Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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 (novel analysis made by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Jackie McClelland

Jackie McClelland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could do with a complete rewrite to get rid of the all the fawning, sadly I'm too busy with various other thing right now. FDW777 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I made a few edits, but yeah it's a lot to work through! Swirlymarigold (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I did several edits, mostly combining duplicate refs and fixing refs. I did remove one whole section as COATRACK or TRIVIA. The "Legacy" section is mostly WP:COATRACK.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I've done a little bit, still plenty to go. I'm not impressed by the number of fawning quotes that remain in the article, but I'm wary of totally gutting it although that might be the best option. FDW777 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

David Sengeh

Also referred to as David Moinina Sengeh. Has become involved in the public part of the Bolle Jos case . Particularly challenging the integrity of Dutch minister van der Wiel.

In context to that, I looked at David Sengeh's page, and found a primary source with flattering language (referencing to his SoundCloud profile):

He is a prolific musician.

It also contains what seems to be an overstatement implying that he is regular writer, where the source only shows 2 guest articles.

He writes for HuffPost.

The linked IBM articles don't exist (anymore). I have not checked archive.org if there are old versions of those.

The rest of his page contains only a list of accolades and achievements. I don't know enough about the subject to become involved myself. But the Bolle Jos case is high stakes, so accurate information should be a priority. David Sengeh's statements on AYV that there are allegations against Sierra Leone of the presence of Bolle Jos seem to be false, as the international police investigation's state seems to have been operating with certainty for months/years?

Ybllaw (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Added topic on talk page: Talk:David_Moinina_Sengeh Ybllaw (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces thirst-trap propaganda

I have concerns about the use of the word "propaganda" in the page name, because it seems to me to carry a negative POV that should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution, particularly in the page name. I've been trying to address this at Talk:Israel Defense Forces thirst-trap propaganda#Requested move 31 August 2026, and am somewhat baffled by the pushback. As I said there, I recognize that there are some reliable scholarly sources that discuss this in the context of propaganda, and I have no problem with using the word as a quote attributed to sources, but I don't think it should remain in the title. I'd welcome some input from uninvolved editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The use of "propaganda" is perfectly fine for this article title. It is what it is. Reliable sources use the term as well. Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. -Object404 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

on that page rolling stones can’t be used as a source per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, i’m not sure i see a preponderance of sourcing calling it propaganda? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be propaganda par excellence. But the article seems to have NPOV issues other than one word on the title, but even "thirst-trap" seems like a more questionable choice for naming. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think arguments of the form "it seems to me to carry a negative POV that should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" work for the propaganda label. The label is routinely used in article titles e.g. Canadian propaganda during World War II, Propaganda in the United States and many, many other pages. If readers want to see the label as inherently non-neutral or negative that is up to them. Objective factual descriptions of the activities of the IDF by reliable sources using the English language often carry a negative POV for many people (including many readers and editors) presumably because many people's value systems are not aligned with the IDF's. That is not our problem. This seems like a question that should be decided via source sampling rather than imagining what readers might think when they see a label in a title. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The word propaganda is a straightforward description of, well, propaganda. The 'thirst trap' bit might have been a bit iffy but the sources seem to bear it out and the pictures certainly conform with what the term is used for. So I can't see any problem. NadVolum (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond. I've just posted at the RM discussion that it's obvious to me what everyone else thinks, and I'm going to drop the issue. I agree with the point about Rolling Stone, and I'll focus instead on fixing that sourcing and similar things in the page content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

There remains an ongoing dispute over whether or not the extant sources establish that the IDF is the body doing the thirst traps (rather than the IDF merely tolerating individual soldiers doing it). Additional eyes would probably be wise. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Such images are posted everywhere by the military and civilians of all countries. But is it an official propaganda by the state? If so, then it deserves a page, but I did not see any proof of this after quickly looking at sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Twelve Tribes communities — "cult" in the lead, attribution question

Disclosing up front: I am a disclosed member of the Twelve Tribes community (WP:COI), the subject of this article. I am not proposing direct edits, but am seeking outside policy guidance on a sourcing and voice-of-Wikipedia question that has stalled on the talk page.

