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

AI slop ANI report about TOGAF

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cross-Page_Long-Term_COI_Manipulation_and_Citational_Laundering:_Svyatoslav_Kotusev. The report is AI slop, but it looks like the complaints (the user was a SPA promoting one person's critical POV about TOGAF) is probably legitimate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have an idea of what is WP:DUE to include in that "Criticism" section, then you are free to restore it, but it didn't look good to me. The whole section, as well as the primary-sourced "Qualifications", were wiped out. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What about the rest of the articles? I see Zachman Framework has a similar format but no COI sources, but is it WP:SYNTH? I would, in any case, compress it to maybe one or two sentences condensing all the non-primary sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right... I guess I have to work on this thing. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There's the following remaining, all of which have similar sections formatted as bulleted lists, except for Management fad where the AI-slop report's concern is a list entry:

• Federal enterprise architecture: Probably just condense into prose.
• Management fad: I added a source to the entry on enterprise architecture frameworks.
• Business systems planning: Research findings are cited, but are not attributed in the text. It might be WP:SYNTH. No sources authored by Kotusev are in the current version.
• Enterprise architecture planning: Very likely entirely WP:SYNTH. No sources authored by Kotusev are in the current version.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Federal enterprise architecture is such a difficult article to look at. I guess that's to be expected. I did what I could on these. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for subjecting everyone to that abhorrent AI slop. I sincerely appreciate you all looking into this, though! For what it's worth, it did motivate me to start learning how to actually contribute, at least.

HonestCoda (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Editorialising at Executive Order 14168

Darknipples has placed a POV template on the above page, but did not open a discussion here, so I will do so. The disputed text is seen in this edit: . A relevant RfC is this one and discussion is centralised in Talk:Executive Order 14168#Editorialising. I'd appreciate the experience of followers of this noticeboard. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect here and the idea of throwing around the local consensus of a single RfC as if that should be binding on the entire GENSEX contentious topic is alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Applying this logic, the prior RMs and RfCs in the Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration article mean such should be included in the EO article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Though apparently such can be disregarded per Note that we are in no way bound to the wording in the title of that page. Some RMs/RfCs are more equal than others. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This and this is a lot to unpack at once. What concerns me is that it seems like you've tossed WP:AGF out the window, accusing (someone?) of POVPUSHING on the article talk page, rather than taking said editor(s) aside on a personal talk page(s). Now you want to apply an RfC from another article to this one? We should be working towards consensus, and I thought we were making headway, but I guess not. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the disputed text is stated in wikivoice as fact, when it should be stated with attribution as opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think we can fix that. DN (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Whose opinion? Our sources overwhelmingly center this executive order any time they describe persecution against trans people, and LEADFOLLOWSBODY Snokalok2 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have modified the sentence to say "The order has been described as Persecution..." with no particular designation. DN (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Why would we soften it if our deluge of sources is such as to warrant no softening? Snokalok2 (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact it can't be attributed tells you all you need to know. It is not an attributed view, it is the view of the editor who inserted it (and apparently the editors who are defending it). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be, as I've articulated here and on the article's talk page itself, we have a *deluge* of sources of all kinds saying it's part of a persecution effort; and it's specifically *because* there are too many to all attribute in the lead that we can say it without attribution Snokalok2 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Except they don't. None of them say that this executive order is part of a persecution. That is a gloss. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it's following wikipedia editorial standards. Editors are to use our own words to convey factual material, otherwise it's just COPYVIO.

• "eradicate trans people from civic and public life"
• "instigate fear and hatred" against trans people"
• "The country has been regarded as a desired destination for immigrants seeking to escape targeted policies or persecution—including LGBTQ+ people. Now, it’s become a place many trans people, and their families, are trying to leave for the same reason." These all say the same thing.

Snokalok2 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said. Also the lead is not the place for novel information not in the main. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the lead is a place for a summary - and persecution is an accurate summary of the body in our own words as editors. Your logic requires that if certain keywords aren't said, we can't connect anything to anything. By your logic, we wouldn't be able to have "Great Patriotic War" link to "World War 2" because they didn't say the exact keywords of "World" and "Two" Snokalok2 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy you have yet to articulate why the genocide and epistemicide academic sources are irrelevant to the topic of the persecution of trans people. Are you claiming these things are not persecutory? It's very unclear what your objection to these sources is. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do I need to? Where are we talking about an editorial with the word "genocide"? Read what I said below. Although this editorialising in the lead should not be there, and is not supported by the sources, it is clear that there is something missing from the main, and that there is a context. All the time you are defending this editorialising in the lead, you are taking time away from the work that the article needs. The literature needs reviewing. Not just the Lemkin Institute's statement, nor the NCJW, nor the ACLU (these are all advocacy organisations of course, so not WP:BESTSOURCES). It is telling that these and newspaper articles are the goto here. That is wrongheaded for an encyclopaedia article.

