there is some division in the scholarship form "Herod specialists" then it should probably be discussed in the article text and you would need a reliable source which points that out—you can't make that call. fiveby(zero) 19:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not original research, it would be following the WP:BESTSOURCES. I haven't checked the sources to evaluate whether or not that the supposed division is accurate. Katzrockso (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, my thought was that the best sources are the scholars who have actually examined the primary pieces of evidence. It seems like the "consensus" of 4 BC is maintained primarily by scholars citing each other, or citing the 130 year old work of Schürer, without evaluating the evidence and arguments themselves. And yet, the evidence is frankly not that hard to evaluate, and once you see it, it's hard to take the 4 BC date very seriously. And tgeorgescu, I don't have access to the full text of the article you linked, but I see no indication from the bibliography or intro that it is engaging the question of chronology at all; it simply assumes that Schürer is correct. I have yet to see an actual response to the strongest 1 BC arguments, like the statue crisis and the coins. Montgolfière (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Look, here's Steinmann himself calling 4 the "consensus view" in 2020. fiveby(zero) 02:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I never denied that there is a "consensus" of ill-informed scholars who cite each other and a 130 year old book, rather than the actual primary sources. In my humble opinion, I don't think those scholars are the "best sources" for this issue. But if I'm outvoted on this, we can change the order back to "4 or 1 BCE." As long as we keep providing evidence and arguments in the Death/Dating section. Montgolfière (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Prior to your edits the article had (c. 72 – c. 4 BCE) and i suspect you've created a false balance within the "Dating" section. You don't get to declare "sides" say those which do not support your content position "ill-informed" and claim that is some application of WP:BESTSOURCES. A best sources approach would be, for instance, starting with the Oxford Bibliographies article from Marshak author of The Many Faces of Herod the Great linked by tgeorgescu. Examine what those authors say on the matter, how they characterize any disagreement in dating and who the cite on the issue. fiveby(zero) 13:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think I've created a false balance, I encourage you to actually look at the arguments for Schürer's chronology yourself. Feel free to add them to the Death/Dating section.

I don't have access to the Marshak article. If you do, please go ahead and put his arguments for Schürer in Death/Dating. I suspect, however, that he will simply assume Schürer's chronology and will provide little or no justification for it. That's how this "consensus" gets perpetuated. Montgolfière (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Fiveby now. For better or worse, Wikipedia puts greater weight on the balance of views within the academic community rather than our own interpretation of which perspectives have stronger arguments than each other. Given that Steinmann himself states that the majority view is the 4BCE date, that should receive greater weight. Hopefully the scholarship will change to reflect the weight of the arguments as you have assessed them.

Here is an article from the opposing (1BCE) side that replies to some of Steinmann's arguments, for what it's worth. This author has several more about this question as well ( ).

If there was a clear delineation of sources that are Herod experts vs those that comment on the chronology only in passing, that would be grounds for a distinction per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:RSCONTEXT, but I didn't see such a delineation and indeed both 'sides' of this debate agree that the consensus view is the 4BCE date. Katzrockso (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The first article you cited misreads Antiquities 1.3.3 in support of Nisan reckoning; the word translated "ordinary affairs" is διοίκησις, which means "administration," which certainly would include the reigns of kings. Steinmann has pointed this out and if they had read him, they would know that they need to at least respond to this argument. Josephus clearly implies that kings use Tishrei reckoning, and he is an earlier source than the Mishnah. Josephus also demonstrably uses accession year reckoning, since in several places his math is inconsistent with inclusive counting, but not with accession years, as Steinmann and Young have also shown. Herod himself used accession year reckoning when he minted a "year 3" coin after taking Jerusalem, since if he used inclusive counting, it would be year 4.