The lead of Twelve Tribes communities currently states in direct voice-of-Wikipedia narrative that the group "is a cult and new religious movement," without attribution. On talk, I raised that this conflicts with MOS:LABEL, which classifies "cult" as a value-laden word and states that wide usage calls for "in-text attribution" rather than direct assertion in Wikipedia's voice.

Checking citation 14 (which carries the unattributed claim), two scholars who've written most extensively about the group take different positions: Susan Palmer consistently uses "new religious movement," and Stuart Wright uses "fundamentalist Christian communal organization" -- neither uses "cult" in the cited text. Other sources in the bundle (Whitsett & Rosow, Lalich & McLaren, SPLC) do use "cult."

I proposed keeping "cult" in the lead alongside "new religious movement," both attributed, and splitting citation 14 so each term points to sources that actually support it. The request was declined twice on talk, without the MOS:LABEL wording itself being addressed directly. Discussion here: Talk:Twelve Tribes communities#Lead says "is a cult," body attributes it — should probably match

Question for NPOVN: Under MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV, when secondary sources vary between academic designations (NRM) and value-laden labels (cult), does policy require in-text attribution for "cult" rather than asserting it as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's voice? Mevaser (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you identify some sourcing with a better description of what this group is? Theres a giant set of 8 or so citations at the end of that cult sentence, im not sure i wanna review them all rn, but if you could find that there is obvious discrepancy in how the group is categorized fhat can hell User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure -- here's what I've found checking through citation 14's bundle so far:

Use "new religious movement" / neutral terms, not "cult," in the cited text:

• Palmer, in Lewis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998), pp. 334–335 -- never uses "cult" in the chapter text; the word appears only in the title of the book series itself.
• Wright (1997), Review of Religious Research — discusses the group at length (already cited elsewhere in the article for his "front-end/back-end disproportionality" media-coverage analysis) but calls it a "fundamentalist Christian communal organization." Where "cult" appears at all, it's in quotes, attributed to media/anticult sources, not his own classification.
• Palmer (2010), Nova Religio 13(3) -- calls the group an "international millenarian organization" / "communal NRM" in her own voice.

Use "cult" directly:

• Whitsett & Rosow, in Women's Journey to Empowerment... (Oxford UP, 2019) -- uses "cult" repeatedly, in a chapter focused on a former member's account.
• Lalich & McLaren, Escaping Utopia (Routledge, 2018) -- same, framed around ex-member narratives.
• SPLC (2018) -- uses "cult" directly in its own reporting voice, not attributed to a third party.

So it's not a fringe-vs-mainstream split -- Palmer has done fieldwork with the group since 1986 and is by far the most extensively cited academic source in the article. She doesn't use "cult" in her own analytical voice anywhere I've found. That's what led me to think this needs attribution rather than an unqualified assertion either way.

Haven't yet checked the remaining two (Swantko's papers, and the p.155 cite to Palmer's Children in New Religions) as closely -- happy to if useful. Mevaser (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey Mevaser, I agree that the reliable sources aren't all beating the same drum on how the group is labelled. Palmer's Nova Religio abstract describes it as an "American communal new religious movement" and an Oxford chapter abstract says "Christian-based nontraditional movement". I agree cult is value-laden label and under MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV, it should be attributed. I suggest "The Twelve Tribes is a communal new religious movement; it has also been described as a cult by some scholars and organizations." NicoR8 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That does make sense but a direct attribution would be needed to avoid weasel wording. It should not be that hard finding someone that actually called it a cult MacTheOp (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

based on sources that have been provided above that refer to it as a cult, what about something like "...it has also been described as a cult by some of its former members and the SPLC"? EM (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Mmm I have to say, if its in a book about a subject, it's likely to be part of that subject unless the book says otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

This rewording sounds like an improvement to me. Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all, I appreciate the time you've put into this (@NicoR8, Eucalyptusmint, and Katzrockso:). I agree that "some scholars and organizations" on its own would read as weasel wording.

