Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    Removal of section in Trickle-down economics

    [edit]

    In Talk:Trickle-down economics#Recent removal of analysis section the argument for removal is that it is applying economic analysis to a non-economic subject, that the subject is non-economic because trickle-down economics is often used as a description by people opposed to supply side economics when it disproportionately favors the rich. A recent attempt WP:Articles for deletion/Trickle-down economics to merge the article into supply side economics was defeated. If an article is considerd as non neutral term in some area, is it okay to include academic studies in the area that use the term, or should such studies be removed? NadVolum (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I have commented the following at the article talkpage after seeing this post.
    Also here from NPOV/N. Having read through the recent arguments, those arguments are rather ridiculous to put it simply. There are any of dozens upon dozens of terms within the social sciences that are viewed by the majority of researchers in the applicable field as a negative term, and their research are critical analyses, so TDE is nothing special in that regard. Should we go through all articles that include critical or negative analyses of phenomena and excise all of that scholarship we cite?
    If we were to take this to an extreme example, it would be a similar argument to saying we can't use papers published in the field of biology that critique "eugenics", as eugenics is "not a scientific term in biology", which is nothing but fallacious reasoning. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The core issues are twofold. One: what is typically being included are studies that simply use the phrase 'trickle-down' somewhere in the study. Not studies that proport to be about trickle down, but merely use the phrase somewhere in the text. (I have not read the latest proposed inclusion which at least contain the words Trickle down in the title). Two: we have multiple sources which state that TDE isnt an economic term at all, yet we are offering some kind of economic analysis on what some people say TDE is. This is inappropriate for the same reason a study on the negative effects of sexual promiscuity would be inappropriate in article about the word slut. Hysteria seems like a pretty good analog. Sometimes used to describe a certain type of behavior, but specifically not a medical diagnosis, and so, it would be inappropriate to include some medical or psychological study that happened to contain the word Hysteria. Bonewah (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking through the suggested sources, would indicate that such an assessment is prima facie wrong. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that trickle down economics is not the same as trickle down effect, a term which economists sometimes use. Bonewah (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like those articles are about supply side economics while the TDE article is more about the political term. I would suggest adding those to the supply side economics article and the do a See Also or similar to the material about the economic effectiveness of SPE. If this article really is about the term then the removed material does appear to be UNDUE. Springee (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case anyone wants to look at exactly what we are talking about [1]...Paraphrasing, it has been suggested such (academic) sources should not be allowed for this article, which imo, is the big-picture issue. Context can always be adjusted and better sources can usually be found, but if there is a kind of moratorium on this material for certain articles, why isn't that made clearer in policy or even an FAQ?

    Cheers. DN (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this supposed to represent "applying economic analysis to a non-economic subject"? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would direct that question to those favoring removal. IMO calling it a non-economic subject seems possibly dubious as it relates to NPOV. There are views and statements that say it has nothing to do with economics and has never been advocated, but there appears to be RS documenting application, study and analysis of policies referred to as "trickle down". Cheers. DN (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "moratorium" you are claiming of those who argue against you is not what we are arguing for. It is more of a technical wording problem scope issue. As Bonewah said: note that trickle down economics is not the same as trickle down effect,
    This is a rather complex terminology problem: for example, in common lexicon, "affordable housing" often makes people think of housing that poorer people can afford, (whether subsidized or market-rate) but this is NOT what the term means in the US (though it is sloppily used in news sources) - "Affordable housing developers" in the US ONLY build SUBSIDIZED housing where they receive some free government monies for the construction to build a building with 100% of units BELOW-MARKET-RATE sales or rental price. Also sometimes "affordable" = "below-market-rate" units are required to be included (15% often) inclusionary zoning when a city council allows a developer to build a new residential building. Therefore the term has some very precise and different meanings depending on WHO IS USING THAT SAME TERM. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if 'moratorium' is not accurate, as I have mentioned I've had difficulty with confidently interpreting your request. When I made that reference earlier I failed to notice any objection at the time. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I took no offense at the term "moratorium", I'm just trying to explain this rather complex situation better. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to the subject, I checked the disambig page to see how "effect" vs "economics" is directed, in case anyone else finds it useful.
    "Trickle-down theory" or "Trickle-down effect" can refer to two different but related concepts:
    • Trickle-down fashion, a model of product adoption in marketing
    • Trickle-down economics, a theory for tax cuts on high incomes and business activity
    Cheers. DN (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "In a 2020 research paper, economists David Hope and Julian Limberg analyzed data spanning 50 years from 18 countries, and found that tax cuts for the rich increased inequality in the short and medium term, and had no significant effect on real GDP per capita or employment in the short and medium term" refutes the central hypothesis if trickle-down economics.
    The expression may not appear in the paper, but it does here:

    Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich: debunking trickle-down economics

    https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics
    That's the title. This took me less than 30 seconds to find. The wall of stones you're facing seems to rest on shaky foundations.
    (I will also note that ONUS and BURDEN relates to V and nothing else. It does not give a free pass for masons to keep removing stones as if there was no tomorrow.) Selbstporträt (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We discussed to some extent the fact that some articles refer to TDE in quotes, as the LSE article above does. In my opinion, the reason for that is the same reason the phrase does not appear in the scholarly paper, its not really an economic term, but a rhetorical one. Take a look at other common rhetorical terms in Wikipdia: Big government, Corporate welfare, Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, Lemon socialism, Statism. This is how i think we should handle TDE, note the terms origin, its meaning in everyday usage, notable examples etc. No need to sniff out some paper somewhere that says the word (in quotes) to prove or disprove anything. Bonewah (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "its not really an economic term, but a rhetorical one"
    Looks like a false dichotomy. The term "trickle-down" is already a metaphor that economists seem to have borrowed:
    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/451369
    While researchers use "in the street/in the sheets" language all the time, it is not hard to find papers that mention "trickle-down economics":
    To reduce what these authors are saying to mere rhetoric would not be correct. They have a point that carries to any economic model whose main mechanism of redistribution relies on trickle-down effects. So this sure looks like a case where editors have decided to reduce the concept as mere rhetoric. For a valid stake over that claim, they would need reliable sources. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a ridiculous and obviously non-neutral removal. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the disputed section. It's due, it's in-scope, its source is WP:BESTSOURCE. The argument for removal is not at all convincing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the article, it takes a negative/critical view of TDE as a given, as it should, and then describes how the term came to be used and how it is still used today. Economic analysis of TDE is not necessary in this article. The lede describes it as a term used to describe government economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum (wealthy individuals and large corporations). The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality. We don't need to "prove" that trickle down economics favours the rich when that is what the article already says. TurboSuperA+[talk] 18:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's how I would've imagined the three articles would be split: supply-side economics is the idea that lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and free trade are the best way to foster economic growth. Trickle-down economics is, yes, a political term, but also a way of talking about a specific (and disputed) aspect of supply-side economics: that policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy do not merely foster economic growth (which can be achieved, after all, even when 100% of the growth is owned by 1% of the population) but actually benefit lower and middle classes. Reaganomics is about a specific application of supply-side economics by one administration in one point in time, and received criticism for the reasons implied by the term "trickle-down economics". There's overlap, but I don't feel like I have to work hard to see them as important subjects to cover separately. Along these lines, yes, the article on trickle-down economics would sensibly include academic discussion of the "trickle-down" effect where the authors frame it as such. That's my take anyway, and I'm not an economist (IANAE?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Id just like to point out that we have multiple reliable sources that state explicitly that Trickle-down economics is not a theory that any economist has even advocated. It doesnt appear in any econ textbook (both according to the reliable sources mentioned and by my limited check) and no one has offered a counter to that. Bonewah (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The dodge of suggesting a rhetorical term about economies informed by economics and critiqued by economists should not be subject to economic scrutiny because (ultimately) it's piffle is not a good reason to exclude the economic critique of it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonewah you should self-revert. The status-quo ante there was inclusion of that section. The revert, in this case, was @Avatar317's deletion of the section at the start of that edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's assume that "supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade."
    Let's posit a paper that calls a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade "trickle-down economics".
    What should we do:
    (1) we don't mention it in Trickle-down economics because it's truly about supply-side economics;
    (2) we don't mention it in Supply-side economics because it doesn't mention "supply-side economics";
    (3) we accept that sometimes words are used differently
    It'd be interesting to see who call "trickle-down economics" a strawman. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I might as well state that this thought experiment has been inspired by the hat on the Supply-side economics entry, which complains that it "Needs more academic or scholarly research, rather than newspaper articles". Selbstporträt (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratching my own itch, I read Arndt's review, and even if he argues it's a myth, he concedes having found what "Viner had in mind" in the literature, and somehow skips over Kuznets. So we're left with "there was no mechanism" as an explanation, which might very well be the criticism behind the epithet.
    Too bad it's too late to claim the reward of beating Grant's "trickle-down" in 1972. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more notes and I move to other things.
    First, Thomas Sowell argues in his Trickle-Down book:

    But the actual arguments advocated by Secretary Mellon had nothing to do with a “trickle-down theory.” Mellon pointed out that, under the high income tax rates at the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1921, vast sums of money had been put into tax shelters such as tax-exempt municipal bonds, instead of being invested in the private economy, where this money would create more output, incomes and jobs.