What is relevant is what the literature says, and as I say below, this executive order is mentioned in as many as 191 papers on JSTOR (I currently believe about 22 of these are directly relevant. That number is provisional). We need to review the literature. Not newspapers and advocacy organisations, but the WP:BESTSOURCES, and see what they are saying. Then we need to write out the article. Then we can summarise that in the main. That is what we do here. What we shouldn't be doing is pandering to an anchoring effect, where the words chosen by a Wikipedia editor are defended, despite the fact that neither those words, nor anything like them, are in any sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I presented two academic sources that cited Lemkin Institute rather than depending directly on its statement. You are under-rating it as a source by ignoring that context. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Above, Snokalok2 posted three quotations without any citations. They (not you) did put the citations in the EO talk page, from which I can see that they did not quote the one from the Lemkin institute at all, but their citation on that page is to the institute and not someone quoting them. They have quoted the NCJW page (their page, not someone quoting them) and they have quoted the ACLU (but in this case, from an interview quoted in Democracy Now). As I said, these are advocacy organisations. Democracy Now and the journalist substack quoting Genocide Watch (an advocacy oriented NGO) are journalistic sources. What academic sources do you have? Please feel free to add them to the list of sources I researched earlier today. But no, not the Lemkin institute itself please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that we need a new RfC every time someone attempts to insert the exact same POV into an article anywhere in the encyclopedia. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this nor do I know much about it, but just my 2c: we had this issue with an RfC at Talk:Israel re whether to put Gaza genocide in wikivoice. Yes local RfCs technically produce local consensuses, but it's an enormous waste of community time to necessitate another lengthy community discussion on the exact same question but a different page that will probably just produce the same result (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). I would've hoped the mood at the close review from uninvolved editors like Tamzin would get people focussing less about labels, and more about the actual substance, as in what the government are doing, ie. educate rather than moralise. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not really the same though, is it? The discussion at Donald Trump was in part driven by the fact that it was a BLP. That doesn't apply to organizations though, so saying "Under the Trump admin" becomes a different question Snokalok2 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• But, as others have pointed out, we have seen multiple RMs on Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration result in retaining its current title, with arguments that fundimentially point the other direction. It's clear that the community broadly believes that we should decide how to summarize the sources on this on a case-by-case basis; there's clearly no broad consensus against calling it prosecution wiki-wide, or one of the four previous RMs on that article would have succeeded. This is obviously a WP:CONLOCAL situation. --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there are really two issues here. One is whether to link the executive order to the broader program of targeting transgendered individuals in the United States. The other is whether "persecution" is an appropriate descriptor. I think these are separate issues. I would not be surprised if there were a large number of reliable sources for the first item, and I think this link rather obviously belongs in the lead if so. For the question of "persecution", I leave that to others to sort out. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. The executive order does not exist in a vacuum, and the context of this is clearly the politicisation of the trans issue and related questions around gender and sex. There is no doubt that this order sits within a narrative of political polarisation and the use by the Trump regime for political gain. Neither will it be hard to find WP:BESTSOURCES that contextualise this. JSTOR finds 191 articles that mention this executive order, and I am confident that there will be such sources that research this matter and allow us to develop the main section of the article with a suitable context. It just needs a review of the literature to do so. And having done that, the lead will write itself, since we can just summarise the context. We had agreement to do this, and that is all fine.