One factual note so whoever settles the wording has the full picture: besides former members and the SPLC, Whitsett & Rosow (Oxford UP, 2019) and Lalich & McLaren (Routledge, 2018) are scholarly works that also use "cult." I'll leave the final choice of wording to uninvolved editors, and given my COI I'd rather not pick the exact text myself.

Since I shouldn't edit the article directly, would one of you be willing to make the change? Otherwise I'll link to this discussion on the article talk page as an edit request. Thanks again for the guidance. Mevaser (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

As NicoR8 rightly points out, there’s not a uniform characterisation used in scholarship from experts in the relevant topic areas. Specialists in abuse and control of women, and specialists in high-control groups and cults more generally, refer factually to the subject here as a cult. Scholars of religious movements view it as a religious movement. It’s not appropriate to ignore or sideline the scholarship of one group of relevant experts without good reason, while taking another’s view as fact. To maintain a neutral representation of the sources - if seeking to avoid the wikivoice use of the term cult - one solution might be to attribute both terms to the relevant disciplines. (Such an approach has recently been implemented in the article body). Cambial — foliar❧ 01:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

e.g. Scholarship from experts in the sociology of power relations and social control, and others in clinical trauma therapy, characterise the group as a cult. Sociologists of religion characterise the group as a new religious movement. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Cambial yellowing:, that seems fair to me. Attributing both terms to the fields that use them answers the wikivoice concern without sidelining anyone's scholarship. I'll leave the exact wording to you and the other editors here.

Two small details for whoever drafts it -- 1) the "cult" sourcing also includes the SPLC and former members' accounts (per Eucalyptusmint's suggestion above), not only scholars. 2) any discipline labels should track what the cited sources actually are, so nothing reads as an editor's own characterization. also, it makes sense to split the current bundled citation on that sentence so each term points to the sources that use it. Mevaser (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Just checking back -- happy to wait longer if useful, but wanted to ask again whether anyone's able to put the agreed wording into the article, or help finalize the exact text if that's still open. No rush, just didn't want this to quietly stall. Mevaser (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Cambial yellowing was this in the most recent revision? could you link the diff where this was added, as i'm unable to find it. But I think that this wording addresses the wikivoice/weasel wording concerns. The other views (former member, SPLC) could be incorporated in these sentences as well (i.e "Scholarship from experts in the sociology of power relations and social control, and others in clinical trauma therapy, characterise the group as a cult, a description also used by some former members and the SPLC; Sociologists of religion characterise the group as a new religious movement. EM (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Provo Canyon School has an RfC

Provo Canyon School has an RfC for MOS:LEAD. 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. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Steele dossier

Steele dossier is a complicated topic and an AMPOL CTOP. I would appreciate additional eyes to consider whether it is worthwhile to PRESERVE large parts of the article as we improve it incrementally, replace older sources with better ones, and address any errors or mistakes that are found, or examples of improper usage of BLP information or SYNTH. Mostly, though, it seems that some people think the entire article is bad and should be blown up as an ADVOCACY essay. I don't think so, so I am asking for uninvolved eyes to look at it. Andre🚐 06:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

List of the tallest statues in India

Could any knowledgeable editor see whether the Background text on List of the tallest statues in India represents the source properly and also whether it belongs above the list table entries? The list was organized by height until September 23, when it was split into Pre 1980s and Recent. The Background paragraph now introduces the Recent table and says large statues have been built since the late 1980s "following" Hindu nationalist resurgence and the rise of the BJP, "for political stakes." The source (Jain 2021) gives several reasons, including economic reforms (p. 2), caste based politics (p. 4), vernacular capitalism (pp. 12–13) and others with Hindu nationalism as one of them. The table entries also include statues commissioned by non BJP governments. Daniel Case, the protecting administrator, asked to start talk page discussion and inviting other knowledgeable editors. ~2026-51419-69 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

List of the tallest statues in India link for anyone myself included User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu American Foundation RFC

Ongoing consideration about the hindutva label. Started an rfc User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

European Academy of Engineering, etc.

