by the ultra-Catholic and far-right[1][2][3][4][5] HazteOir organization,[6][7][8] a similar Spanish platform that has been opposing what they refer to as "gender ideology" since 2001.[9]
^Mónica Cornejo-Valle; J. Ignacio Pichardo.La "ideología de género" frente a los derechos sexuales y reproductivos. El escenario español. cadernos pagu.ISSN1809-4449.
As an example of journals, the term also appears in academic papers and even books:
"The WCF was instrumental in creating CitizenGo as a transnational and interdenominational NGO, thus significantly expanding the agenda and reach of the hitherto Spanish-only,ultra-Catholic NGO HazteOir." - THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF ILLIBERALISM
I think it’s very important that when an organization is mentioned in reputable press, academic journals, or books, and those sources consistently use certain adjectives, the wiki article should reflect that common description in the lead. Otherwise, we would be obscuring how experts understand the subject. Let us not pretend there was no consensus. All the sources use the phrase in a meaningful way. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to remove something that is already extensively referenced. Unless you can dismiss the citations I support that we revert to the consensushttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CitizenGO&oldid=1331527474 and completely remove the issues template.Cardnewman (talk)19:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...when an organization is mentioned... "Mentioned" does not meanWP:DUE, much less presented in the lede of a related article but not in the article body, and usingWikipedia's voice.
The burden of proof lies... Actually, you have that backwards. PerWP:ONUS,The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --Hipal (talk)20:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just flagging that yes, this looks like it needs additional eyes -- it looks like there have been multiple attempts to introduce material about crashes and safety that have been repeatedly been removed since the article was created. Some of it looks like it should've definitely been removed (reddit citations), but given the amount of press it's gotten on the subject of safety, it does seem strangely thin in the article. Mfixerer isn't doing a very good job of advocating for their position, but I'm also unpersuaded by the counter arguments. Mfixerer, we don't typically create whole sections devoted to a single source, so start there as a compromise, but also it looks like there are plenty of sources out there about Robotaxis, safety, and crashes. Do a little more legwork, compile some sources together, and you have a better argument to stand on. Sites liketech crunch reference Electrek on this issue, reinforcing that it's probably worth including.Futurism,Futurism,Mashable,Jalopnik,Ars Technica, etc. just in the first couple pages of search hits. —Rhododendritestalk \\17:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Futurism and Jalopnik both produce a high volume of clickbait anti-Tesla articles; I can't speak for Mashable and Ars Technicha they might be more reasonable.
The primary issue is that comparing the crashes per mile of an early and limited area probationary service to one which has been active for several years over a very wide area and should be fully mature contains an inherent statistical dishonesty. Like comparing the spelling mistakes per sentences written over the lifetime of a 1st grader v.s. a college student, of course the 1st grader's spelling mistakes per sentence will be higher: they're only just getting good at spelling; and the college student's spelling was just as bad in 1st grade; they've just written more sentences overall since the bulk of their spelling mistakes occurred.
Thus, the assertion that Tesla Robotaxi's to-date safety record is shockingly worse than Waymo's to-date safety record is inherently flawed and being played for outrage value rather than actual statistical significance.Largely Legible Layman (talk)17:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"anti-Tesla"? You mean they're critical. A publication doesn't have to be "pro-Tesla" to be reliable, and it sounds like your objections are based more onyour own interpretation of what is or is not newsworthy, for which we defer to those sources. Where a claim is controversial (as in, there's room for disagreement among reliable sources, without factoring in the opinions of Wikipedians), we attribute it to them. If you don't think Jalopnik or Futurism should be considered reliable when it comes to Tesla,WP:RSN is where you can make the argument, but I think they're both considered halfway decent sources on cars/technology. To be clear, I'm not endorsing Mfixerer's edit as-is. The wording and citations need work, and I've advised them to improve it above. But I'm also responding to what looks like a fairly skewed article, where perhaps "anti-Tesla" articles are omitted in favor of e.g. Teslarati (whichhas come up at RSN before). —Rhododendritestalk \\19:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think sources need to be "pro-Tesla" to be reliable, by anti-Tesla I mean sources engaging in selective/hypocritical interpretation, skewing facts, cherry picking evidence, and setting out with a "Teslas are dangerous/bad for the environment/worse thanICE cars in some way, how can we prove that?" mindset, which I have definitely seen Futurism do to Tesla and Jalopnik do to both Tesla and electric cars in general. Neutral presents the facts without any of that anti-/pro- twisting or interpretation, and especially without luridness, appeals to outrage, or other propagandistic smearishness.
Agree that Teslarati usage should be reduced as much as possible, by my understanding it is basically a fansite.
I think a section on safety could be added to the article, but I don't think going purely off the amount of coverage is a good reason. Tesla is very divisive, and so it's inevitable that there are going to be exaggerations that exist only to create outrage. There are tons of videos of Waymos making dumb driving mistakes, but no one talks about them as much as when a Tesla makes the same mistake. I'm not against mentioning the safety of Robotaxi in the article but it should be
1. Well sourced.
2. Free of comparison to Waymo or other autonomous cars.
3. Written as neutrally as possible and without exaggerating the severity of crashes.
Also just reading that TechCrunch article you gave to support the integrity of Electrek, and I'm not very convinced. One of the references is just to show that Tesla redacts the crash data, one is a blatant lie (or at least a gross misrepresentation) about Tesla moving the safety monitor to the drivers seat when in reality that's only the case for highway drives, and the other two are just about quotes from Musk. These aren't exactly high levels of journalistic critique.DistilledPizza (talk)20:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with comparisons to Waymo?