    The last part makes us wondering if Thomas Sowell knows what "trickle-down" means in the first place. Second, here is a theory of trickle-down growth and development:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2971707
    Perhaps the strawman argument is a tad too strong, something editors won't reflect by letting Wharton dudes hog the mic. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Selbstporträt Your kind of all over the place so your arguments are a bit hard to follow. That last link (at least from the abstract) illustrates one of the problems im talking about. The authors mention a 'trickle down effect' or 'trickle down mechanism' but in reference to borrowing and capitol markets, as opposed to in reference to taxation of the rich. This tell us what i have been saying, economists sometimes use the term 'trickle down' to mean wealth or other positive externality flows from one group to another, but thats not the same as 'trickle down economics' which multiple reliable sources say is a (typically derogatory) rhetorical term for policies that help the rich. Just because a source uses the term 'trickle down' does not mean it is relevant to an article about the rhetorical term (if that is what the article is to be about). Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about an expression people use. You can't decide it means tax cuts. If often implies it, but sometimes it does not. If we imply it, then it'll be hard not to duplicate when we got on supply-side economics, or at least should have. As far as economic "theory" is concerned, to get tax cuts one only has to model their effects: more savings, more leverage, more capital in private markets. You could argue that it's just a model, it's not the theory. As if we should speak of economic theory in the first place.
    The problem here is that you're trying to restrict the scope of the entry to make sure that, in the end, the guys you cite in the lead wins. Try as hard as you want to cry "strawman", people who used "trickle-down economics" were not dumb. Nobody here pretends Reagan had a real economic theory in mind. They're not saying they can identify the "trickle-down" mechanism used to justify it. On the contrary: it's more like a Gnome Underpants gimmick. Yet we all know we're referring to tangible policies.
    A toreador who waves a cape at a bull should not be able to say "ah, it was only a cape" and act as if nothing happened. We all at least should admit there has been a show. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Im trying to restrict the scope of the entry because the guys we cite in the lead are the only reliable sources that state "this is what TDE is and is not" It doesnt matter what 'we' all know, or what 'we' think Regan had in mind. Your right that the article is about an expression people use. If I can't decide it means tax cuts then nobody else can either. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The guys you cite in the lead certainly are not the only reliable sources, if only because they're not sources in the first place. Where you got their words are the sources.
    That you still claim that they're the only valid narrators in the story even after all the quotes I provided tells me that your "if that is what the article is to be about" isn't that hypothetical to you. So I will leave you with this wrap-up:
    The expression "trickle-down economics" refers to something. That something exists, and needs to be documented. This can't be done by excluding those who indeed use "trickle-down economics". Not even Arndt's review does that.
    The main usage might very well be as a loaded term. That it's loaded doesn't imply it's empty. It only implies it carries a judgment with it. You can criticize that judgment. You can say that this criticism is the dominant view. For that (and even the claim it's the main usage) you need more support than what we can read in that entry.
    None of that should censor the fact that "trickle-down economics" has been used as a neutral term. And none of that should make you forget about the need to preserve the good stuff, stuff that should go into the other page (about supply-side economics) if that's what you decide to do.
    Be well. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At the article page I've asked the two main editors against inclusion there whether they will accept restoring the deleted section or if this will go to RfC. They had not responded last time I checked but the additional comments here suggest we're headed to an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've floated the idea of trying RSN first [2], as that policy was mentioned as part of Avatar317's argument [3]. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested change to article (based on the sources found by DOR (ex-HK) on Talk and a quick survey of academic papers/books mentioning "trickle down")
    1) Add to the lead a statement like: "trickle down economics" has never been a valid economic theory, but economists have studied if, whether, or how much various policies (economic growth, free trade, tax cuts) benefited all classes or whether benefits that accrued to upper classes "trickled down".
    2) I'd support a SHORT section talking BROADLY about some of these studies, mentioning ALL policies studied for this effect; but NOT what we currently had, because that (do tax-cuts for the rich trickle down) was politically cherry-picked for a view that aligns with the derogatory use of the term and is only ONE of many policies which have been studied, like free trade, supply of capital, etc.
    I think this small section should then point the reader to the respective articles where more economic research on effects of said separate policy (for example economic growth) could have many more studies on that individual policy's outcomes. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding suggestion (1), it appears to conflict with MOS:FIRST, MOS:OPEN, MOS:LEADREL and possibly more in relation to NPOV. Opinions should be avoided in the lead paragraph, especially the lead sentence, so I would likely oppose. Regarding (2), (I'd support a SHORT section talking BROADLY about some of these studies, mentioning ALL policies studied for this effect; but NOT what we currently had), I reiterate the plan to refer the matter to RSN if NPOVN was unable to sway opposing editor's dissent despite formulating a relative consensus, which it seems they have. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    SGML

    [edit]