What is disputed is the editorialised framing without any such sourcing, in a manner that goes against a previous related RfC. And why I think it matters in particular is because of the framing effect. An editor has chosen to frame this in one way ("persecution") without sourcing or summary. Now we have editors desperate to maintain that wording, presumably because they think it is an anti-trans battle of some kind (it is not. But they will say I would say that). The problem, therefore, is that people are hunting for support of one word, and on the article page are only looking in newspaper opinion to do so. If and when such sources are found, they will be stacked up in the lead, and the wording will never be dislodged. We will freeze in an editor selected editorialisation because that is how it was framed (by an editor), rather than doing what we should be doing: reviewing the literature and summarising what the secondary sources say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is always the problem. For what it's worth, removing the editorialization seems like a good idea to me. But I wouldn't insist too much on it in the short term if it stalls further improvement. Probably easier said than done. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor has chosen to frame this in one way ("persecution") without sourcing or summary. Now we have editors desperate to maintain that wording, presumably because they think it is an anti-trans battle of some kind (it is not. But they will say I would say that). The problem, therefore, is that people are hunting for support of one word, and on the article page are only looking in newspaper opinion to do so. If and when such sources are found, they will be stacked up in the lead, and the wording will never be dislodged. We will freeze in an editor selected editorialisation because that is how it was framed, rather than doing what we should be doing: reviewing the literature and summarising what the secondary sources say

Is this still about the article, because It's looking more and more like...something else.

You've already claimed POVPUSHING on the article talk page and now you've come here to state your presumptions about "editors"?...Frankly, it makes it more difficult to focus on improving the article. If you are going to continue to cast doubt on the intention of other editors, would you at least address who you are referring to instead of creating this ambiguously chilling environment?

For the record, I had attempted to follow Blueboar's advice in order to find some consensus, and I have another suggestion that we could conform to the other executive order articles, that leaves out the descriptor you seem to really, really, really want to leave out, but I think I will wait to make that suggestion until after you resolve your issues with said "editors". Cheers. DN (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

So if/when an opinion is shared by multiple sources, my advice is to choose two that you feel are the most reliable and authoritative, and attribute the opinion to them - as examples. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification, originally you mentioned VOICE as a concern which I tried to address, and was later reverted. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

But all you did was say "it has been described as" without saying who . No name, no citation. And the fact that we can't cite it to anyone is the problem. These are the words of the editor who placed the text. They are not attributable because we have no source saying that. Thus it is editorialisation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I just finished stating I was only attempting to mitigate the VOICE concern. DN (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, Sirfurboy keeps commenting on editor behavior, which to me, is not productive in terms of improving the article. No offense to anyone including Sirfurboy, but we are talking about this on a WP:CTOP, so it seems to go against protocols imo. DN (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ironic, since you keep talking about me, and not the issues I have raised. Here, or the 10:14, 16 May reply above, or here for instance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Subject of "High-capacity magazines" outside of legal sphere

The May 16 result of a recent AfD was to merge "High-capacity magazines " and "High-capacity magazine ban" into "Magazine (firearms)". There is now a discussion on the magazine talk page as to whether or not the subject of high-capacity magazines outside of legal definitions is WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE. We need feedback from a wider audience. Please help at Talk:Magazine (firearms)#"High-capacity _magazine" is WP:DUE Lightbreather (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hillsdale College lawsuit

Input is needed as to whether a lawsuit should be mentioned at Hillsdale College. Discussion at Talk:Hillsdale College#Balance Issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wong Kar-wai controversy section

Input is needed as to whether Wong Kar-wai#Controversy should be retained. Discussion at Talk:Wong Kar-wai#Restoration of attack content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Outside views required at International Association of Genocide Scholars

A content dispute at International Association of Genocide Scholars appears to have reached an impasse. Additional opinions would be appreciated. Please be aware that this is in the PIA CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Francesco Alarico della Scala

Francesco Alarico della Scala was recently the subject of a lengthy articles for deletion discussion that closed as no consensus. I'm slightly concerned about the neutrality of the article, which includes (for example) lengthy quotes in praise of North Korea. I don't have the time to look into this, but I note it here in case someone experienced in this sort of thing is willing to spend a few minutes with the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wasian

Please see the discussion at Talk:Wasian#Removal of criticism. Best, Wracking ^talk! 20:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Jordan Lasker profringe issues

There has been some pushing of WP:PROFRINGE views going on at the Jordan Lasker page. Additional editors with experience with both BLP and Race and Intelligence contentious topics would be useful to ensure neutral presentation of the fringe views of a living person. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In 2019, Lasker co-authored a controversial paper, "Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability"...

Faced with accusations that this research program is just classic racism in updated methodological packaging, proponents often justify their work by acknowledging that it is “controversial,” while simultaneously defending the notion that controversy is a hallmark of dynamic scientific progress: something to be embraced rather than shunned. As this new genomic race science feeds a growing, and occasionally deadly, weaponization of genetics, it is time to ask: is this research “just controversial,” or is it something else, something worse?...Proponents of this research grant that it is “controversial,” while contending that controversial science is part and parcel of the normal and, indeed, healthy scientific process...

