Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 29 March 2020 (→‎Plot summaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

    Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:
    Start a new discussion

    Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study

    I do not think the first sentence of this article is appropriate: "The Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study in Greifswald (in German: Alfried Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg Greifswald) is an institute for advanced study named after Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the convicted criminal against humanity. ". This article is about the Institute, not about the person for whom it is named. It's true that this person was one whose memory many people might feel was not appropriate to honor in this way. The way to say this in a Wikipedia article is not to editorialize, especially not in the lede sentence, but, if there are discussions or protests that are reported in reliable sources, to include content about them. (And It could also be mentioned in the article about the person--I am certainly not arguing to suppress the information) I changed it, but Hyrdlak changed it back. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, kinda like starting the Porsche article with founded by the Nazi designer of the V-1 flying bomb and Panzer VIII. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of neutrality de facto amounts to Holocaust denial. Time and again such an attitude has allowed nazi, Soviet or Rwandan genocidaires to escape responsibility, and become 'respectable citizens,' until a concerned journalist or researcher uncovered their murderous past. If it is normal now to name an institute of advanced learning in one of the most democratic and liberal countries in the world after a middle-ranking genocidaire, soon it may become normal to name such and other institutions after Hitler the great economist, who solved the problem of unemployment in Germany during the 1930s, Stalin the great modernizer, who industrialized the SU by killing millions in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
    Thus, I propose to invite to the discussion editors who write on Holocaust and genocide issues.Hyrdlak (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
    You are now edit-warring on the article. And, see Godwin's law. O3000 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not. It was a warning against enabling and normalizing Holocaust denial.Hyrdlak (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
    Unfortunately there seems to be a history of POV pushing. Same discussion had been had on Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation last year. To DGG's point, the articles are about the institutions. The the controversial history of the person those institutions are named of is sufficiently covered in the article about the person.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid the coverage is not sufficient, as it is plain wrong to name a public institution after a genocidaire, at least in a liberal democracy. Hence, such a fact should always be flagged up, unless we want our NPOV stance to facilitate another genocide.Hyrdlak (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
    And to think Andrew Jackson's portrait hangs in the Oval Office. In any case, much of the article is devoted to this and we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Come to think of it, a heading in the article is "Holocaust denial". It's fine to mention his part in the Holocaust. But, I don't see any RS that say anything about denial. O3000 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor continues to edit war the article, has again added a section heading "Holocaust connection" when the institute was created 55 years after the Holocaust, and has now resorted to unacceptable edit summaries.[1] O3000 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lost Cause of the Confederacy

    There is a request for comment at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Request for comment regarding the removal of three words from the lead of the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlogged category

    This isn't a serious issue, but I wanted to call attention to Category:All articles with a promotional tone. This backlog has 25,000 articles in it, and I need some other editors to help me clear it. Thanks, King of Scorpions 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, and the Middle East Quarterly

    Middle East Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it was almost entirely written by supporters. But see a recent discussion at RSN[2], a NYT article a few days ago[3], etc as well as articles about its head and founder Daniel Pipes, eg [4]. In fact Pipes article is also a problem with a lead that doesn't mention criticism and text that doesn't mention the SPLC's criticism, only the removal of an article criticising it (I've posted a short note to Talk:Daniel Pipes. No criticism in Middle East Quarterly either. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does inclusion of the image of a controversial book cover in the Ezra Taft Benson article constitute a NPOV violation? Epachamo (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

    Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems

    At articles like Karl von Habsburg, we're seeing things like this in the infobox:

    Spouse: Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (m. 1993)
    Issue:
     Archduchess Eleonore
     Archduke Ferdinand
     Archduchess Gloria

    and similar things throughout the article.

    This is a problem under all of at least WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SOAPBOX, and more. These titles are not only not used by these people, they are actually illegal to be used by most of them (other than some of those who have moved, to places that don't care), and for most of these people we have no evidence they actually attempt to use such titles, so we should not be imposing them on these subjects. These titles are basically a fantasy (and some of them appear to be "If this were still real, then so-and-so would have inherited this title from such-and-such" OR conducted by editors. The jurisdictions and legal systems in which they would be real ceased to exist around World War I or a bit later in most places, and countries like the UK where some of this sort of thing still exists do not automatically recognize such titles and honors and yadda yadda of alleged pretenders to extinct sovereignties.