    This article is not neutral at all but pushes the old w3c narrative that html and xhtml are implementations of sgml which has been debunked in the whatwg html5 living standard that also explains that webbrowsers never parsed any version of html using sgml. The article also claims what are falsehoods according to the html5 living standard. XML can also not fully be parsed with an SGML parser anymore which makes the ancient initial claim of XML being a perfect subset of sgml subpect to debate. See talk page. Yes, I got restricted from editing the page over an edit war with MrOllie. ~2026-32191-32 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's subject to debate then please present reliable sources that demonstrates the debate. Simonm223 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because your edits are using a lot of primary sources. You're pointing to a spec document. What secondary coverage is there? Simonm223 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading a bit into this, I tend to agree with MrOllie's arguments on the article's talk page regarding the proposed edits sourcing.
    Having said that, I think the neutrality problem exists. SGML, XML and HTML#SGML-based_versus_XML-based_HTML seem to be written using primary sources close to the article's subjects as well. The latter is pure original research, an essay based on editor's reading of the specs. SGML has awkward passages like While HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) was developed partially independently and in parallel with SGML, its creator, Tim Berners-Lee, intended it to be an application of SGML, which I was unable to verify in referenced primary sources (and, in this instance, probably being a WP:BLP violation even if it was verifiable, as the source isn't authored by Tim Berners-Lee or based on his words). PaulT2022 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we really need some secondary sources here. Certainly someone has written a history of XML and associated protocols. I'll take a peek at Wikipedia library. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a little bit of material there but I would have to refine my search string because I'm pulling up a bunch of stuff about using SGML in historical research that is unrelated. I would suggest people who are interested in the topic should look for reliable secondary sources there. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources are difficult here because there are (depending on who you ask) two conflicting narratives from two different standards bodies.
    Charles Goldfarb's XML Handbook isn't independent but contains a bunch of relevant history and how XML and SGML relate from his perspective. It was published before the HTML5 standard fight, so it doesn't cover that. I may take a stab at incorporating some of this when I have more free time.
    Plenty of books from technical publishers will lead off their HTML5 book with a chapter about the history of the standards, but most of them barely mention SGML, usually just to say something like 'HTML was originally based on SGML'. MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    books from technical publishers... usually just to say something like 'HTML was originally based on SGML' - this was my impression from books as well as contemporary coverage in magazines of the era too. Is there a convincing argument why these articles have to state anything more than 'X was based on/inspired by Y'? PaulT2022 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Firdausul Hasan

    [edit]

    I have concerns about the neutrality of this article and the repeated efforts to improve it during the AfD discussion. The sourcing, notability claims, and recent edits may require closer independent review. A1-K (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ika people repeated revert of sourced without explanation.

    [edit]

    Hi, I'm a relatively new editor and I need some help understanding what happened with my edits to the Ika people article.

    The article before my edit claimed that the Ika language "originates from the Edoid languages" with zero citations. This is contradicted by multiple academic sources. I added sourced content classifying Ika within the western Igbo/Igboid group based on the following:

    Before I first made the edit I submitted a formal edit request on the Talk page. A Wikipedia moderator responded and told me I could make the edit myself. I made the edit. It was reverted by Tbhotch with no reason given. I opened a Talk page discussion at Talk:Ika people with all my sources. I received no response. I restored the edit citing the Talk discussion. Tbhotch then came to my personal Talk page and called my edit disruptive without ever engaging with my sources on the article Talk page.

    I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just want accurate sourced content in the article. Can someone take a look at whether my edit is supported by the sources I cited? Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the alleged point-of-view pushing to open a discussion in an NPOV board. I said it in the edit summaries:
    • unexplained removal. Why are you removing these contents? You are new, ok, then, if you don't know the purpose of things, leave them there. You'll eventually know why they are there.
    • unsourced claims. If you are reusing sources, then repeat the sources. Consult WP:Citing sources (specifically WP:REPEATCITE) to know how to do it. I doubt, however, (using this version) that a linguisitcs source focuses on geography. The source slightly mentions some geographic facts, but other statements are still unsourced.
    Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for engaging. To address your points:
    On the removal the original article stated that the Ika language "originates from Edoid languages" with no citation. I replaced that unsourced claim with content supported by Williamson (1968), Forde & Jones (1967), and Glottolog (ikaa1238), all of which classify Ika as Igboid not Edoid. Replacing an unsourced claim with a sourced one is not unconstructive editing.
    On repeating sources, understood, I will repeat citations where the same source supports multiple statements following WP:REPEATCITE.
    On the linguistics source covering geography, that's a fair point and thank you for pointing that out. The linguistics sources I cited support the language classification claims specifically. I'm happy to add separate geographic sources for the town and LGA information. Can you point out which specific statements you believe still need citations and I will address each one? Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All the statements are labeled accordingly at the page's history [4] Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. i have taken note of all labels and will adress them with proper sources. I also want to flag something that has happened since this discussion started. Editor Prof NV has now edited the Ika people article and added a language section claiming Ika has "mixed origins from Edoid and Igboid languages" and that Onyeche (2002) characterises Ika as "situated at the intersection of neighbouring Edoid and Igboid languages."
    I have read the full Onyeche (2002) paper. It does not say this. The paper actually states:
    "The Ika language is regarded as a cluster of dialects (Williamson 1968). This is similar to the Igbo language which is also a cluster of dialects."
    And: "In spite of being surrounded by languages such as Ishan, Edo, Ukwuani and Aniocha, the Ika linguistic situation in the Ika community has not been significantly affected by them."
    The paper is available here: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/e08bdb55-a3e9-404a-8600-b7ea6f2d407e/content
    Furthermore, the Cambridge University Press peer reviewed Journal of the International Phonetic Association (Uguru 2015) states in its opening sentence: "Ika is a dialect of the Igbo language." DOI: 10.1017/S0025100315000067
    Prof NV is attributing to Onyeche (2002) a claim that the paper does not make and that is directly contradicted by Cambridge peer reviewed literature. Meanwhile my edits, which cited these same academic sources, were reverted as disruptive.
    he has not provided any source to back up his edits other than local blog, he completely disregard peer reviewed works i posted. Jeremiah uduak nome (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jeremiah uduak nome - Reporting the same dispute, or different versions of a dispute about the same article, at multiple noticeboards, such as the Neutral Point of View noticeboard (here), the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard|DRN, and WP:ANI, is forum shopping and does not improve the likelihood of successfully resolving any dispute. I have closed your dispute at DRN because DRN does not mediate a dispute that is also being discussed in any other forum. If this is a content dispute, you do not need to discuss it at WP:ANI. If this is a conduct dispute, that should be resolved before attempting content dispute resolution. I don't see obvious evidence of a conduct dispute, but I haven't researched the dispute in depth. Forum shopping is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeezrom

    [edit]

    This article, especially the interpretation section, feels more like a Sunday school lesson than a neutral and objective article about the topic. Nearly, or all, of the sources are heavily related to the church, and a church member was paid to write much of the prose. Thoughts on WP:TNT? ~2026-33846-99 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Prime Minister of Croatia

    [edit]

    I am involved in a dispute about whether prime ministers of the Independent State of Croatia should be listed on the page. Reasons presented for opposing this content addition include "[being] not based on reliable sources", "[violating] WP:ARBMAC", "cherry-pick[ing]", "unverifiable", "fringe", and "trolling". My reasoning is as follows:

    1. In accordance with WP:ASSERT, Ante Pavelić and Nikola Mandić are listed as Croatian prime ministers on their own articles, the Government of the Independent State of Croatia article (as heads of government, formally "Minister-President"), the Independent State of Croatia article, and for Pavelić, the article on Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta.
    2. The List of prime ministers of Hungary article contains Ferenc Szálasi.
    3. The List of heads of state of France article contains Philippe Pétain.
    4. The Prime Minister of Slovakia article contains Jozef Tiso.
    5. The List of presidents of the Philippines article contains Jose P. Laurel.
    6. The List of prime ministers of Vietnam article contains Trần Trọng Kim.
    7. The List of prime ministers of Greece article contains Georgios Tsolakoglou, Konstantinos Logothetopoulos, and Ioannis Rallis.
    8. The Prime Minister of Albania article contains Rexhep Mitrovica, Fiqri Dine, and Ibrahim Biçakçiu.

    At this point, it seems to me that opposition to this content addition is entirely political and a violation of WP:NPOV. The dispute is not about the legitimacy of the Independent State of Croatia, but rather about the prime ministers of Croatia. At no point did the facts that Pavelić and Mandić serve as prime ministers of the NDH come under dispute, so I see no reason why they should not be added to the article.

    KN 940 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to assume your suggestion comes from ignorance and not malice. The Republic of Croatia is a continuation of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, and not the Independent State of Croatia, which was a Nazi puppet state and was never recognised. He is buried in a cemetery in Madrid. He is not recognised as a Croatian statesman.
    My advice to you is to drop the issue. Editors on the talk page disagreed with you, and now an uninvolved editor at NPOV (me) disagreed with you. Continuing to suggest this without providing any reliable sources can be seen as disruptive. TurboSuperA+[talk] 06:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disruptive. They've been at it for half a year now. --Joy (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not drop the issue because I don't believe it's been adequately addressed by any editor so far. Responding to your points:
    1. Here is a source for Pavelić: "On April 15 1941 at 4 a.m. Ante Pavelic arrived in Zagreb. The following day ‘Stipulation on Appointment of the First Croatian State Government’ was announced, naming Pavelic the supreme leader of the Independent state of Croatia and the Prime Minister" (emphasis added).
    2. Here is a source for Mandić (page 359): "Pavelić had several meetings with Košutić before Italy's surrender, and after it, when the political, military, and economic liens imposed by the Italians on Croatia were lifted, Prime Minister Mandić opened official negotiations with him to discuss the inclusion of the Croatian Peasant Party in a coalition government." (emphasis added)
    3. The NDH was partially recognized by Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Spain, and Japan; asserting otherwise is factually incorrect.
    4. Pavelić being buried in Madrid has no bearing on the political office of prime minister that he held in life; you should know better than to make a spurious argument like that.
    KN 940 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are sources for the concept of the prime minister of Croatia. This notion that you can casually conflate "Independent State of Croatia" and Croatia is ahistorical claptrap that is genuinely offensive. Also, this is elementary school knowledge in Croatia. Please stop it already. --Joy (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How are my cited sources not about the prime minister of Croatia? Croatia may also refer to: any of the historical Croatian states. If you want to keep the NDH prime ministers out of the page so badly, then rename it to "Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia", for crying out loud.
    KN 940 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "See also" on a Wikipedia article is not an RS. I will not drop the issue because I don't believe it's been adequately addressed by any editor so far. This is literally WP:IDHT. The Croatian constitution rejects the Independent State of Croatia, and therefore its government and ministers. In Part I, "Historical foundations", the document states that the currently-existing Republic of Croatia is built on:

    ... the establishment of the foundations of state sovereignty during the course of the Second World War, as expressed in the decision of the Territorial Antifascist Council of the National Liberation of Croatia (1943) in opposition to the proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia (1941), and then in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Croatia (1947) and in all subsequent constitutions ...