Other than that I agree with this. Perhaps it would be good to limit the size of this section. There is some tension between WP:NPOV and WP:RS here. On one hand, if RS talk a lot about Tesla's safety issues Wikipedia should reflect that. On the other hand, if the actual safety stats of Tesla are comparable to those of its competitors (and probably are much better than human drivers' performance) then it doesn't seem neutral to dwell too much on this topic.Alaexis¿question?21:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Largely Legible Layman already laid it out in this thread, but I'll say it again. Robotaxi shouldn't be compared to Waymo because it's still very new and hasn't had nearly as much time as Waymo to become fully fleshed out. And besides, Autonomous cars should always be judged against human drivers, because at the end of the day that's what they're trying to replace. It's not like we mention the crash test ratings of the Honda Civic in the Toyota Corolla's article. And for a more apples to apples comparison, in theincidents section of the Cruise article, there aren't any comparisons to Waymo. The only time Waymo is even mentioned is when talking about how both Waymo and Cruise vehicles had blocked first responders.DistilledPizza (talk)01:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to comparisons between services so long as the source puts in the effort to compare the services to each other at similar points in their respective developments so that the comparison is statistically honest. Electrek did not do that and consequently its comparisons between Robotaxi and Waymo are statistically dishonest and most of the other sources seem to be copying Electrek's homework.Largely Legible Layman (talk)01:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
then it doesn't seem neutral to dwell too much on this topic - That sounds likeWP:OR to me.WP:WEIGHT is determined by coverage, not an editors' evaluation of "yeah, well, they didn't cover Company X as much as they should've so we can factor that in...". The answer, as ever, is to summarize aspects of the subject corresponding to the prevalence of those aspects in the body of reliable sources. That'sWP:NPOV on Wikipedia, for better and worse. —Rhododendritestalk \\03:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's WP:OR. WP:WEIGHT is primarily about the weight given to different viewpoints. Here the issue is not that there are 2 different viewpoints on the safety of Tesla. Even if (generally reliable) media outlets report on every single fatality, we still shouldn't have a huge safety section that mentions every accident.Alaexis¿question?08:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several edits to expand the article and fix small errors. Feel free to remove anything if I've gotten something wrong. I have not had a chance to read through the DYK discussion yet, but, at a glance, I see others have already commented.Rjjiii (talk)07:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian government, and anyIRGC-run press, areWP:NOTRS for this subject.
TIME[5] and the Guardian[6] are reporting that the Iranian government has killed tens of thousands of civilians. There is an obvious conflict of interest here with the Iranian government attempting to downplay this reporting. Quoting the Guardian article: "Testimony from medics, morgue and graveyard staff revealshuge state effort to conceal systematic killing of protesters"
I agree. I'm sorry if I'm having a hard time assuming good faith here but Hu741f4's constant attempts at downplaying the severity of the crackdown in Iran while ignoring reliable sources is mind boggling. And since they are not getting their way, instead ofdropping the stick they have now dragged the discussion into another venue in pursuit of a different outcome, which most certainly they will not get.Keivan.fTalk05:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are violatingWP:AFG andWP:PA at the moment. Just because a source is reliable does not mean it can be included in an article, again seeWP:RS instead of inventing convenient guidelines. Tine and the Guardian have not provided any reliable source for the number of casualties and are instead relying off third party speculation. There is no confirmed number for the casualties in the protests, unlike for the Gaza Genocide in which the number of casualties has been confirmed as reliable my several academic and human right authorities. So it is highly irresponsible of a Wikipedia article to claim that 40,000+ people were killed even if so called “reliable sources” mention that number. Being reliable sources does NOT make them unquestionable sources.SwedishDutch (talk)11:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If, for the infobox, we ignore the relative reliability of sources and just want aliteral NPOV rather than the overall more nuanced WP:NPOV policy, then we would include the 50k death estimate per "activists and political prisoners" in Iran and "medical authorities" perReza Pahlavi perThe Sunday Times.[1] However, so far, nobody has argued that Pahlavi, a politician (and hypothetical monarch-in-exile) is a sufficientlyreliable source for putting that estimate in the infobox of either of the two relevant Wikipedia articles. In contrast, the Iranian governmentis known to undercountofficial killings of Iranian citizens by Iranian authorities by a factor of about eight on average, making it definitelyWP:NOTRS.Boud (talk)11:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is for the infobox, which already has (have, if we consider both articles) footnotes to the infobox numbers. There is very little dispute about the numbers in the main body of the two relevant articles. There have been some disputes for the leads. Most of the editing disputes are for the infoboxes.Boud (talk)12:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the two of them are not connected, SwedishDutch's attempts at pushing IRGC affiliated sources pretty much gives their game away. Both of them need to be topic banned if this pattern of behavior persists.Keivan.fTalk15:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Perfecnot I appreciate your comment but I didn't accuse anyone of anything, so your comment is a bit misdirected. And I don't see the point in discussion when one party is hell bent on using deprecated sources and erasing valid data.Keivan.fTalk17:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was @Ecrusized that accused @Hu741f4 of being a sockpuppet. I retract that.