    There's a bit of a MOS:FICTION element here, too. For anyone from a deposed formerly royal family who does still assert and use such titles, styles, and honors (and there are a few of them running around; Karl von Habsburg's father was one of them), we have to be clear in our material that this is pretender stuff that most of the world does not take seriously (including people in non-deposed noble families in jurisdictions that still recognize nobility – except inasmuch as they may be looking for a "suitable" marriage partner, though even that stuff is drawing to a close as genetic effects inbreeding (including compounded cousin marriages) are well-studied now, and royal–commoner marriages like those in the recent British royal family have been accepted within those circles and by the public).

    I'm not really sure if we just have a problem at a few dozen articles, or if there's a more systemic one that needs to be addressed in a guideline. I suspect the latter. E.g., when I look at List of current pretenders, I see a lot of entries that are people whom various WP editors believe (through various genealogy studies of their own) to be legitimate pretenders, but whom our articles (and more importantly, the reliable sources in them) do not indicate that they are in fact pretenders to (claimants of) the listed thrones, realms, titles, etc.

    Let's look just at Karl von Habsburg: "Born a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, he does not use his ancestral titles, since the use of such titles is now illegal in both Hungary and Austria. ... In 1961, his father, Otto von Habsburg, renounced all claims to the Austrian throne, as a necessary legal condition to being allowed to return to Austria." (What part of "renounced" wasn't clear?) His family has been trying since the 1960s to regain seized assets including estates, but this is not the same thing as being pretenders to the throne and other noble titles and offices and powers. Otto is also the grand master of the Habsburg-Lorraine Order of St. George which is an internal house order of the family (i.e., a private club). It is not the Habsburg Order of St. George (est. 1469); it has only existed since 2008 or 2011 (sources conflict), simply as a means of promoting and awarding pan-Europeanism; and of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, which is older but "an honour solely for Catholic royalty and nobility". So, this again is not the same as being a pretender to a throne or the asserter of a title like HI&RH Archduke, etc. The grand-mastering of these orders isn't really any different from chairing the board of directors of a charity or being the executive director of a learned society. It is not even issuance of historical chivalric titles as a pretender-sovereign. (In the first case, it's a recently invented private-sector award by the head of the Habsburg-Lorraine family to [any] recipients for international political do-gooding in the family's eyes, so it's not particularly different in nature from the Nobel Peace Prize or any other award from a family foundation. In the second case, it's simply an internal family matter, of nobles giving titles to related other nobles; it is a private club, albeit an old one and one which long ago meant something legally, under feudal class systems that have long since been abolished in the relevant jurisdictions.)