    Now that 3 editors are telling you that you are wrong, you are in WP:1AM territory and now is a good time to drop the stick. You have been at this since November last year. Enough is enough. TurboSuperA+[talk] 13:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of "Croatia" is a broad one, but it has a primary topic, and this is fairly obvious from the article layout and even a casual review of reliable sources. The existence of the broad meaning does not give anyone carte blanche to arbitrarily synthesize wild claims. You're continuing to not listen to these reasonably simple concepts that are not optional in understanding the encyclopedia. This violation of WP:EPTALK in a contentious topic area is egregious and I think you should be blocked for it. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:List of Jews in the southern Levant

    [edit]

    Neutrality concerns have been raised over listing different kinds of Jews in the same list. Would appreciate more input at Draft talk:List of Jews in the southern Levant#Neutrality issues NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Khachapuri and removal of sourced content

    [edit]

    The etymology of khachapuri was modified specifically removing reference to the Abkhasian origin of the term [5] with the reasoning "seems undue." I restored it to the existing version [6], and another editor removed it without an edit summary [7]. When I restored again, the first editor found the content "completely unnecessary." [8]. For me, this appears to be a motivated removal of sourced content and evidence of broader neutrality problems currently facing articles about the social and political histories of the Caucasus region (see Special:Contributions/~2026-33545-35] for a Georgian-Abkhas example). Drew Stanley (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    On contrary, inserting so many layers of etymology, going back thousands of years of linguistic history, is example of WP:UNDUE and somebody clearly trying to make some point (WP:SOAP). It does not add anything to understanding of article about a flatbread dish, especially since it's not even actually made of "curd" or "cottage cheese". Also, you changed much more than just etymology, lots of unrelated content was modified in process without explanation, which is not respectful of contributions made by other editors.
    Also, it is not nice casting aspersions by pointing to some completely unrelated edit by random editors and suggest like I'm part of some "broader" neutrality conspiracy, all because I want article about a dish to focus on the dish, and not about whether the word for bread originates in ancient Greece.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you consider it problematic to modify content without explanation?
    I did not modify content without explanation (see edit summaries on all three edits I have made [9], [10], [11]). I did, however, restore content that was modified in process without explanation (no edit summaries or talk page posts): [12], [13], [14], [15], and again: [16], [17], [18]... by yourself. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your points on respect and kindness are well-taken, and I agree. Further, the most respectful and kindest way to interact with others here is to prioritize accuracy, clarity, and adherence to policy, as I make a point to do. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drew Stanley, do your sources discuss khachapuri itself? If not, I agree with @LeontinaVarlamonva, this is not right place for the detailed etymologies - we have Wiktionary for that. Alaexis¿question? 12:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't "my" sources. The history shows that this is the stable version of the article. Drew Stanley (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What longstanding history? The etymology section seems to have been reverted as undue back in may. That does not establish long standing history? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not write "longstanding." Drew Stanley (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was under the impression that you introduced these changes Anyway, my point is the etymology of the word "khacha" is probably not relevant in the article about khachapuri - just like the etymology of the word "security" is not found in the article Securitization. On the other hand, if you have a source *about* khachapuri that mentions this etymology then we can add it. Alaexis¿question? 18:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:Phoenix Lights § WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Suggested Edit

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phoenix Lights § WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Suggested Edit. Rjjiii (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Opus Dei

    [edit]

    I wrote a comment at Talk:Opus Dei#Criticism section discussion about potential WP:POVFORK issues with Opus Dei (see also Controversies about Opus Dei) and would like to invite additional perspectives on the talk page, especially because this is a controversial topic. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Sathya Sai Baba

    [edit]

    I came across this article because someone posted it on a noticeboard a few moths ago. Sathya Sai Baba is an article about an influential Indian Guru. But it strikes me as largely written from a devotational point of view, with lots of redflag claims presented credulously throughout. It also seems like the sources are not always accurately represented, or presented with due weight. (E.g., I did this, which may not even go far enough per WP:FRINGE). Entire paragraphs read like a travel brochure. On the other side of the balance, some editors have added critical material, but which seems to go too far in the other direction, rather than just dialing back the hagiography and sticking to verifiable biographical detail. The result is a hot-mess of an article, not neutral in both hagiographic and critical content. The article is also a target for a couple of single-purpose accounts. It would benefit from someone's input, but just looking at all of the issues makes me despair that it would take too much cleanup for me. At a minimum the sources need to be closely checked against what they allegedly support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at § Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa#Neutrality tag

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at § Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa#Neutrality tag. TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Elagabalus - hateful and biased

    [edit]
    The proper venue for this is Talk:Elagabalus. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The page about Elagabalus is hateful and biased, in fact very much of it is just the author's opinions and insults towards Elagabalus jammed in between historical events. The author shows obvious transphobia (referring to her as "he" and "him" the entire time). ~2026-34396-35 (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    When you think content on an article should be discussed, you should go to the corresponding talk page, Talk:Elagabalus. If you go there, you'll see there is already an explanation. Following academic interpretation of ancient records is not transphobia, and it's in poor taste to throw around an accusation like that over a disagreement on how to handle these things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Neutrality, Due Weight, and Editorial Obstruction - zealous gatekeeping: Gender-critical feminism (Collapsed critisicism, as the critique is too devastating for the gatekeepers to handle)

