Please refrain from abusing article talk pages with claims that are not backed by reliable sources (RS). Your recent comments seem to be contrary to what reliable sources, and our articles based on those reliable sources, say on the topic. In fact, they seem to be coming from the narratives pushed by unreliable sources.
We waste a lot of time in discussions with people who do not agree with the narrative of articles based on RS. By doing so, they are striking directly at the primacy of RS as the arbiters of proper POV and narrative on the subjects in question.
This is especially relevant in talk page discussions, which must have some basis in article improvement. Pushing ideas that are not based on RS cannot lead to article improvement, and are therefore violations of our talk page guidelines and a misuse of the talk page as a forum. Starting down this path is tendentious and cannot lead to any good. Discussion cannot substitute for creating reliably-sourced content, and since editors who do this do not have RS they can use, they end up resorting to endless discussions. Please do not be an editor who abuses talk pages with claims that are not backed by RS.
If you believe an article contains editorial bias, rather than the proper documentation of the bias found in RS, then make sure your complaint includes a precisely worded proposed improvement, together with the RS you would use to back up your proposal. That way the discussion will be focused on content improvement and not on your opinions. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on [[User talk:|my talk page]]. Thanks!
See also
Template documentation | This template's documentation is missing, inadequate, or does not accurately describe its functionality or the parameters in its code. Please help to expand and improve it. |
 | This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:Talk abuse}}). |