    Much less does any of this stuff amount to an assertion that Karl von Habsburg's son Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg is "Archduke Ferdinand" as our infoboxes are claiming; it's an assertion for which he could be criminally prosecuted. So where is this stuff coming from, and how do we weed it out?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I don't have time to go into details, this is definitely a problem and one I have encountered too many times, including this month . I hadn't thought of the legal issue though. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that there is a systematic issue and a stench of OR around the area. That being said, royal genealogy is a thing and I'm pretty sure there are secondary sources in the area (e.g. Almanach de Gotha), so this is going to get into messy issues of reliability and dueness. The legal issue doesn't seem important though. The anti-dynastic laws might nominally still be on statute books, but they're as archaic and obscure as the claims themselves these days. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two minds, you cannot (in effect) lose an hereditary title, but if its not used by the holders why should we? Guess it goes back to if its not sourced its OR.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we can cite and attribute. E.g., "According to the Almanach de Gotha, Pübertus von Dorff is technically the duke of Elbonia by birth, though the duchy was constitutionally abolished in 1893", or whatever. And leave it at that, to the extent practicable. The WP:DUE part in is the latter; various editors are instead dwelling on the noble-family stuff and the dubious title-mongering (which is often something that the subjects themselves are not actually engaged in). And one can lose a hereditary title, in all but a silly personal-fiction sense, if the entitlement to which it refers was abolished or was renounced (both of these conditions apply simultaneously to the von Habsburgs), or successfully usurped. For much better material, see our articles on the current British royal family; they are primarily of Battenberg stock, and renounced their German entitlements a couple of generations ago in order to marry into what remained of the then-current British royal family (which itself was already German-dominated via Nassau, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg, Teck, and other lineages). We are – correctly – not implying that they still have those German titles and styles. But those are very-watchlisted articles, at which more sensible, knowledgeable, and policy-cognizant editors restrain the excesses of overenthusiastic amateur heraldry-mongers. I consider the article Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg a Wikipedia embarrassment. This should be an article about a race-car driver, with a quick mention in a "Personal life" section of his noble-family background. Instead, it's a royal-chaser OR pile, that incidentally gets into his professional career at the bottom of the article kind of as an afterthought. This is unfortunately not a one-off problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor points: I don't believe anyone has ever been prosecuted under the various laws banning noble title - not since the French Revolution anyway. I might be wrong, are there examples? Also there is afaik no "Nassau" component at all close to the British royal line - if you are thinking of William & Mary (no, not the college), they had no children. There may well be something much more remote. Not that they are German anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a hard time finding sources that refer to von Habsburg's children using the titles. If the terms are not their legal titles anymore, and the titles are not in widespread use according to reliable sources, then I don't see the justification for including them. Eleonore von Habsburg's page seems to deal with the issue more appropriately than the unsourced footnote in Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, but the uses in the infoboxes are not supported by any of the articles from what I can see, including the children's infoboxes referring to their father. If the use of the titles is not appropriate for the lead of the article, then it is not appropriate in the infoboxes. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot depends on WHERE we are including the title. I don’t have an problem with including a brief mention of the “title” in the body of the text... as long as the historical context of the title can be explained. It certainly should not be used in the article title, or the infobox, as if it were extant. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just from looking at the Karl von Habsburg article, this is clearly an issue. He's labeled as "Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia" in the infobox, but he's not. There is no Archduke of Austria, no Prince of Hungary, Bohemia, or Croatia. He's certainly notable on his own merits, but all these titles are nonsense. They should be mentioned in the article, but only as historical curiosities. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Red Rock Canyon, and the bogus navbox needs to go. Guy (help!) 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In theory, current policy is clear that these titles should not be used (OR, BLP, ect.) That said, this problem is rampant. I have noticed some editors whose only contributions are jamming as many honorifics and titles into articles (especially infoboxes), regardless of factual accuracy. If we can get by without making more policy or guidelines, great, but I think this is a problem that current guidelines could be more direct with. I think it would be beneficial to add a single line to the relevant MOS explicitly stating not to attach theoretical titles to pretenders, but they can be discussed in the article if relevant. That way, when someone inevitably comes along trying to add theoretical titles, they can easily be pointed to the specific line of MOS, as opposed to requiring other editors and admins to explain via broader Wikipedia policies why theoretical titles shouldn't be included. On a similar topic, British courtesy titles are frequently used incorrectly; numerous individuals who never took their courtesy title are being assigned one in their Wikipedia articles. Not pretenders, but they come under a similar umbrella. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A number of articles regarding Crimea