Links 13 and 14 seem to mostly respond to the weakest arguments for 1 BC. Link 15 is interesting, and I hadn't seen it before, but even if it's entirely correct it wouldn't rebut the decisive arguments from the Caligula statue crisis and coin evidence. Nevertheless, it might be worth mentioning in the article. Montgolfière (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't whether we can evaluate these arguments in the sources and decide that one source is better than the other. I could 100% agree with Steinmann and think that these rebuttals are all bogus (in reality I haven't read enough to comment), but we still have to reflect what the balance of reliable sources say, not our interpretation of those sources. Katzrockso (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the false balance comes not necessarily from present the 1 sources and discussing them, but presenting them as newer and unchallenged, your argument here. I was going to say that you should have access to Marshak through WP:Library, try logging on and viewing the link again. If that doesn't work Oxford Bibliographies is in the sources list. Unfortunately there seems to be a service issue with the Oxford collections right now. Encourage you to try later tho, lot's of very valuable and underutilized resources available.

The specific article tho is annotated bibliography, a tertiary source and not really appropriate as a source for citation. It's useful maybe sometimes as a model for what WP content should look like, but mostly as a means for identifying best sources. I checked Marshak's The Many Faces of Herod the Great: he simply states 4 without qualification, discussion, or citations. Not really useful for article content here, but one indication of what the consensus view is and how far disputed. Haven't checked anything else yet. fiveby(zero) 17:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

So far the sources i am seeing supporting your view is along these lines ...acording to most scholars, occurred in 4 BCE with footnote For the dissenting view arguing he died in 2/1 BCE see...FILMER...STEINMANN. (what about 5?) Ideally we do i think want to find a quality independent source which directly addresses the issue and presents arguments and counter-arguments. If such has not been written yet or we are unable to find it then i think the content should default to 4 with footnote and some limited content in the body. fiveby(zero) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the latest research on Herodian chronology (basically since Steinmann's 2009 article) overwhelmingly favors the 1 BC date for Herod's death. I don't think that that's true at all. Your argument seems to boil down to dismissing absolutely anyone post 2009 who uses the 4 BCE date as just citing the 4 BC date without questioning it, but that's your personal assessment; it seems to me that our default assessment ought to be that Steinmann has proposed a novel theory which has not yet attracted much support. Based on that, we should use 4 in the lead and template (solely, not first, but as the only number), and mention Steinmann solely in a sentence in the body somewhere. His paper qualifies as something akin to what we'd call a single study with an exceptional conclusion in other contexts I don't agree with the argument that "Herod specialists" support Steinmann, and that feels like a No true scotsman argument where you're excluding anyone who rejects his argument from being a specialist because you think they're wrong. Your edit here were inappropriately lending undue weight to Steinmann's largely marginal views, and ought to be entirely reverted. Steinmann should get one or two sentences, maybe a paragraph at most, which make it clear that his views are marginal; he shouldn't be referenced anywhere else and all other dates should treat 4 BC as the accepted date, as it is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that the 4BC date is the predominant/consensus one and should receive much greater WP:WEIGHT, it is factually inaccurate to claim that Steinmann has proposed a novel theory or that he is the only proponent. The original proponent of this alternative chronology is actually Filmer in 1966. Steinmann cites a number of others who agree with Filmer's chronology;

Those who accept Filmer’s 1 BC for the death of Herod include Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114 (1982): 29–42; Paul Keresztes, Imperial Rome and the Christians: From Herod the Great to About 200 A.D. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989): 1–43; Ernest L. Martin, The Birth of Christ Recalculated, 2nd ed. (Pasadena, CA: Foundation for Biblical Research, 1980); idem “The Nativity and Herod’s Death,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos, 85–92; Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, (rev. ed.; Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1998): 284-291, §486–500 and table 139; Andrew E. Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 1–2

I bolded the distinct names for emphasis. Again, this does not mean that these scholars constitute the majority view, but it definitely means that Steinmann hasn't proposed any "novel theory". I also disagree that this would constitute such a marginal view to be confined to only a few sentences in the body. Indeed, as this articles notes , technically the 1 BCE dating precedes Filmer and was perhaps first proposed in 1629.