Did he actually go ahead and erase the data completely in his edits? No, because we did not let him, but that's what he has essentially been arguing for in his comments. The issue is that we cannot omit information based on user preferences. If multiple sources say that the deaths are in the thousands then that's what we are obliged to report on. As I pointed out on the article talk page, what the user in question fails to understand is that we are dealing with a regime who's cut off the Internet to hide the extent of their crimes; thus why a precise figure cannot be given. Hence why we have a range in the infobox, but they want to alter the range because their main issue is that they do not “believe” that the number could be this high (SwedishDutch) or that because an exact number has not been determined so according to them that means the estimates are somewhat invalid (Hu741f4).Keivan.fTalk08:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide is ahighly specialized legal term and it there are no reputable/relevant organizations individuals claiming that the crackdown on protestors in Iran was in anyway a genocide.
Secondly, I find that this dogpiling on @Hu741f4highly concerning. I am among several users who have been putting doubt onto the current state in which the infoboxes in2026 Iran massacres and2025–2026 Iranian protests are formatted. I am not opposed to theTime (magazine) estimate being included, just that the range is also expanded to the figure just above 6,000 that media organizations such as theAssociated Press are citing as of Jan 27th.[21]
@HistoryofIran linked to 6 purported edits but it seems he has just linked to talk page sections that @Hu741f4 has initiated, as any Wikipedian should do if they have an issue with the article they want to discuss.Perfecnot (talk)15:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran linked to 6 purported edits but it seems he has just linked to talk page sections that @Hu741f4 has initiated, as any Wikipedian should do if they have an issue with the article they want to discuss.
I think it is pretty clear by now that there is no consensus on the death toll range that should be used. You do not get to decide when and where a Wikipedian gets to discuss a contentious edit.
Regardless, you tried to frame him creating talk pages regarding the death toll and the sources that should be used as trying to minimize civilian casualties. Whether you did that in bad faith I cannot say, and I'll assume it was a honest mistake, but regardless, it's factually incorrect.
This is Hu741f4's sixth (!) attempt [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] at trying to minimize the numbers of civilian casualties at the hands of the regime. I think this is a pretty massive indicator of who truly is violating WP:NPOV here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
You do not get to decide when and where a Wikipedian gets to discuss a contentious edit.
By all means, please point out the part where I did that.
Regardless, you tried to frame him creating talk pages regarding the death toll and the sources that should be used as trying to minimize civilian casualties
Whether you did that in bad faith I cannot say, and I'll assume it was a honest mistake, but regardless, it's factually incorrect.
It is always advised to click and read on the links presented in a discussion, especially when you want to be condescending. Here's the chronological order:
"rejected multiple times by several editors" Individual or even multiple editors are not decision makers. That is not how things work unfortunately. Consensus is an agreement among a swath of editors.
Also, if you want to get to a consensus, you should instead propose a compromise. Which I personally haven't seen. I have not seen a single convincing argument against the inclusion of the figure just above 6,000 deaths, which the AP reported on just two days ago.[28]Perfecnot (talk)22:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page where we are trying to reach a consensus on this contentious topic and align the article to a more NPOV. I am proposing the inclusion of a smaller death toll which has been reported on by the reputable news organization the Associated Press. What do you think?Perfecnot (talk)22:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have editors considered presenting this as a range - presenting a minimum and maximum number, each cited to a reliable (even if biased) source?Blueboar (talk)23:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe(?) I was one of the first editors to start editing the death toll in the infobox to a lower number since the high figures were unverified, per theTime (magazine) own admission.
I wasn't personally involved with any of the editors above so apparently there was a separate effort to do the same thing. Regardless, it baffles me how far this has gone when all that is being asked is the inclusion of the lower figures being cited by mainstream press.Perfecnot (talk)04:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
when all that is being asked is the inclusion of the lower figures being cited by mainstream press
The "lower figure being cited by mainstream press" is HRANA's confirmed deaths, which is in the infobox and has a general consensus to be kept in the infobox
That is not "all that is being asked" - one of the main asks, and the most disputed, is the inclusion of Iranian govt figures (which, when mentioned by RS, are universally doubted)
First and foremost, the Iranian government figures are not reliable and should not be included in the infobox.
The infobox currently does not make it clear that the 30k+ numbers are unconfirmed and highly speculative, which is a violation ofWP:NPOV. Additionally these speculations should not be given priority over the more robust HRANA figures.
Accusations that users are trying to downplay/minimize the severity of the killings are not helpful. Describing the killings as an "ongoing genocide" (with no RS support), smacks ofWP:RGW.
In July 2024, I disclosed a COI before proposing a structural rewrite of the existing Claremont McKenna College (CMC) page in September of that year. The rewrite, which can be found in my Sandboxhere, reorganizes the content for improved flow and readability. The draft keeps all the content of the existing article, including critical coverage and I specifically avoided adding promotional materials. The goal was to rearrange the copy and information for clarity as additions over the years made it harder to read.