    Hi there. I’m not an official user of Wikipedia so I’m not sure if this is the right place to do this but I recently came upon many articles calling Crimea “occupied” and the events there as an “illegal occupation”. Now while I entirely agree with that statement personally, as soon as I saw that it bothered me that Wikipedia articles were not being neutral on this topic. As far as I have seen before Wikipedia exclusively called the events in Crimea an annexation and referred to the peninsula as annexed and disputed. Those terms are very neutral in nature, and so I embarked on replacing the non-neutral occupied with either disputed and annexed, or simply by removing it where it is not necessary at all (where it solely seemed to refer to the geographic location, like in airline articles). However I have now noticed two users, namely Toddy1 and Koncorde, replacing it back to the non-neutral occupied saying that it was me who was POV pushing. In many of those reversions Toddy1 even said that I was imposing the POV of the Russian government. I couldn’t believe it when I read that as that is absolutely ridiculous as I am fairly sure the POV of the Russian government is that Crimea is simply Russian territory that had reunified with the country. However just as that statement wouldn’t be neutral, neither is calling it occupied. Thankfully in one of those incidents, a user named Beaumain once again reverted their reversions saying that I was indeed more neutral. I really hope that something could done about keeping those article neutral. Thank you!--72.141.150.236 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Toddy1 and Koncorde: Comments?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a handful of countries have recognised the annexation, most view the situation as Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory. Giving precedence to the Russian claim of annexation would thus seem undue. For the sake of comparison the article on the Golan Heights lists the territory's status as "Internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel" --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, agree with this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We certainly shouldn't be making a legal judgement ("illegal occupation") in Wikipedia's voice, and "occupied" could also be POV if used in Wikipedia's voice, particularly when discussing modern politics.
    The phrase RaiderAspect describes is different because it attributes "Syrian territory occupied by Israel" to the international community. But I also think such an attribution requires requires a good source to back it up. I have no doubt that such a source could be provided - in both cases - but it is useful because it allows the lay reader to verify both that we're accurately reflecting the source and that we're not editorialising.
    An alternate formulation - still requiring a cite - may be that Crimea "is under Russian de facto control but internationally recognised as being part of Ukraine". Kahastok talk 09:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of things. 1. I reverted what I could see was an IP making the same edits with no explanation beyond "POV" and "NPOV". However the suggestion that annexation vs occupation is a matter of POV / NPOV is blatantly untrue. Both refer to the (generally) illegal concept of taking another countries land. Occupation reflects the militarised over-taking of the land. Annexation reflects the subsequent state of administration. Both reflect the same act. It is the UN's stance per resolution that it is: "Condemning the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine – the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) – by the Russian Federation, and reaffirming the non-recognition of its annexation". While I don't hold the UN to be the sole arbiter, they are probably the most significant "opinion" on the matter.
    2. I do not deny that Russia has "annexed" Crimea, and fundamentally have no issue with articles such as Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation using that term because it has obviously forcibly incorporated another countries land into its own, and within that article it makes it clear the position held by the significant weight of reliable sources that it is an illegal annexation that is not being recognised despite Russias claims otherwise.
    3. The subject matter that was being changed was a standardised piece of wording (a refnote) at the foot of the page per here for example. In my opinion the use of the term "Crimea is de facto administered" does not reflect either the annexation or occupation clearly and would require an understanding of what "de facto administered" is trying to insinuate. I believe this is a less neutral phrase than either annexed or occupation.
    4. In other instances the change was to completely remove a refnote about the "illegal occupation". This was not, in my opinion, an attempt to make the language neutral but about wholesale removal of content and context. This was repeated several times as you will be able to see by the IP's edit history.
    5. In another instance I rewrote the revert to clarify as the original wording was poor, left in his "de facto" statement, and was still reverted by the IP. This would indicate the user didn't read the changes, or just objects to the us of the UN's language.
    6. In another instance the IP left no edit summary and changed "occupied" to a mix of "uncontrolled" and "disputed". These reflect an opinion of someone, but it is unclear whose opinion. It certainly isn't Ukraines, and it certainly isn't the UN.
    In conclusion, while I think the wording can be improved across wikipedia in many articles, and there are situations where the sourcing of particular words is unclear, the argument by the IP that wikipedia is being not-neutral and pushing a POV is based on the IP's perspective that holding any position as 'true' is a point of view. In reality we reflect the weight of reliable sources, and I can't think of a more weighty or reliable source on the status of an occupation than the international arbiter on such matters. Koncorde (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, NPOV does not mean UNPOV. We cannot use the position of the position of an organisation that has actually fought wars in the past as a proxy for neutrality. If we're giving the POV of the United Nations, then we need to attribute that position to the UN.
    Wikipedia should certainly not be making any kind of legal judgement in its own right. But that does not prevent us from using phrases like "considered illegal by the United Nations", if that is in fact the case. Before saying that that is the case, we need to bear in mind that the only UN body that can make binding decisions is the Security Council and that Russia holds a veto in the Security Council. Kahastok talk 10:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to accept that the use of the word "illegally occupied" is certainly charged language, but I reject the idea that we need to attribute that the sky is blue over the use of the terms occupied or annexed. The UN language is just one source. Almost all sources use "annexed" or "occupied", apart from Russia of course.
    In contrast the use of "de facto administered" or similar is at best a euphemism for "without any legal standing" which is not an improvement.