    [edit]
    repeated AI use, ignoring advice, no action required Simonm223 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Will changes to the article be sooner or later ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This critique has been collapsed as part of gatekeeping ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been collapsed because you didn't write it in your own words; you used AI. — Czello (music) 08:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Gatekeeper spotted ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    lol — Czello (music) 08:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    curprev 09:50, 11 November 2025 Czello talk contribs m 125,504 bytes 0 Czello moved page Talk:Arguments against gender-critical feminism to Talk:Gender-critical feminism over redirect: Revert, this should not have been moved without any kind of discussion undo, case in point
    curprev 21:25, 16 November 2024 Czello talk contribs 26,739 bytes −628 Restored revision 1256419095 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): WP:FORUM undo Tags: Twinkle Undo
    curprev 14:46, 10 October 2024 Czello talk contribs 37,082 bytes −218 Restored revision 1249792626 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): WP:FORUM undo Tags: Twinkle Undo ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus comments today ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all sure how you think that was "case in point". My edit summary explained very clearly why I reverted that page move. And all my comments today have said are "write your arguments in your own words rather than AI". It's really not difficult. — Czello (music) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the same gatekeepers over and over again, stopping any critique of the page, ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you say so. — Czello (music) 08:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the history of the article, the editors with the initials D... is on over a long period of time, in the 10s for every 500, as is A.....as is L, and as is S, its the same people, and making churlish insults at those who affect the article outside of their aim, ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they ban or collapse people who dont agree with their view, and stop any debate on the hopelessly biased article. ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Find the examples and put that in ctrl and find, and you see it is the same gatekeepers all the time, just go through older 500 and on and you see jthat is often the case, and they then ban people who dont share their view from wikipedia. and some make mean threats about the people who dont agree to their views before banning them to intimdate them to not express their views. ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could avoid this "gatekeeping" by just writing out your argument yourself, in your own words, rather than using AI. Again, it's really not that hard. — Czello (music) 09:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the article does not allow any gender critical people tio express their views in their own words, and is just a litany of mean spirited bullies insulting the belief system it is a bit rich for one of the gatekeepers to critisise me for using my own words, and these are my own words, why dont we make a deal allow GC people to express their views with their own quotes the famous JK rowling one about "wear what you want... but... " etc, but no it just has a litany of as many critisisms from people nobody has heard of as it can, ~2026-34691-34 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    GC people can express their own views. But you are not writing it in your own words. You're using AI. — Czello (music) 09:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal for a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

    [edit]

    Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPathtalk 06:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Fire the Liar

    [edit]

    @TarnishedPath kept adding "Far-right" to the Pauline Hanson article on wikipedia: a clear bias. I called that editor out and said they could not be adding bias to Wikipedia articles. This person stated they are not an admin yet they act as if they have clear authority over the article. On the talk page a discussion was started with TarnishedPath clearly outnumbered by multiple people saying the far-right label needs to be removed. I have even added multiple sources that prove that Pauline Hanson is not 'far right' or that the label is a matter of opinion and "Conservative" is a better label, but this user, despite not even being an administrator, will not let anyone edit the "far-right" label and falsely added an "Edit War" warning to my talk page. Consequently, I added an edit war warning to their talk page as they were dominating and controlling the article with their opinion and not allowing anyone to make it more impartial and neutral, complying with Wikipedia terms of service.

    I created an article related to Pauline Hanson called Fire the Liar. It had multiple news sources including government-run media owned by the Australian Government. TarnishedPath moved my published (but work in progress, as every WP article is) article into the draftspace and said it needed improvement. I expanded it and added even more sources.