The size of the revision has led to disputes over its implementation, though, with concerns raised about its neutrality and tone.
I’m looking for third-party input on the following:
Per WP:NPOV, does the Sandbox draft maintain neutrality, and is it the right approach for the school’s content;
Do the changes align with Wikipedia’s content and neutrality policies; and
Are there any specific concerns about tone or bias that need to be addressed before the rewrite is published.
For context, it may help to know that:
This rewrite was originally submitted as a COI edit request that stalled due to the draft’s scale and resulting feedback, which has been addressed.
The rewrite is just to improve organization.
Two tables mapping every change was provided for transparencyhere on January 8, 2025.
The rewrite on my Sandbox page includes two versions: (1) one dated January 2026, which includes changes requested on the CMC Talk page by editors who did a partial review of the draft, and (2) one dated January 2025, which was the COI edit request referenced above.
I’d appreciate a review of the Sandbox draft by experienced editors who haven’t previously worked on this article and who can provide feedback or recommendations for next steps, such as whether to proceed with the replacement text or whether it needs continued revision. Thanks for the help!Clementine Sandoval (talk)17:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Clementine Sandoval, I appreciate all the work you have put into this. I think it is a small improvement to the existing article, though the formatting is messed up and that campus map is not properly licensed and may need to be removed. The stuff about the Claremont Colleges needs to stay down in the body of the article not in the lead. Just mention the affiliation in the lead.
The article still reads like material that belongs on a college website or a student recruitment brochure rather than in an encyclopedia. That is the POV problem. The infobox includes a link to the college website which lets people find out more if needed. Most college articles aren't very well done here, I admit, but as an encyclopedia we would like to see the whole history of the college treated rather than just publicizing the current state. Why was the institution founded and by whom? Was it initially part of the Claremont colleges or did it associate later? What were the discussions like surrounding the admission of women? There must also have been other important developments in the college history since 1946. SeePomona College for what the organization and feel of the article should be, and for shorter examples, seeIthaca College andSt. Olaf College.StarryGrandma (talk)22:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page, I have referencedWP:CONTENTIOUS two times, andonce in an edit summary. Contrary to the guidelines saying there needs to be in-text attribution for labels like "neo-Nazi" when widespread in reliable sources, Turbo hasremoved the template about the label's neutrality being disputed and disregarded the guidelines bysaying "I don't think attribution is necessary". It's clear this needs third-party intervention.Daisy Blue (talk)14:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTENTIOUS doesn't mean you get to tag every instance of a label, because the policy saysmay express contentious opinion and are best avoidedunless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. As was shown on the article's talk page, reliable sourcesoverwhelmingly label Kapustin a neo-nazi. Adding the "neutrality disputed" tag is just another attempt at whitewashing. We already have a whole paragraph in the article based onhis own denials andhis own explanations how he is a "conservative" and not a neo-nazi. And now you want to say the label's neutrality is disputed. What is the end game here?TurboSuperA+[talk]14:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CONTENTIOUS says labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Labels do not have to always be attributed, it depends on the source. Maybe editors could show source analysis for their positions. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"neo-nazi"[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41],Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis.[42]
My understanding is thatMOS:CONTENTIOUS does say that if contentious labels are widely used in RSes, they should be attributed in-text:unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,in which case usein-text attribution (emphasis mine). However,another user pointed out that even though the guideline technically requires this, it is not done in the lead sections for various prominent neo-Nazis. Maybe a possible solution is that labels in the lead can be attributed in the body.Helpful Cat {talk}19:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting phenomenon. "The presence of Russian far-right groups on both sides of the conflict is also a sign of an ideological fracturing of Russia's ultranationalist movement, said political scientistMark Galeotti, head of London-based Mayak Intelligence consultancy and author of several books on the Russian military."[48]. Still, manyrecent sources call these guys merely "far-right", which is a more general term (e.g.[49]). This is probably because their actual political views are difficult to ascertain, as follows from the discussion at the article talk page. These guys are defined mostly by theiractions, not words. And in terms of his actions, he is mostly known as a leader of the anti-Putin paramilitary groups —Freedom of Russia Legion who fight againstRussian Neo-Nazi. Everything else is of relatively little importance.Should he be described as a Neo-Nazi himself or as antifascist? What exactly should be said in the lead of his BLP page is very much debatable.My very best wishes (talk)21:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should he be described as a Neo-Nazi himself or as antifascist?
Someone who risks his life every day by fighting on the war against the actual neo-Nazi isde facto an antifascist. But can he be a nationalist and "far-right" himself by his political views? Yes, sure.My very best wishes (talk)21:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just because two neo-Nazis are fighting amongst themselves doesn't make either of them less neo-Nazi. Especially when the motive of the one you're speculating may be anti-Fascist is that the other one is insufficiently neo-Nazi; while he himself uses "multiculturalist" as an insult and runs a White-only militia group.Daveosaurus (talk)22:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who he fights against, or editors opinions about how that should influence the description of him. What matters are sources, TSA+ has shown many sources describing him as a neo-nazi if many recent sources only describe him as "far-right" then show them not just an example. The description should be based on the balance of sources, maybe the article needs to describe how sources have changed their description of him. But one example doesn't outweigh many past sources. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. I agree that one should look how a person is currently defined by a majority ofrecent sources. OK, let's check it. I am doing a Google search for "Denis Kapustin"and looking only at RS. What I see?