    With regards to the security council, that is at best hand-waving. A resolution from the UN General Assembly is about as notable and significant an international position, from possibly the most significant international body on all matters of state, that you can get. A "binding decision" is not required to reflect the weight of reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kahastok, The UN is the relevant international authority. The occupation is clearly illegal under international law. Guy (help!) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the Russians agree that it's clearly illegal? Theirs is at least a significant POV per WP:WEIGHT.
    The UN has a POV, just like every other political organisation.
    It is clearly not appropriate to put random Wikipedians' interpretations of international law in articles. That's as per just about every content guideline we have. If "the occupation is clearly illegal under international law" then doubtless we can source that claim and attribute it appropriately. Kahastok talk 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kahastok, do you think Bernie Madoff thinks he's a crook? The assertion that Russia must accept that its invasion and occupation of Crimea is illegal is absurd. And Wikipedia does not care: we follow reliable independent sources, which all agree that the invasion and occupation are illegal. Because, well, obviuously, they are. Guy (help!) 10:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kahastok, we are not making that judgment. It's the international consensus view. Guy (help!) 11:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case there should be no problem with attributing it to the relevant sources. Kahastok talk 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kahastok, We do not WP:ATT "sky is blue" statements. Guy (help!) 10:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have both, We do not WP:ATT "sky is blue" statements and The assertion that Russia must accept that its invasion and occupation of Crimea is illegal is absurd.
    If it is really a "sky is blue" statement, then Russia must accept it.
    If Russia does not accept it, then it is not a "sky is blue" statement.
    I must admit, I actually find this whole argument really quite strange. If you're interested in making the point that the Russians did something illegal, you'll make your case much more strongly if you attribute your source.
    Say, "Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea", without source or attribution, and the casual reader will just assume that Wikipedia is being biased.
    If you instead say, "Russia's occupation of Crimea, which is considered illegal by [respected authority]", with a source for that statement, that reads as a balanced statement of fact, the considered view of the authority you've attributed it to. It's not some random Wikipedian saying it, it's [respected authority].
    And it's the same in the Bernie Madoff case. No, you absolutely shouldn't say he's a crook. You should say he's a convicted fraudster. The word "convicted" attributes the claim that he is a "fraudster" to a court. It makes it clear that "fraudster" is not just the view of some random Wikipedian with a grudge. And that makes it a much stronger statement. Kahastok talk 19:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kahastok, do you want me to point you to the people who think the earth is flat? Unlike Russia, they probably actually believe it. Guy (help!) 00:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You will doubtless now provide a source that demonstrates that the Russian government considers its own position to be obviously illegal?
    You may not like the fact that the Russians are a major international player, but that does not change the fact that they are. Hurling insults at them will persuade nobody of anything. Kahastok talk 08:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing "considered illegal by the UN General Assembly [or anyone else whose opinion seems relevant]" aligns with policy by attributing a claim. And it certainly is just a claim. If declaring something "illegal" means anything, it means that a court with the authority to make such decisions has found the action to violate the law. Questions of sovereignty are usually solved by the countries involved without recourse to any higher authority, so it's difficult to say if there even is a "law" in the traditional sense. But if there is, the closest thing to a court is the UN Security Council. And that hasn't declared Russia's occupation of Crimea illegal, for obvious reasons. Anything short of a Security Council resolution is just an opinion. The UN General Assembly doesn't have the authority to make decisions about sovereignty. Its resolutions are nothing more than recommendations. Like it or not, Russia has a veto on the only court that matters. Even if every country on earth except one decided that Russia's occupation of Crimea was illegal, it wouldn't be more than a generally held opinion.
    The article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation does a good job of explaining the situation. It states very clearly that the international community largely rejects the Russian annexation and many countries consider it a violation of international law, and that many aspects of it are illegal under Ukrainian law. But it doesn't say that the annexation is illegal, because there really isn't any authority able to state something like that, and the closest thing to it, the Security Council, failed to pass a resolution declaring it so. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Rock Canyon, No, attributing it in this case is like saying "murder is considered illegal by the United States Congress". The UN is the plenary authority for this kind of thing. Guy (help!) 11:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more like saying John Doe murdered Joe Bloggs, when John Doe has never been convicted of (or otherwise found to have committed) any crime.
    But even if he had been convicted, we would still generally attribute the word "murder" to the court ruling in some way.
    Treating the UN as equivalent to the US Congress is debatable at best. But insofar as such a comparison is valid, it only applies to the Security Council, the only body in the UN that can make decisions that are even formally binding on members. The Security Council has not ruled Russia's action illegal. Kahastok talk 11:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If everyone in my town and the city council all declared me a murderer, it wouldn't matter. The only thing that matters is that I was acquitted in court. And when it comes to sourcing on Wikipedia, if the New York Times declared John Doe a murderer, but he'd never been convicted, then we wouldn't call him a murderer in his article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, the source you link to, an Al Jazeera article, may support the notion that the Crimea is 'occupied', but it doesn't support the notion that that occupation is, as Kahastok commented about, 'illegal'.      ←   ZScarpia   14:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most crime stories don't say "X was illegally stolen". The illegality is implicit in the act, as it is here. Occupying foreign territory is a violation of international law regardless of whether you do it for the oil or to fulfil your view of manifest destiny. Guy (help!) 11:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Plot summaries