We should report what 'both' "sides" say in the text, but be careful not to give undue WEIGHT to the minority 1BCE date. An alternative might be to create an article on Chronology of Herod the Great given the volume of published literature on the topic and then summarize it WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in the parent article.

An even more minority view would be that of this paper , which argues that Herod died in 3AD. There are a few other dates out there too, such as John Pratt's 1AD . Vladimir Blaha was another proponent of the 1AD dating for Herod's death, based on his chronology giving Jesus's births in 1BC. A few people have even entertained a 5BC date of death for Herod Katzrockso (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

A less reliable source here , since I am unfamiliar with this publication, but it also argues for a 1BC/1AD date of death for Herod.

This book by simple:Gerard Gertoux "Herod the Great and Jesus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence" presents a contrast between "mainstream historians" and "scientific scholars" on the date of death of Herod, and he supports a date of 1BC as supported by "scientific scholars".

I wonder if there is more scholarship in other languages. Katzrockso (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aquillion Given the earlier discussion, I went ahead and reverted my own changes to put 4 BCE first.

Your unilateral decision to completely remove the arguments for the 1 BCE was unwarranted, and I have reverted it. Steinmann's view is not a "novel theory," and many other scholars have proposed 1 BCE. Montgolfière (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ermenrich Do you agree with Aquillion's position? If not, then we should probably revert the page back to "4 or 1 BCE." Aquillion unilaterally changed the page and never responded to Katzrockso's arguments.

FWIW, I would be happy with making a Chronology of Herod the Great article as well. But if we're going to do that, we're acknowledging that 1 BCE is far from a fringe view, and many scholars have held to it for decades. So it makes sense to list it as a secondary date. Montgolfière (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy acknowledging the proposal, but I do agree that it's not a majority position and we should follow the consensus view of scholars on the date.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we represent views of reliable sources in WP:PROPORTION to their prominence in the overall array of sources. A version of the article that minimizes the discussion of the minority view does not comply with this policy. Katzrockso (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

So does a version of the article that maximizes that view.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree Katzrockso (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm no longer defending the idea that 1 BCE should be listed first, even though I think the evidence for it is overwhelming. I'd be satisfied with restoring "4 or 1 BCE" to the intro sentence.

I also think we should restore the discussion under the Death section, until one of us has time to draft a Chronology of Herod the Great article. Montgolfière (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Palestine 36#The Free Press attribution—In the article about the Palestinian film Palestine 36, should attribution for the contentious opinions of Oren Kessler published in The Free Press (entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) state that they were published in The Free Press? إيان (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

From the published opinion source it is not designated as a guest opinion and links to his profile on the work, so it would seem proper to identify this as being an opinion by him for the Free Press. If it were a guest editorial then attribution wouldn't be necessary. Masem (t) 19:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. If an opinion is due it should be attributed as general practice and, in the specifics, I think Masem is correct here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

genuinely curious, is there a specific policy page that describes using attribution of the publication venue for long-time editors vs guest editors? it makes some intuitive sense ofc, but kinda curious if its codified in wikipolicy/ User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no policy but general how reliable sources themselves place inline attribution to other articles. Also often the person that authors these is non notable but the work they wrote for is, so it makes sense to mention that work to provide source authority. Masem (t) 22:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

kinda divided. The reader is smart enough to consider looking at the cited source if they want to consider it further. However, The Free Press is essentially considered a self-published source currently on WP:RSN by Bari Weiss (who has self-identified as an unhinged zionist), so inclusion of the publication could be useful to understand that it has a required framing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I’ve commented on the talk page to the effect that a reasonable compromise is easy to reach. I want to add that if anyone wants to relitigate Free Press reliability so that it’s always attributed it would be legitimate to do so at the RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all for input. I also think it would be useful to have a more consolidated community appraisal of TFP, though I don’t know if quality has changed since the recent Paramount acquisition. إيان (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