[50]Kyiv faked the death of a Russian far-right activist fighting in its ranks against the Kremlin.
[51]:Ukraine staged the death of a high-ranked Russian fighting on Kyiv’s side to prevent him being killed on Moscow’s orders (no qualification at all!)
[52]:The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens (yes, that is how he should be described on the page)
[53]:How Ukraine's military intelligence faked the death of Denis Kapustin, a Russian commander fighting for Kyiv
Actually, none of thesemost recent RS called him a "neo-Nazi" as something he is mostly known for. If anything, he is mostly known as "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens" - as one of these sources say.My very best wishes (talk)01:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's just cherry picking, because I can find more recent sources that call him a neo-nazi:
Given a very large number of sources about this person, one can indeed do cherry picking. To avoid it, I simply did a Google search for "Denis Kapustin" and provided the most recent RS in the order as they appeared in the search. I agree this not a proof, this is a very small dataset, and the search for older sources could provide a different result.My very best wishes (talk)14:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread many of these sources. For example, you say thatNovaya Gazeta, 27 December 2025 labels him as a neo-Nazi. But does it really, or this is your personal interpretation? It defines him in the beginning of the article :The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens fighting alongside the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). Yes, that is what I would too suggest in the beginning of our BLP page about him. It further say in the middle:A former football hooligan and neo-Nazi activist from Moscow who spent much of his youth in Germany. Yes, sure, let's say this too in the middle of our page (and we actually said this already).My very best wishes (talk)15:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we base the article on a single source? Also, in a comment on the article talk page regardingRFE/RL you wroteI would not rely too much on Russian language sources.[54] despite Radio Free Europe publishing in English. But now you think we should base the whole article onNovaya Gazeta, a source that actually publishes content in Russian. I think it is time that youdrop the stick. You're welcome to find sources that support your view or actually dispute the label, but the cherry-picking and the mental gymnastics are getting tiring.TurboSuperA+[talk]15:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But does it really, or this is your personal interpretation?
Yes, it does. You even cited it:A former football hooligan andneo-Nazi activist from Moscow who spent much of his youth in Germany. How can you ask "does it really?" after copy-pasting the part where they label him a "neo-nazi activist"?TurboSuperA+[talk]15:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not cherry picking because I took the sourceyou found and suggested to describe the person exactly as this source does. But it does matter what we say in the first phrase of an article about a person per our BLP rules because it defines what he is mostly known for. The article you found does just that. It says (first phrase in the publication): "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps...". So should we.My very best wishes (talk)15:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it defines what he is mostly known for.
Long before he founded the RVC he was known for his neo-nazi activism. That is what he is known for, being a neo-nazi, many sources attest to that. He is also known for owning and operating a neo-nazi clothing brand and operating neo-nazi fight clubs and networks in Europe. He is even banned from the EU because of his neo-nazi activism.TurboSuperA+[talk]15:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, my reading ofthe most recent sources I provided above and recent sources found by you (the citation above) is that he is mostly notable as "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps", not as an alleged neo-Nazi. The important key word in the citation of the source above isformer. Yes, we also need to say that he isformer whoever (and we said it on the page) because this is an important part of his biography, but this is secondary - according to the most recent RS. The ongoing war has changed a lot in Russia and Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk)15:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They call him a "former football hooligan". I don't see why you're so hung up on this one source when there are other sources published in the last two months that label him a neo-nazi. I already said in a discussion on the article's talk page that I agree with attributing the label in the body, but that it should remain in the lede. If you wish to remove the label you must seek consensus for that change.TurboSuperA+[talk]16:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar trend amongrecent sources provided by Turbo. He said this recent source (2nd from the end in the first line) calls him neo-Nazi[55]. No, it does not. It saysThe founder and leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit fighting alongside Kyiv’s army.My very best wishes (talk)
To those who aren't following the article's Talk page, it's worth noting that I've disputed at least some of the information on that table. It includes labels derived from headlines, contrary toWP:HEADLINES, and in one instance, the label is derived from an image caption. In other instances, the used label may not be the most appropriate of the multiple labels present in the sources.My unfinished draft attempts to address some of the issues. There is currently a distinction between First description and Other description(s), but I may merge them later and say "Descriptions (in order)".Daisy Blue (talk)03:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
White Rex, White Nationalism, and Combat Sport: The Production of a Far-Right Cultural Scene
René Nissen, Kiril Avramov, Jason Roberts
21 December 2021
Connecting European far-right actors was apparently one of White Rex’s goals from the beginning. There is no question that the brand promotes far-right ideas. Kapustin has said so openly and often. The logo incorporates the “black sun,” a neo-Nazi symbol. Additionally, White Rex events have featured far-right hatecore bands, and fighters supported by the brand maintain close ties with far-right extremist groups.,By stoking extremist sentiment with his far-right fights, Kapustin was able to grow the markets for both his ideas and his clothing brand.,Before the travel ban, Kapustin was active in spreading his “white ideas” in Western Europe.,supporting the formation of a trans-European far-right cultural scene is also in keeping with Kapustin’s political and ideological agenda. By providing a model for new organizations and contributing to its development, Kapustin has also played a substantial role in the formation of a transnational white nationalist identity shareable—and now demonstrably shared—by far‑right extremists across Europe.,n 2017, he conducted combat training sessions for members of the far-right Swiss Nationalist Party (PNOS) and the National Democratic Party of Germany, as well as for the neo-Nazi activist group Aktionsblog Rostock.,White Rex often features violent, white nationalist, xenophobic imagery and text,By financially promoting and supporting far-right fighters from across Europe, Kapustin has attracted white nationalists with real-life versions of their mythical “Euroethnic warrior.”