    Now to my grievance. A user known as @Brightpaw has now started to add their own bias into this article by adding far-right as a label to One Nation. This only creates division and is not neutral wording. When I try to edit the article I created and change it to the neutral and factual "conservative" label people continually change it back. It seems like TarnishedPath and their mate Brightpaw have some grievances with the political party and myself and want to make my Wikipedia journey harder than it needs to be. I just want to create impartial articles. I would advise you to issue a warning to both users. AustinBoath (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Curtesy pings to @Qwerty123M and @Brightpaw as involved editors.
    • @AustinBoath, there is a notice at the top of this page which states that "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so." Please read the notices at the top of noticeboards. They are quite helpful. TarnishedPathtalk 13:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TarnishedPath was not alone in thinking this way so please don't blame one user for a concerted effort by multiple editors, TarnishedPath also edited only a few times which does not indicate clear authority.
    • "Far-right" is a very common term for One Nation, it even says right-wing to far-right on the infobox for the article of the party itself! Pauline Hanson has built her whole political profile on restricting immigration which would be reasonably described as "far-right". Far-right is such a common description for the One Nation political party that I'm surprised their political ideology needs to be discussed! Please don't change the political ideology further in the article Fire the Liar, "far-right" is a completely appropriate description for reasons I have described in this message. TarnishedPath has actually qualified their statement of far-right in the lead with sources which only strengthens the case for keeping that per WP:NPOV. The description far-right is only not neutral as long as you think that, it helps readers form more objective opinions about what the party actually stands for per consensus outside of Wikipedia.
    • I also think it was a strange decision to move the article into main namespace from draft yourself but a concerted effort had been made to add more sources so I won't dispute that, though I wouldn't have made that decision if it was within my control. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll respond just to clarify my position on the issue, since this matter has been resolved. No, describing One Nation and Hanson as far-right is not "biased". Calling a spade a spade does not mean I have a grievance with anyone. On the other hand, @AustinBoath it seems that you are overly defensive of the far-right label being applied to One Nation, despite various sources supporting it. Just because you do not like the far-right label does not make it inherently biased. Also, can you explain why you removed 'incumbent' from the article? As far as I'm aware that's a neutral descriptor of an in-power government. Brightpaw (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy link: Draft:Fire the Liar Sesquilinear (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is currently an ongoing discussion on WP:BLPN regarding Hanson and the 'far-right' description. [19] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thing is, that BLP/N discussion is regarding a fundamentally different matter, whether far-right should be included in the lead section of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson's article, not whether the party itself should be considered far-right, though if they do follow through with their opinion poll successes at the next election, there will be a greater ideological divide amongst MPs and Senators so we will have to reevaluate this consensus. In regards to the discussion itself, I think we'd be far more productive on this matter with an RfC as that would result in a general consensus rather than one specific to Australian topics and the discussion is moving very slowly at the moment. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ustaše (again)

    [edit]

    There is a dispute about adding ideologies to the infobox. It would be nice to have more eyes on it. Thank you.

    The discussion is here: Talk:Ustaše#add to Ideology. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Driscoll

    [edit]

    I was just patrolling recent changes when I came across Scott Driscoll. The page seems to have had COI problems before (Talk:Scott Driscoll#COI whitewashing) and the edits made by @~2026-36243-59 come across as NPOV (especially this diff). However, I do not have the knowledge of Australian politics required to properly assess it. I'd love some extra eyes on it. Should I inform some wiki project as well? (I don't want to blow it out of proportions if it can simply be resolved here).

    Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate "Victory" label in infobox for Albanian–Yugoslav border war (1921)

    [edit]

    Im seeking an admin or third party review regarding a dispute on the talk page of the Albanian–Yugoslav border war (1921).

    Currently the infobox labels the result of the conflict as a "Yugoslav military victory." However, during the talk page discussion, the defending editors have explicitly conceded that no reliable secondary sources actually states that Yugoslavia won the war (for e.g one editor wrote "While sources don't say Yugoslavia military won the war..."). Instead, the editors are arguing that because sources describe the initial Yugoslav offensive as tactically successful before they were forced to fully evacuate the territory due to League of Nations sanctions, we should synthesize this as a "military victory." Its a clear violation of WP:SYNTH & WP:NOR. Editors are making their own conclusion about a conflict's outcome rather than reflecting the explicit wording of reliable sources. Because the conflict ended in a total diplomatic withdrawal to pre-war boundaries under the threat of British economic sanctions, a neutral, policy compliant infobox label should be used, like "Yugoslav withdrawal under international pressure" or "Status quo ante bellum"

    Im requesting assistance in enforcing WP:NPOV & removing the unsourced "victory" designation from the infobox. Thanks. Magapetro (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Pr Puffery, Unreliable sources, irrelevant information (Olandria)

    [edit]

    Seeking an admin to review Olandria as it is full of irrelevant information such as red carpet appearances, full of unreliable sources, and PR puffery overall. The catalyst of the ongoing edit war dismisses Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, WP:NOT, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (puffery). Aboutnick (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Including a scientist's own paper in his Bibliography section on Leik Myrabo

    [edit]

    Leik Myrabo is a notable expert in Beam-powered propulsion, Laser propulsion, Lightcraft and similar. His article included the following verbatim that was removed by two different users claiming it was WP:FRINGE and WP:POVPUSH due to claims by editors that the paper is apparently UFO-friendly in (I'm not totally following the logic) because of the fact people may search for UFO-related topics due to the text string "field propulsion".

    This was removed:

    Technical reports and contractor studies
    Myrabo, Leik N. (1983). Advanced Beamed-Energy and Field Propulsion Concepts. NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR-176108. Braddock Dunn & McDonald Corporation for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    There is an ongoing 20-year long kerkuffle related to the article Field propulsion, where it survived AFD in 2007 and now is up for AfD. Some users have since been trying to "contain" any mentions of that text string "field propulsion" to only be on that once single page. The Myrabo paper is used as a source on Field propulsion.

    It was not used as a source on Leik Myrabo; it was simply in his Bibliography.

    Is it incorrect or is it suitable to link the scientists own paper (and apparently their most cited work about their career specialty) in his bibliography here? NOTE: I am only interested in placing it back into his Biblography as-is.

    (was posted mistakenly on WP:RSN here at this link.) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=1360803102"