there seems to be less a question of if the free press is elevated by the acquistion into CBS News so much as if CBS news is downgraded by the installment of bari weiss. So far, with regards to the latter, there seems to be wait and see but remain concerned, seems the free press really hasn't changed much though User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you please give me your opinion? I've put all the information on the talk page. It shouldn't be difficult to resolve; we just need to specify which sources are reliable and which aren't. Mhmdgrd (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a formal objection regarding the representation of the Ghudwana area on this page. The current map and related descriptions appear to present disputed territory as part of Pakistan, which is highly misleading and does not reflect the complex and contested nature of the area. Such representation risks violating Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality and verifiability. The Ghudwana region is part of a sensitive border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and any recent developments involving military presence or administrative claims do not automatically establish legal sovereignty under international law. According to the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), the use of force or occupation cannot be used as a legitimate basis for territorial ownership. Wikipedia, as a global knowledge platform, carries the responsibility to present neutral, balanced, and well-sourced information, especially on disputed geopolitical issues. Displaying one-sided claims without clearly indicating the dispute misinforms readers and undermines credibility. ✅ We respectfully request: That the map be revised to clearly mark Ghudwana as disputed territory That all claims be supported by reliable, independent sources That editors ensure strict adherence to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy This issue is not just about a map — it is about accuracy, neutrality, and respect for international standards. We urge Wikipedia editors and administrators to review this matter carefully and correct any misleading representation. Concerned Contributor ~2026-19262-77 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see where we say it is Pakistani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Also the maps at Ghudwana clearly do not claim it is territory of Afghanistan or of Pakistan so I don't see any required action. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

That's definitely AI written. TheChestertonian (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Markfield Institute of Higher Education#Islamic Foundation about how much weight its affiliation with The Islamic Foundation should be given. This could use additional input to find a solution that satisfied the NPOV challenge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Racism in association football#Indiscriminate listing of events about whether the article fails WP:BALASP, and more input would be helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The draft guideline WP:GENOCIDE appears to be nearly ready for proposing as an RfC. Comments at Wikipedia talk:Genocide#Is this ready for proposing as an RfC? are welcome there. For background, please browse the (archived) brainstorming of Nov–Dec 2025 and the prior debates table, and the talk page and associated editing histories. Boud (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Death penalty law 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. Docentation (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: The article in question was recently moved to Death penalty law (Israel). Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Posting here for everyone to see, the RFC just started, additional views/votes would be nice. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Requesting input and editors willing to tackle the issue at hand at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berberism#POV_tag. Lankdadank (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead of the article Economic inequality currently states:

While the "optimum" amount of economic inequality is widely debated, there is a near-universal belief that complete economic equality (Gini of zero) would be undesirable and unachievable.

This seems to me to ignore the extensive political-philosophical literature that argues at least for the "desirable" part, whether it be Marxian socialism or Ronald Dworkin / Amartya Sen style liberalism. It also fails to account for the section in the article body that does discuss socialism's goal of creating a classless society. I therefore made the following revision:

The optimum amount of economic inequality is a widely debated topic in political philosophy. While some social theorists have argued for the creation of a classless society in which all people are social and economic equals, others believe that complete economic equality would be either undesirable or unachievable.

This was reverted by Avatar317 with the edit summary (in part) Karl Marx's writings are NON-mainstream economics, and the source doesn't say his views are representative of a broader consensus. I brought the matter to the article's talk page (here) but do not see much scope for productive engagement between Avatar317 and myself after reading their response. Input from the broader community would be helpful here. How can we best capture the due weight of the various points of view and settle upon a neutral presentation of the scholarship? Generalrelative (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Again you fail to provide sources backing up your OPINION of "extensive political-philosophical literature". The current lead statement is sourced to an overview of the literature in the field.