In the Shadow of Christchurch: International Lessons from New Zealand’s Extreme Far-Right
Milo Comerford, Jakob Guhl, Elise Thomas
July/August 2021
Action Zealandia podcasts have also featured Denis Kapustin (better known as Denis Nikitin), the founder of the White Rex clothing brand, a mixed martial arts promoter, and prolific white nationalist networker. Nikitin and Rundo are frequent collaborators on a range of projects, and both reportedly have links to neo-Nazi armed groups such as the Azov Battalion in Ukraine.61
Contemporary Social Movements: Historical and Descriptive Accounts
Ch.17White Supremacist Movements Worldwide
Heidi Beirich
8 December 2025
This network of “sports clubs” was first conceptualized by American neo-Nazi Robert Rundo and Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin, a key MMA organizer who is banned from EU
Incubating Terror: The Implications of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine for Global Terrorism
Peter Kent Forster
2025
Denis Kapustin, an avowed neo-Nazi, has organized a neo-Nazi mixed martial arts “empire” across Europe and trained members of Germany’s neo-Nazi National Democratic Party.
“The Last White Country”: Mapping the Far-Right Ideology in Russia during the Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine
Elizaveta Gaufman
23 April 2025
The views of its founder and commander Denis Nikitin (KapustinFootnote1) as well as some members of the group have been described as far-right and neo-Nazi (Alperovich Citation2023), although sometimes they veer into ethnopluralist territory, probably in an attempt to launder their views into mainstream.
Kapustin, according to the AFP news agency, has a controversial past linked to the far right and football hooliganism, and some of his fighters have voiced neo-Nazi views.
Denis Nikitin, a notorious neo-Nazi who has personally trained far-right extremists across Europe in combat, and has been called one of the most dangerous figures on Europe’s far right
The Antifascist Europe monitoring project says he is a neo-Nazi and white supremacist.,He also launched his own clothing brand, White Rex, featuring the Black Sun logo favoured by neo-Nazi groups.
He maintained contact with Thorsten Heise and Thommy Frenck, two leading neo-Nazis from East Germany. Kapustin, meanwhile, has been given a ban on entry to the entire Schengen area. This also applies to Switzerland.,he offers T-shirts with a “88” inscription, in the far-right scene a well-known code for the greeting formula «Heil Hitler»
Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis.
Similarly, in 2019, authorities in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia ensured that Russian extremist Denis Kapustin was denied entry to the entire Schengen area after he had organized martial arts events for neo-Nazi groups across Europe.
According to multiple media and watchdog reports, RDK’s leaders espouse far-right and neo-Nazi views. Kapustin (also known as Denis Nikitin and “White Rex”) has been identified as a neo-Nazi by the Anti-Defamation League.
Former neo-Nazi slain in Zaporizhzhia,there he became engrossed in the neo-Nazi (new Nazi) skinhead culture and even operated a white supremacist clothing brand. After being banned from entering by German authorities, he moved to Ukraine, defining himself as a ‘right-wing conservative’ and continuing his activities.
Denis Kapustin, a violent racist linked to a banned British neo-Nazi group,,While the RDK’s far-right ideology was belatedly noted in media reports, the fact its leader spent time teaching neo-Nazis in Britain has so far been forgotten.
According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Kapustin, who is known as “Rex,” is considered “one of the most influential figures” in the European neo-Nazi scene by German authorities,The forces carrying it out were blatant neo-Nazis with vast international connections, above all in Germany. Of particular significance is Denis Kapustin,Other members of the RVC are also notorious neo-Nazis
Kapustin and prominent members of the armed group he leads, the Russian Volunteer Corps, openly espouse far-right views. In fact, German officials and humanitarian groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, have identified Kapustin as a neo-Nazi.
a Russian neo-Nazi football hooligan,Once described by extremist experts as one of the most dangerous neo-Nazis in the world, Mr Nikitin has become something of a pin-up for white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
Denis Nikitin, a supporter of the extreme right from Moscow and the founder of the Neo-Nazi martial arts brand White Rex.,Nikitin is both neo-Nazi and businessman.