We have several biographies (see also external links) saying that people have been elected to the "European Academy of Engineering". As this article explains, that is a predatory organisation.

I think we should remove such claims, and review the biographies on which they occur. Based on the evidence in that article, the EAU website is not a reliable source.

The same goes for the "Austrian Academy of Engineering" (no hits found at present) and "National Academy of Artificial Intelligence" (external links), which seem to be part of the same "academy mill". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:03, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

EAE now all done; NAAI to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:25, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

See also declared paid editor User:EaconJING whose Draft:National Academy of Artificial Intelligence was declined last month and whose talk page is illuminating; adding "International Institute of Film Science and Arts" (IIFSA; links), and the "International Institute of Literature and Arts" (IILA; no hits). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I think I have now removed the claims, and links, from all affected articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Traditional medicine/ethnobotanical section on plants' articles

Hi, I'd like some clarification on traditional medicine edits I've been making. I've been adding to various plant articles' traditional medicine sections that the plant has been used as traditional medicine in various countries, citing Julia F. Morton, Atlas of Medicinal Plants of Middle America: Bahamas to Yucatan.

Zefr has raised concerns about this User talk:Eduardo7z#Traditional medicine edits. My understanding is that I'm not adding medical claims; I'm adding the ethnobotanical/historical fact that these plants were used as traditional medicines. Is this kind of historical ethnobotanical content considered relevant enough for plant articles or does it fall under WP:UNDUE or some "not relevant" policy? I'd appreciate some opinions. Eduardo7z (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that the history of traditional medical uses of plants is relevant for two reasons. First, beliefs about the medicinal properties of plants are a significant part of the cultures of many prescientific societies. Second, a few of the traditional herbal remedies have been studied by scientists and served as a basis for important modern pharmaceuticals. An obvious example is the discovery of artemisinin by Tu Youyou, which resulted from her study of hundreds of traditional Chinese medicines. She won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; according to the Nobel Prize website, “Drugs based on artemisinin have led to the survival and improved health of millions of people.” NightHeron (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it can be added based on coverage in WP:RS (another example in addition to the one provided by NightHeron is Willow#History_of_use_in_folk_medicine). This info could also be incorporated into the "Use" section as well, where relevant, per the plants template if a separate section isn't DUE. There's an important distinction between documenting traditional uses by particular cultures which can be encyclopedic vs endorsing the claimed efficacy of those uses. EM (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It all depends on the details of the wording. There's a big difference between saying something generally was used in folk medicine, and saying substance X was "used to treat" some specific medical condition, which takes us into the realm of WP:BMI. It's debatable how due this content is, since it seems pretty much every plant has been tried for something. If a plant is significant as (say) one of the plant sources of anti-cancer agents there will be way more sourcing than an entry in an atlas. Bon courage (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I see, my follow up question would be on wording, initially I mentioned the places, preparation and what it was used for as per Morton and Zefr trimmed it down based on conciseness/MEDDATE and around concerns of reading as endorsing the uses (e.g. Special:Diff/1374956166, Special:Diff/1375085419, Special:Diff/1375087152), I then went on to only mention the countries, not the uses; since it was the Traditional Medicine section I assumed it was fine to include the uses because they were in the appropriate section (so the reader would know those are Traditional/Folk practises, not scientific knowledge), though I can see why one would worry about how to present this kind of information and am fine with omitting the uses and leaving just the countries/regions like I did here: Special:Diff/1375792463, Special:Diff/1375790391, Special:Diff/1375786528 Eduardo7z (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Reasonable people may disagree. If silverweed was used as a traditional medicine in Leicestershire is that encylopedic knowledge or a factoid that falls afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING? In the pre-scientific era many plants were used for many applications, often fruitlessly. Should we also be putting in the mouse article that fried mice were a folk medicine used for whooping cough? Same issue. Bon courage (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The trimmed versions read extremely vague to me to be adding something substantial. I think it's a case by case for each about considering due weight for inclusion. For the ones covered by multiple reliable sources, I don't see a problem with noting it with the location and time period specific facts, which indicates an ethnographic description rather than a medical claim Swirlymarigold (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't plan to include every single entry just for the sake of it since some only had a single or two uses recorded either by Morton herself or a single source, but not adding when it was a whole page of citations felt odd; lets take Lantana camara entry for example here: https://archive.org/details/atlasofmedicinal0002mort/page/738/mode/2up, she cites 16 sources and usage across various countries (the Bibliography section starts at page 1297), it doesn't read to me like a random factoid like the mouse and silverweed example Bon courage gave, should I include something like that in the article? If so, how? Right now it looks like the article has that phrasing many dislike: "L. camara has also been used in traditional herbal medicines for treating a variety of ailments, including cancer, skin itches, leprosy, chicken pox, measles, asthma and ulcers."; should I add a topic on the talk page mentioning the need to revise the section and include Morton's reference or just add the reference and leave for someone else to revise? Eduardo7z (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That article has some real problems with its WP:BMI sourcing. Lantana camara is a toxic plant sold in supplement form as a quack cure for a load of conditions. I am beginning to think this folk medicine stuff is best omitted unless we have some good WP:SECONDARY sourcing to provide commentary (like doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03837-1_7). Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Perspectives on the Morton source:

1. a respected botanist observed herbalism practices some 60+ years ago, publishing her atlas in 1981
2. there seems to be no evidence that these practices remain in the 21st century or have been reviewed in a subsequent rigorous secondary source within the past 5 years
3. her research regions in the 1960s-70s were Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean countries
4. as shown in the respective individual Wikipedia articles, all or most of these countries have modern medicine resources, with herbalism not discussed as a significant current practice (failing WP:WEIGHT)
5. discussion of herbalism observations from the mid-20th century misleads encyclopedia users to regard plants as having medicinal effects believed only by shamans using them
6. if there was a recent review of Morton's observations or existing herbalism practices for a plant, then that source should be cited; otherwise, MOS:TRIVIA and NOTEVERYTHING apply. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Even with adding specificity to the wording in the article, it doesn't convey all the nuance of how particular the context of the source is. Otherwise it sounds like this plant was generally in use and still is in use commonly, which the source doesn't indicate. For L. camara, at least, I think it'd be better to leave that out Swirlymarigold (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Here are nine review articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals in the last five years that discuss these practices. Therefore, they "have been reviewed in a subsequent rigorous secondary source within the past 5 years". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

If a plant is significant as (say) one of the plant sources of anti-cancer agents. I think that's one of the key things here. We need to be really careful about WP:FRINGE (this discussion actually probably would have been better suited for WP:FTN) by even insinuating a plant may be a valid treatment because it was traditionally used for something. Oftentimes if it is a source for a compound that has therapeutic value, just ingesting the plant isn't necessarily going to be effective or give a consistent dose, but that's something that quacks will often gloss over and appeal to traditional use instead. That's instead what I'd be focusing on for any mention of a plant being used for a treatment first.

Basically, if there isn't MEDRS sourcing saying a plant has compound X along with discussion of if/how it actually works or not for a treatment, I'd be vary wary about mentioning anything at all. We can't circumvent MEDRS because there was traditional use, but that's functionally what can happen if we aren't careful about grounding any mention in MEDRS on this subject. KoA (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether something is due for inclusion in an article is always relative to what other information there is available. To run with @Bon courage's example: information on silverweed in the book you have is likely acceptable to include in that article, but the same is not true for mouse.