The article currently has under the "Perspectives" section, these sub-headings:

5.1 Socialist perspectives

5.2 Meritocracy

5.3 Liberal perspectives

5.4 Social justice arguments

5.5 Effects on social welfare

5.6 Capabilities approach

5.7 Societal acceptance

5.8 Public perception and accuracy thereof

5.9 Arguments that economic inequality is not a problem

Why do you think that the Socialist perspective is so important that it deserves its own statement in the lead, while you choose to ignore all the other sub-sections? That seems very WP:UNDUE to me. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

agree the socialist perspective is undue. just say there is widespread disagreement to the acceptable amount of economic inequality. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

section 5.9 needs significant beefing up, and its inclusion is definitely undue in lede User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I see several issues with that sentence (While the "optimum" amount of economic inequality is widely debated, there is a near-universal belief that complete economic equality (Gini of zero) would be undesirable and unachievable.):

1) It's not a reflection of the body of the article per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY

2) It's a close paraphrase of the source

3) It's a close paraphrase of the source that misrepresents what the source says. "Near universal" and "widespread agreement" are not the same.

On point 1), this is definitely not WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead. I would recommend removal. Katzrockso (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed edit by Generalrelative refers to Marx anyways, since Karl Marx explicitly opposed "equality" as a bourgeois notion (see e.g. , but also the Gothakritik) Katzrockso (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the line the "optimum" amount of economic inequality is widely debated appears to be misrepresenting the quote cited to support the claim. The quote seems not to be saying that there is debate over what the optimal level is but rather that it's widely debated if there even exists such a level of economic inequality. In other words the text is stating the debate is between people who, while they agree that an optimal level exists, disagree about what the optimal level is, when the quote cited appears to be saying that many people involved in the debate are of the view that there is no such thing as an optimal level of economic inequality. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

ah, that's interesting as well.

I'm not sure we even need a citation for that first clause, per Wikipedia:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY there is clearly obvious differing perspectives below. the second clause is undue, though.

We could just reduce the entire sentence to The optimal amount of economic inequality is widely debated. with no citations User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's broad enough to not require an in-the-lede citation and sounds perfectly fine to me tbh. Not everything has to be explained in perfect detail in a lede after all. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a neutral description. As noted in the source I linked above, as well as a number of others on Marx's perspective, the concept of "equality" (and this inequality) itself has been subject to criticism , making a statement that presupposes the existence of an "optimal level of economic inequality" non-neutral. Katzrockso (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I feel rather strange using wikivoice to claim any absolute, and though the sentence isn't wikivoice, it definitely is getting there. its also a sentence that seems like proving a negative.

There is WP:WEASEL happening here too, there is a source for the claim yes, but the authors of the source don't make the (un)claim, they simply restate that unknown others make the (un)claim.

It appears that few writers on inequality advocate for complete equality in the distribution of economic goods and the same may be true for public opinion. None of the opinion surveys I was able to locate asked specifically if respondents favored an egalitarian distribution and the sense that seems to emerge from these surveys is that fairly strong majorities believe the economic system is somewhat unfair and that government interventions aimed at reducing current levels of inequality should be pursued without aiming for complete equality.

— Peterson 2017

It would be better to just attribute it as Peterson and scholar x, y, z, in a literature review, states that most economics consider complete economic equality undesireable...

Or better just remove from the lede. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

actually, is source 15 the only source that is being used for that claim? i feel the section could use more research and filling out User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

USERN need a few fixes. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

An RFC has been opened at Talk:Ayyubid dynasty#RFC: Inclusion of Rawādīya origins and Ayyubid-sponsored genealogies in Origins section regarding the inclusion of sourced scholarly material on Rawādīya origins in the Origins section. Input from editors familiar with this topic area would be welcome. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page about it, but this article is heavily influenced by what appears to be direct language from the organization or one of its supporters. It uses language like "accomplishments" not within primary source quotes, but as stated fact. RabinoWIN (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty much a reprint of their website. Rewrote it heavily, trimmed the promo material, tried to balance it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Genocide 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. Boud (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Editors gatekeeping and spreading wrong information about history of a prominent surname titled "Mahapatra or Mohapatra" through Wikipedia pages. ~2026-21382-86 (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Examples? Simonm223 (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Nobody Against Putin is a documentary film that just won the Academy Award. In the past few weeks it has been banned by the Russian government. One of the directors has been labeled a foreign agent by the Russian government.