    There is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among film fan editors that films can have plot summaries based on personal observations of the movie, with no sources cited. This is usually unproblematic but we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest (e.g. Vaxxed, Unplanned, Death of a Nation (2018 film)). In some cases (Vaxxed being an obvious example) we do not fall for this. In others (God's Not Dead (film) for example) we do. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem? WP:NOR is policy, so surely if a plot section is challenged, independent sources become mandatory, as they do for every other piece of content on Wikipedia? Guy (help!) 00:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just chiming in that plot summaries not needing sources isn't a local consensus; it's part of the MoS. See WP:FILMPLOT, WP:TVPLOT, and WP:VG/PLOT. JOEBRO64 00:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      TheJoebro64, ah,. the MOS - the perennial excuse for overriding policy in the name of stylistic preference. Thanks for pointing that out. Guy (help!) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea is that per WP:V a reader should be able to review the film and come to the same general summary as we present on a single watchthrough of the film - no multiple viewings, no extra documentaries, etc. Another way to view that is, the film is implicitly a citation for its plot section. That said, we're talking films here that touch on controversial areas that get into fringe topics, and this might be a case where it might be useful to have some placeholder sources for that purposes, but its hard to say. Note that in giving a plot summary, we're not supposed to work to challenge this film (that comes in a Themes or Analysis or Reception section), so like for Vaxxed, I'm not sure about that presentation. We want to present the plot of the work without twisting it in the plot summary, though later through analysis via secondary sources, go on to explain how mistaken it may be. If that makes sense. --Masem (t) 02:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem, An example of a para I find troubling, from God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness: After seeking God's help in church through prayer, Dave eventually realizes that his case has only made things worse and that St. James is not the right church for God and his followers. You could defend something along the lines of "after praying, Dave decides to drop the lawsuit..." or something, but to frame this as "seeking god's help through prayer" is to beg pretty much every question in the movie. Guy (help!) 11:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortnately I've not seen the movie but I can see a difference in the language of "after praying" and "after seeking God's help in prayer" the latter being a more intense/emotional factor. But that said, if the movie doesn't really make that clear, then to try to ascribe more to that is interpretative and then yes, you should stick to the basic "After prayer..." --Masem (t) 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With this edit at WP:TVPLOT last year, Nightscream attempted to address plot sections including material that may be analytical, interpretive or evaluative, stating it "must also be accompanied by secondary sources." I made an edit to it and AussieLegend reverted. As seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 11#Sources in the plot section, the matter went to the talk page, and MapReader ended up removing Nightscream's addition. I certainly understand the argument that plot sections should not dive into analytical, interpretive or evaluative territory (and I endorse that view), but there will be cases where editors interpret a matter differently. In fact, just like viewers watching the story unfold, it's common for editors to interpret scenes differently. To that point, WP:FILMPLOT states, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." I think that WP:TVPLOT should include similar guidance. I'll go ahead and alert the WP:Film and WP:TV projects, as well as their guideline talk pages, to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=947884472"