If we're talking about plants that there is rather little to be said about in the first place, I think that reliably sourced information about historical use or beliefs about the plant is almost always going to be due.

For cases similar to the L.camara example I would simply avoid listing all the ailments, both because it's unnecessary detail ("various ailments" or a list of ailments with no context and seemingly no rhyme or reason to the belief conveys the same information to me) and because it makes it less of a concern from a biomedical information perspective (it is way less likely some impressionable reader tries to cure an ailment with a poison if we do not say what ailments the poison was once thought to help against). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Speaking on such edits , this content is a mixture of medical and non-medical claims. I think the human health-related content was removed correctly because the source falls short of WP:MEDRS. But non-medical claims could be probably sourced to this book. I would not remove everything. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was coming to this from a purely ethnobotanical/historical perspective, but I recognize the problem on including this kind of information as a inattentive reader may see that and inadvertently think this means it may work or be effective, this could be fixed by having some sort of disclaimer in the traditional medicine section of articles stating that these are merely historical facts and do not represent efficacy, but no article contains that in these sections because it isn't a wikipedia rule/policy, so for now its simpler to just omit the information to avoid the problem altogether, specially on toxic plants; It seems like this issue should be raised to some higher level administrative discussion on how to deal with traditional medicine section in plant articles because they are riddled with material infringing WP:MEDRS and also have that intrinsic problem of gesturing towards medicinal uses when ethnobotanical information is presented without disclaimers Eduardo7z (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But WP:NODISCLAIMERS. I think the solution is to not use poor sources (like this Atlas of plants) and find high-quality on-point discussion in high-quality secondary sources, where it exists. If it doesn't exist, that's an indication the material is undue. Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But it isn't a poor source though, for ethnobotany its a gold mine, the issue is precisely if that information should be presented, and if so, how; the Lantana camara is a very good example of the issue, the book has a plethora of sources, but the plant is toxic, so should the medicinal ethnobotanical information be omitted (inattentive/suggestible readers see that as endorsement) or should it be included (there's a lot of literature on this, it was used by several groups of people on many countries), Datura is another notable example of this (highly toxic, full of traditional medicinal uses around the world). Eduardo7z (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not see the text removed as particularly misleading or problematic because it has a title "Traditional medicine". Still, one should say it was (rather than is) given as a "cure" with such an old/outdated source, and it must be made clear this is not an actual (proven) cure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The removed text didn't include the word "cure" at all. The only present-tense verbs were inside a direct quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is a very poor source for encyclopedic content (though for researchers in the field it would be golden), because it is essentially a WP:PRIMARY compendium of past human folly about herbal medicine, relayed without analysis especially wrt its medical claims. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The book was reliably published in 1981 by Julia Morton. The source is definitely "secondary" since it cites 500+ references. It is a valid RS in the field of Botany, but not in the field of human health. Hence, I think that using it on pages about individual plants is OK, although yes, the more RS the better. And yes, plants have a lot of effects on human health, positive or negative (e.g. toxins). We just need to clearly separate the "traditional medicine" (a legitimate subject described in the book) from the actual modern medicine. That is any claim the plant/drug is an actual cure should follow WP:MEDRS, as oppose to a claim that something was used by shamans, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Citing other sources does not make a source secondary if it just relaying information without the analysis and commentary that characterises truly WP:SECONDARY sources. It just makes it one of the WP:LINKSINACHAIN. For medical uses this "Atlas" is just a compendium of factoids, and if it did try to provide analysis of medical usage it would be unreliable in that as it is not WP:MEDRS. I think the problem is the OP has this source, thinks it's great for Wikipedia, and wants to use it everywhere. But while in the world at large it may be a great and esteemed tome, for the particular niche purpose of writing encyclopedic content about traditional medicine it is of limited use on its own. As noted above, for any particular plant there can be in-depth content that is more useful. Bon courage (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate for WP:RSNB, but no, this is not an indiscriminate compendium of factoids, but a reference work by a notable biologist. According to her page, she was elected a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London in 1974 and well known as a lecturer on toxic, edible, and otherwise useful plants, she wrote 10 books and 94 scientific papers on the subject. This is only in her field of course, i.e. Botany.My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't doubt the achievement of scholarship in pulling together such a lot of source material, or the "reliability" of its content, but it's not a good source for encyclopedic content. In contrast, a source like doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03837-1_7 is. Bon courage (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The book under discussion is actually a Tertiary source, and as such can be used but should be verified by other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the source or the information you've been including; ethnobotany is an encyclopedic topic. However, as in other types of sensitive material (e.g., WP:BLP), it's important to be judicious and thoughtful in describing these ethnobotanical practices, so as not to falsely convey a sense of efficacy. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template suggests a "Uses" section in articles about plant taxa; I think that's more suitable than "Traditional medicine". Similar care should be taken in verbalizing the effects of the plant. "Cure" is obviously inappropriate. "Used for [disease]" is good, although it can become repetitive. I am on the fence about "used to treat". If one assumes that "treatments" are implied to be "effective treatments", then it's misleading. On the other hand, pulling up a ref from my sandbox (finishing a set of fern article led me to ethnobotany), a paper discussing the possible dangers of herbal "anti-diabetics" in Peru uses the phrase "preparations to treat diabetes". See also military anti-shock trousers for a modern example of something described as a treatment, but ineffective. (Although in that case we have secondary discussion that explicitly states it to be ineffective.) Hedging with modifiers like "supposedly" or "believed" could also help; see witch bottle, which describes a folk practice without ever implying its reality in Wikipedia voice through use of those modifiers.