The Wikipedia page has evidence of a group of Russian editors attempting to discredit it as much as possible. I copy-paste the below detailed criticism from the talk page of the film:

"This article gives the impression that the film’s critical reception is more mixed and controversial than it actually is, and may not reflect due weight in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines. A single article from a non-film critic in the Kyiv Independent is given similar weight throughout the article as the combined 47 positive reviews that make up the film’s 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. As written, both the heading and the critical response section overemphasize this one source and create a misleading sense of broader negative reception.

There are valid discussions within Russian domestic and émigré circles about the film’s ethics and filmmaking choices. However, these debates have not been widely reflected in Western critical coverage. The article currently cites NYTimes  and Reuters  to suggest a broader international controversy, but both sources only note that such criticisms have been raised by 'some Russians,' which does not support the implication of a widespread critical response.

It may be worth revising this article to better reflect due balance and accurately distinguish between localized debate and overall critical consensus. Stobing12 (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)"

Having looked at the edit history I think you are actually the one making what look like non-neutral edits. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The edits were squarely addressed at these specfic issues. It would be helpful to hear why you think these issues are not valid. Or why the edits went beyond the scope of these issues. Stobing12 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

These edits look pretty decidedly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Curious why you think that. The film holds 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, yet roughly half the critical reception section is devoted to a single op-ed from a Ukrainian outlet that isn't a film review...which is also cited in three other sections. Fairly weak citations supporting a local controversery are used to sugest an international controversy. The edits seemed sound to me. Stobing12 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly could not care less about what percent a movies has on rotten tomatoes. Like in general it's not information I think is useful or relevant. To any understanding of any film. Ever.

And while I have personal misgivings about the New York Times as a source for political articles I'd hardly call that a weak citation for a "local" controversy in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Also critics can like a film and the film is still controversial. Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom has a 71% tomato score. Possession (1981 film) has an 87% rating. Belladonna of Sadness 90%, Super Size Me 92%. All these films have been subject to controversy. And all are far older than this film which means there have been more time for dissenting reviewers to have their say. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this addresses the criticism. The addition of controversy is not problematic, as I mentioned in my original post. But political op-eds should not be put into a section about film criticism. And everything should be appropriately weighted. Stobing12 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Let me look at the sources again. I don't recall seeing any political op eds but it's possible I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The NYT and Reuters articles are not opinion pieces. The Meduza article is written by a film critic and is from a major independent Russian media outlet and as such is likely a due opinion. Please avoid mischaracterizing sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not what I have wrote. I mention above that the issue is about the section on film criticism. Titled "critical reception" if you need more precision. The NYTimes and Reuters are appropriately not cited here, no problems there. Meduza is also not cited in the critical reception section, no problems there. But it is innapropriate to put a op-ed arguing a political position as some sort of negative critical receiption in contrast to the positive film reviews from professional critics. ihttps://web.archive.org/web/20260318211445/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/film-nobody-against-putin-russian-ukraine-propoganda-b2940175.html Stobing12 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Look, you came to NPOV/N and you got an answer. I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this all day. If others want to give feedback they, of course, may. Otherwise, sometimes a noticeboard doesn't give you the feedback you were hoping for. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

the nytimes is weak to substantiate the local controversy because an critical opinion of ultimately unknown provenance, i.e. "some russians," is cherry picked to substantiate a robust criticism section. Unlike this article, the NYTimes article itself has an appropriately neutral tone, where the opinion of "some Russians" is mentioned quickly in passing, as is appropriate for opinions of ultimately unknown provenance, and contextualized together with interviews with other voices and the filmmakers themselves. Stobing12 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Also I've noticed you seem to have created your account explicitly to edit about this one movie. Do you have a COI that should be declared? Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)