— Matthews, LJ; Tabery, J; Turkheimer, E (2024). "How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science". Hastings Center Report. 54 (66): 18–29.

The above paper does not mention Lasker, but sources available i think for something other than "controversial" still within NPOV. fiveby(zero) 17:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This falls into a ctop area, race and human ability User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And is also under BLP. It absolutely is a difficult area to work in and will require patience and attention to detail on policy. But WP:FRINGE is policy too, so the challenge is balancing these policy restrictions and the rules of the CTOP.Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not quite following your comments. I think there are sources available to avoid the race scientists preferred term "controversial" and replace with something more direct and as well as provide additional description as to why it's not "just controversial". I believe that would be within the NPOV and BLP policies? Also to be more WP:ASSERTive within the section that merely quoting Turkeimer's "racially motivated and poorly executed work". fiveby(zero) 18:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

By all means please do be assertive. I'm just making sure my notification here lays out the policy ground so that watchers are aware that it's an article about a living profringe figure in a contentious topic. I don't want to inadvertently kick off an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

there's no CTOP rules that stops us from calling it pseudoscience racism, if reliable sources say so. we don't have to (and must not) launder these ideas. Just need to meet WP:PUBLICFIGURES (multiple sources calling this idea crap), and WP:BLPSPS (no self-published sourcing)

apologies if I implied otherwise. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

there are no particular rules for race and intelligence I think, compared to other ctop areas. Admins just gonna send down sanctions harder.

BLP has typical BLP rules though. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I think the three of us fully agree on this. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I've readded most of the removed material with better/more explicit sourcing and wording. Katzrockso (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal of section in Trickle-down economics

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)

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)

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)

And looking through the suggested sources, would indicate that such an assessment is prima facie wrong. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just in case anyone wants to look at exactly what we are talking about ...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?

Sources and context in question

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. According to the study, this shows that the tax cuts for the upper class did not trickle down to the broader economy. From 1980 to 2016, a divergence in the distribution of wealth was noted, with the top .01% of earners seeing a 600% change in real income, vs a 0% change in the bottom 99%, leading to the top 1% accruing 15% more of the total wealth pool, from a share of 15 to 30%.

A Columbia journal article comparing a failed UK Enterprise Zone proposal to later US proposals references them as a form of trickle-down policy where lower regulatory and tax burdens were aimed at wealthier developers with the hope they would benefit residents. Friedrich Hayek's economic theories have also been described as trickle-down.

References

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

Is this supposed to represent "applying economic analysis to a non-economic subject"? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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":

• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/JEI0021-3624480217
• https://journal.apee.org/Parte4Journal_of_Private_Enterprise_Vol_38_No_4_Winter
• https://brownpoliticalreview.org/the-fallacy-and-persistence-of-trickle-down-economics/
• https://hal.science/hal-05112815/

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)

That's a ridiculous and obviously non-neutral removal. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've floated the idea of trying RSN first , as that policy was mentioned as part of Avatar317's argument . Cheers. DN (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

Slovenia article – concern regarding neutrality and political framing

I would like to raise a neutrality concern regarding part of the “Slovenia” article discussing the post-EU accession economic period, bank lending, “tajkuni/tycoons,” Janez Janša’s government, and the later banking crisis. My concern is not necessarily factual accuracy, but rather: interpretative and emotionally framed wording, implied political causality, selective framing, and insufficient distinction between factual events and political interpretation. Examples include wording such as: “over-enthusiasm after joining the EU,” “ratios between loans and deposits got out of control,” references to “local business magnates (tajkuni),” and the structural linking of Janša’s government with later banking collapse consequences in a manner that may imply established responsibility rather than contested interpretation. The inclusion and framing of references to Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán also appear politically suggestive in context rather than necessary for a neutral summary article about Slovenia. I have already opened a discussion on the article Talk page, but I believe the section may require broader review under Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. Thank you. ~2026-31627-61 (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Merging WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:NORN

Just so everyone knows, some people are discussing this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Merging WP:FTN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:NORN. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Attribution or state as absolute fact

Hi, I made these edits to lede for Murder of Henry Nowak and there is a disagreement. I figured Wikipedia should not state in wikivoice that Digwa "lied" about racial abuse as it's a value-laden characterisation attributed to one party in the trial rather than being a judicial finding. The prosecution lawyer had characterised the defence account as a "wicked lie", while the defence alleged that racial abuse occurred. The jury's verdict only establishes the outcome of the case (rejection of self-defence and conviction for murder) but it doesn't also automatically mean this converts the entirety of the winning side's arguments as being all established facts. As article already explains no eyewitnesses were present, I do believe to maintain neutrality and WP:BLP - we must attribute the claims; state that the prosecution called the allegation a lie and that the jury rejected the defense.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Dispute on "Theodosius of Skopje"

Article: Theodosius of Skopje

Involved users: StephenMacky1, Jingiby

I want to request an independent neutral review regarding this article as a group of editors are trying to maintain a strict ownership of the page to enforce a one-sided national perspective.