While I approve of describing ethnobotany in general, there is a pattern I see in the literature that I consider pernicious, although I don't actually think it reaches Wikipedia often. Someone will make an extract of some traditional medicinal plant, shove it through an assay, probably at a wildly unrealistic concentration, and when it has some effect in vitro, will imply that this validates claims for traditional use in vivo. For the most part, I think reports that "Extract of species X has in vitro activity Y" are trivial and not to be included in articles about species X. Choess (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if we need to come up with an agreed-upon set of rules for this topic.

"Traditional medicine" (or similar phrases) are usually sub-sections in a ==Uses== section. Editors with an anti-altmed POV have objected to "used for [disease]". Anything less than "This ineffective plant, which is useless at best, does not work for treating anything at all" can be objected to as implying that it might be effective.

For example, Black salve actually cures some superficial skin cancers. An outcome of "complete remission with no residual tumor on biopsy" does sometimes happen per this MEDRS-compliant source. (For reference, a scalpel instantly cures about 98% of these, which is about 10x the cure rate for black salve.) But the article doesn't say that. Instead, we omit information about the small benefit and create a long list of individual patient stories, some of them sourced to newspapers and magazines. I think we are afraid of following the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Common pitfalls: "You emphasise or de-emphasise verifiable facts so that readers will make the "right" choice in the real world" because what if some moron decides that a 10% chance of a cure and a 98% chance of disfiguring scars is better than a 98% chance of a cure and 10% chance of disfiguring scars? (People get scared about Mohs surgery, especially on the nose.) The temptation to push people towards the Right™ Choice is irresistible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

International propagation of the Salafi movement and Wahhabism

I just came across the above article and it looks like it is an article needing very heavy editing to achieve NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Will try working on it MacTheOp (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Reads like an essay for sure User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

AfD opened. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Lateness of Four Noble Truths in Buddhism

I would like to politely request input from other editors regarding a neutrality and due weight dispute related to scholarly interpretations of the lateness of the Four Noble Truths in the article on that topic. Specifically, this article heavily favors positions put forward by Anderson (1999) while relegating or removing substantive counterarguments from subsequent peer-reviewed academic publications.