Nikitin was known as a notorious Russian nationalist, who built links between far-right groups across Europe,Nikitin, who grew up in Russia and Germany, has been banned from the Schengen zone since 2019 and has a reputation as one of Europe’s most notorious neo-Nazis.,He has never used the phrase “white supremacist”, he claimed, and said he is only called a “neo-Nazi” because he is against “LGBTQ propaganda and cultural Marxism”. But, pressed on his views about Nazi Germany, he admitted that although “genocide and gas chambers are bad, regardless of who does it”, there was much he admired about the Third Reich. “I extremely like the culture, the style. I extremely favour the military,” he said.
It is believed that Kapustin holds neo-Nazi views, and he has even been labelled as a ‘key figure in European extreme far-right circles’ and ‘one of the most dangerous neo-Nazis in the region’.,Russian neo-Nazis have expressed support for RVC on their social media (such as the Telegram channel ‘National Socialist’)
Kapustin, known by his callsign "White Rex," was a controversial figure—a Moscow-born neo-Nazi activist who founded a far-right clothing brand and organized MMA fighting tournaments for European extremists.
Observers of the far-right in Europe are concerned about the infiltration of neo-Nazis into the boxing and MMA scenes — and they’re particularly worried about Nikitin. “He is seen as dangerous by those who monitor the far right” due to his “outright neo-Nazi ideology — preaching racial war and the need to ‘reconquer’ the ‘living space’ of the white man in Europe,” said Pavel Klymenko, a Ukrainian researcher with the FARE Network who tracks soccer hooligans.
^a researcher and author who specializes in far-right extremism and football[1],a German journalist and author of a new book on combat sports and the European far right.[2], as well as having been published himself in the same area[3]
The article should be revised to make sure it's more of a North Africa article, and lessMaghreb-centric;
Reasonable compromises should be reached on mentioning and properly framing non-dominant minorities which are endemic but not primarily North African. Not erasing them, nor framing them as locally equivalent to more prominent groups which are primarily North African.
This is an extremely misleading, false account of discussions at the Norwegian Wikipedia and a transparent attempt to import a dispute from another project, where a couple of editors have tried to remove all mention of the Epstein affair, and faced strong pushback from an equal number of established editors. ABC News reported[109] that "Few countries have been as roiled by the Epstein revelations as Norway", so the fallout in Norway has been severe and involved a former prime minister and a royal[110][111] Also, no one has been "barred" from "posting" anything on this affair at the Norwegian Wikipedia, we have ongoing content discussions on our village pump and the article's talk page, that is it. A couple of "pro-royal" editors found it objectionable to mention the Epstein affair and its connection to the Norwegian royal family, and when they didn'tquite get it their way there (the article now does in fact mention it), they apparently tried to continue the dispute over here. But this is not the Norwegian Wikipedia. There is broad consensus on the English Wikipedia to cover the Epstein affairin detail, this article is part of a suite of many similar articles onCategory:Relationships of Jeffrey Epstein, and indeed, even the German Wikipedia and other editions have similar articles on theEpstein–Mette-Marit connection. You have already been told byUser:331dot that if you object to the existence of the article, you are free to nominate it for deletion viaWP:AfD. I'm entirely confident that this article will be kept, along with the half a dozen other similar articles on the relationships of Jeffrey Epstein. --Sveinkros (talk)14:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that referencing discussions on another wiki are likely to be productive; our policies and articles are different from theirs. You'd have more luck being more specific about the problems you believe are present in relation to enwiki's policies - eg. what statements do you believe are poorly-sourced, and why? --Aquillion (talk)02:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Request for support on neutrality judgement atThuggee
Hello, I've encountered an NPOV issue when it comes to representing the various scholarly POVs surrounding Thuggee. There are sources that seek to deconstruct the colonial-era representation of the phenomenon, which are taken by several historians to imply that these scholars hold thuggee to be fictitious. However, I only recently came to understand that the existence of these implicit conclusions is contested by another historian close to their position (one reputable enough to feature in literature reviews of the subject). FYI, the scholarly POVs currently represented in the article are various revisionist interpretations that point to something behind the colonial-era portrayal and this POV of thuggee as entirely fictitious.
My judgement was that I should be doing away with these implicit conclusions since they're contested and just focusing on citing these sources directly but it would remove the POV from the article that thuggee didn't exist-- this is a fairly significant change to the article and I feel I need to run it by more editors to check if this is the appropriate way to handle it. I posted in the talk page but, other than a brief post a few days ago, it's generally been fairly quiet. Full post with relevant passages:Talk:Thuggee#Neutrality issue on presentation of denialist scholarly POV
Thanks.