While it is agreed that Theodosius held official roles within the Bulgarian Exarchate, his primary historical significance, which editors on the Talk Page admit is relevant enough to be in the lead, comes from his aggressive regional separatism, his attempts to break away from the Exarchate, and his efforts to restore an autocephalous Archbishopric of Ohrid as an Ottoman subject.

Enforcing an exclusive national classification in the first sentence and completely removing any attempts to show his anti-Exarchate views, which are best shown in his letter from 22nd June 1891, are systematic attempts made to downplay or isolate his actions which violates the WP:NPOV. The local editors have refused to allow a balanced, multi-perspective opening sentence.

They have justified this blanket removal by discrediting the entire document of his letter based on modern regional historiographical disputes surrounding it's first publisher - Slavko Dimevski. Even if there are such disputes, completely censoring the primary text violates WP:CENSORSHIP and leaves the entire thing heavily biased. MakPen (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Jingiby was not involved in the discussion, although he did revert. You could have asked for a third opinion instead. Anyway, this is not an accurate depiction of the dispute. I was the first one to initiate a discussion and try to resolve the dispute, even though it was your responsibility to do so as you were implementing disputed edits. You never provided any evidence that the subject's separatism is of primary historical significance. It is actually only a small part of his life. A biography needs to cover all aspects of one's life. Actually, your edit causes a one-sided perspective as it focuses solely on the separatism and ignores every activity of his before and after the separatism. Secondary sources dispute the authenticity of the alleged letter, not me. We also cannot rely on authors who possibly forge documents. Even if the document is authentic, it still would be a primary source and we cannot present any analysis from it without a secondary source. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines before making accusations about alleged violations of NPOV, ownership and censorship. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Almost the entire life of Theodosius was dedicated to the Bulgarian cause, with the exception of a small segment of 2-3 years. This short period was used by Macedonian historians to inflate incredible nationalist claims about him. Even more strangely, these claims are based mainly on a single document whose authenticity is quite doubtful. Moreover, the original of this document has not been found at all. Apparently, this is now being used to make a big deal out of a nothing. Not to say, the document in question was discovered by a researcher involved in more than one document hoax. By the way, there is another letter from this man from the same period to which the scholars from Skopje attributed to him the hoaxal letter, but the second letter is published in the press, and has exactly the opposite content and context.Jingiby (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, all of the information on Theodosius' Wiki comes only from Bulgarian historians who obviously have one-sided views about him - since any documents or proof provided by Macedonians or others (which doesn't align with the Bulgarian one) get supressed by these two users' full-control of the page. Anything that doesn't align with their views, they claim is doubtful so they can control the narrative. MakPen (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

One look at his article confirms that is untrue, as it also includes information from Macedonian authors, Greek authors and other international authors. The nationality of an author does not affect their reliability, but their reputation in academia does. I would advise you to stop casting aspersions. Unless you have any secondary sources to support your claims, you are just inserting your personal opinions. We are not here to debate. Wikipedia relies on sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Lynching of Deborah Yakubu

I came across the above article related to religious sectarianism in Nigeria, and strongly suspect it may violate our policies on reporting crime, including in its title. I don’t know these policies well enough to act, but would appreciate editors who do taking a look BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

SGML

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)

If it's subject to debate then please present reliable sources that demonstrates the debate. Simonm223 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Barracuda Networks

Hi All. My name is Anne, and I work for Barracuda Networks. I disclosed a conflict of interest and raised an issue on the Talk page regarding a dedicated "Controversies" section that, in my opinion, is poorly cited and contrary to WP:CRIT. I was hoping for an impartial editor to weigh in here. AnneKasperCampbell (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've partially addressed AnneKasperCampbell's talk page issues. Other editors are welcome to disagree with the change I did make or to disagree with the portion I didn't remove. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Firdausul Hasan

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)