I have tried to compile a fair summary of prior but unsuccessful attempts at consensus building, in the hope that this can serve as a convenient starting point for further discussions and input by other editors. This summary can be found on the article’s talk page under the title “Concerns Regarding Content Neutrality.”  Since a central issue appears to be a need for help from other editors to arrive at a constructive procedure aligned with WP:NPOV and WP:CON policies, offering an input would not require specialist knowledge of Buddhist doctrine. Buddhist Peter (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You're giving quite a lot of weight to a single author with a conservative, apologetic point of view, while mainstream scholarship since the 19th century has questioned the centrality of the four truths in early Buddhism. Nevertheless, your points are there, with the addition of proper context and intro's, which you hadn't provided. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and for implicitly confirming that these points belong in the article. The core issue that brought this to the noticeboard is procedural: Additions were explicitly proposed on the talk page with a clear 24–48 hour notification window, during which no objections were raised. Per WP:CON, bypassing an established consensus window to unilaterally revert implemented edits undermines the collaborative process. If there are concerns with context or phrasing, the proper path is collaborative refinement on the talk page, not unannounced reverts after a silent deadline. Let's establish a reliable procedure moving forward. Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Buddhist Peter please have a look at WP:NODEADLINE. There's no process whereby if someone is too slow responding that means your single personal opinion then constitutes a consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@ Simonm223 Thank you very much for stepping in and trying to help us move forward. To be clear, I do not claim that a personal opinion constitutes consensus. However, when a proposal is explicitly posted with an open notification window and receives no objections, that silence establishes a working consensus for that timeframe. If you review the timeline given on the talk page, you will see this was not a matter of rushing anyone. Bypassing an established window to unilaterally revert implemented edits—rather than engaging in discussion—is the procedural issue under WP:CON. Collaborative engagement on the talk page is what is needed, rather than dismissing an open process after the fact. Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

These replies read very much like AI or AI touched up. The unnecessary combativeness is notnhelpful either User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 And there was no "established window". @Buddhist Peter requested a deadline. That means literally nothing with regard to consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I realize that the approach I took was a mistake. Allow me to clarify only that my contributions are my own thoughts and reflect my concerns about neutrality; accusations of AI generation are misplaced. Buddhist Peter (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Lolicon has an RfC

Lolicon 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. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal and the section on Criminal conviction for anti-union activity in Hong Kong

This is an area that could use a few more eyes. The section of the WSJ article covering a conviction in Hong Kong seems overly long too me. It seems most of this information is added by SPAs or anonymous editors. The section has a lot of play by play material that I think most agree should be trimmed. What I'm having more trouble with is establishing what parts are the most important. I suspect this is a topic that was covered in regional/non-English language sources. I've hoped some of the IP editors could help to offer a more insight into the most important parts of the story but so far that hasn't happened. I think input from experienced editors would help here. Springee (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it should be spun into a separate article, and the section about it significantly trimmed in this article under a "main article" template? I'll see if there's some obvious stuff to trim.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I trimmed small parts that were fully redundant, but am hesitant for now to remove more. If we spin it off into its own article, I have a rough idea of how to greatly truncate the content on this article.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at the article and the length and significance of the material I agree a split would be better than just deleting material. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom) has an RfC

Macedonia (ancient kingdom) 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. SuriMuri (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Stuck blocked sock. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Number of (Coptic) Christians in Egypt

Christianity in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd appreciate additional eyes on this page and particularly Talk:Christianity_in_Egypt#Pew_"2020"_estimate to help establish consensus regarding population estimates. There has also been past sockpuppetry, at this point both by users attempting to increase and by those attempting to decrease listed estimates, at this page and at Religion in Egypt (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MohammedEguyue25, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youssefa82718) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh boy, you are facing some super determined users there, ie goodbye logic. Let us wait for the SPI. It may reduce the opposition by itself. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Eyes helpful for Talk:Zionist as a pejorative

Originally was just about Zio as a slur before a three person move request changed it to more expansive zionist as a slur. Currently argument about lede especially about how zionist as a pejorative primarily attacks israelis and jews. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)