TL;DR: the nature/ existence of the conclusions some scholars imply is contested, raising a neutrality concern on how or if to present them. I've tentatively judged that we should be dealing with the sources themselves directly but would like more input.Joko2468 (talk)19:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you find theHistorical evaluations section in the article a little unclear, I amended this inmy sandbox-- just waiting until seven days have passed for any objections. doneJoko2468 (talk)19:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources to back that up? My changes are faithfully based on the scholarly sources-- the previous version of the article wasn't. I don't understand how you think I've written this material if it actually says something opposite,I'm not some villain. If you think I've cherrypicked sources then please provide sources that conclude that thuggee was entirely fictional, it would seriously help me out. I've edited totally in good faith. The consensus is that the colonial-era portrayal was fictional and constructed by British officials, but your assertion that the sources hold nothing to have existed behind it is divorced from the sources and based on a version of the article that misrepresented them. Again-- if you have sources that support this POV then please share them, it would make this a lot easier though I've read widely around the subject and haven't found anything that conclusively states this (other than these contested implicit conclusions).Joko2468 (talk)10:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only want the article to be accurate to thebest sources.Shankar (2001) is cited in the previous lede to support that thuggee was fictional and though he talks about a discursive version of thuggee being invented by Sleeman, he states on the next page (p.30):The "thugs" that Sleeman wrote about, however, were most likely, as Gordon argues, ordinary robbers operating in gangs at a time of considerable social confusion in a particular area of central India. This is the scholarly consensus (barring van Woerkens who claims they were motivated by religion) and it is what is presented in theHistorical evaluations section-- the scholars explicitly denote this "thuggee". The next source cited to support this POV is Wagner (2011) and, though it conveniently omits a page number, it says:Amal Chatterjee describes how the British invented Thuggee but as I've shown here (and evidenced by the passages on the talk page post), the fact that Chatterjee says this is contested by Lloyd. If you have anything further to this, then please share.Joko2468 (talk)10:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wagner also says:Having read this, one is left with the impression that Thuggee was wholly and thoroughly a product of the British imagination. This is where the point of contention with Lloyd arises from.Joko2468 (talk)11:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not happy with the lede sentence:Contemporary historians generally view the colonial-era portrayal of thuggee, at least to some extent, as a colonial construct..., "at least" reads to me as argumentative.The source said:Contemporary historians and postcolonial literary analysts often differ in their interpretations of Thuggee.1 But scholars from these two different fields usually agree on one thing: that to some extent Thuggee was constructed, or at least redefined, by British colonizers in India. If you have a better wording for this, then I would be grateful.Joko2468 (talk)10:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussionhere (The discussion was initiated by a sock but later broadened after the original issue was resolved), about whethera section should be included over the classification of the organization as fascist by scholars and academics. In the course of this dispute, an editor added an excerpt from theRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the paramilitary which originally founded the Sangh Parivar, where an argument is made by a scholar against the classification of the RSS as fascist. However, neither the excerpt nor its sources mention the Sangh Parivar, which is why I consider the additionWP:UNDUE and aWP:COATRACK. The editor has since said they will not participate further in the discussion, so I have come here seeking a resolution. —EarthDude (Talk)19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say that the discussion onTalk:Criticism of copyright between three users (including myself) has gotten beyond any of our control, and we are in need of outside help to establish some kind of norm from which to have a productive discussion. I am one of the belligerents, and I don't claim to have engaged perfectly here. This dispute began on February 1, under the "NPOV/Wikivoice" header.
The dispute is primarily over what is considered a fact as opposed to an opinion in an article that is about critiques of a policy. My position is that design features of copyright are facts, so they can be said in wikivoice. Their position is that the article is about critiques of copyright, which is widely approved of, so the article should be extra cautious and treat everything that critics observe to make critiques of copyright as inherently opinionated.
For example, should the article say that copyright createsartificial scarcity in wikivoice? I say that the scarcity is a fact that can be said in wikivoice because it is an intended design feature (or tradeoff) of copyright. That is, copyright can be understood factually as a system in wikivoice and then critiqued separately because not everyone agrees that those design features are good or justified. The others say that it is controversialwhether copyright creates scarcity because not everyone agrees that it does. They have substantiated this assertion that not everyone agrees that copyright creates scarcity with a variety of arguments ranging from the fact that there are artists who have gone bankrupt because of unauthorized copying, that the value of the copyright is diminished when copies proliferate, that copyright is a widely-adopted policy, that Wikipedia supports copyright as policy, among others. To be fair, the other two do not perfectly agree on the where to draw the line, so their theories also compete to a degree.
Actually, you stated someone else added the text with which you disagree. So it is three against one. We are trying to keep the article NPOV. You are changing the article to state opinions in wikivoice as if they are indisputable facts. All we are trying to do is state that opinions are opinions. I don't see how anyone can argue against this. And frankly, your last statement there that those who disagree with you areevangelists for a certain policy, and they want to treat their preference as a cultural default. is outrageous.O3000, Ret. (talk)20:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who the third person is. I would obviously recommend that anyone interested in helping here start at the discussion two weeks ago rather than something I said after two weeks of building frustration and accusations on all fronts. That comment from me is what prompted this plea for assistance, as it happens. I have tried to AGF as much as possible, but emotions are powerful things. We need outside help.lethargilistic (talk)20:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make attacks. Look, it's very simple. Opinions should be labeled as opinions or criticisms and attributed. BasicWP:NPOV. They should not be stated as truth in wikivoice.O3000, Ret. (talk)20:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, and I don't mean this to be any way derogatory, your user page states that you intend to write a series of books on this exact subject. I tend to avoid articles related to my own areas of work IRL. It works better as it is easier to maintain NPOV.O3000, Ret. (talk)01:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussions atTalk:2020s Minnesota fraud scandals#RFC - Lead andTalk:Nick Shirley#RfC: Political descriptor.Some1 (talk)02:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]