Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  Red Rock Canyon, and the bogus navbox needs to go. Guy (help!) 10:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

@Toddy1 and Koncorde: Comments?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Yep, agree with this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kahastok, The UN is the relevant international authority. The occupation is clearly illegal under international law. Guy (help!) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Kahastok, we are not making that judgment. It's the international consensus view. Guy (help!) 11:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case there should be no problem with attributing it to the relevant sources. Kahastok talk 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok, We do not WP:ATT "sky is blue" statements. Guy (help!) 10:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  No, the MoS is a guideline that we have to follow. Oh, boo hoo. JOEBRO64 01:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We have to? Why can't it be reconsidered and changed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

• I am confused by this point: we have an increasing number of articles on movies whose plot is blatantly dishonest

Movies are fictional (or at least the fictional ones are). God's Not Dead is a fictional story. How much our worldviews (or the views of sources) align with the moral values of a fictional narrative is irrelevant to the job of the article plot summary, which is to summarise the story of the film as the film presents it.

I haven't seen God's Not Dead: A Light in the Darkness, so I can't comment with certainty, but to take the example sentence given: 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. There might be ways to phrase that better, but I see no POV problem. If that's the story of the film, that's the story of the film. It is not a statement about reality, only an event in the fictional film. The article is not saying God is real any more than the Back to the Future plot summary suggests that time travel is real with statements like "Marty finds himself transported to November 5, 1955". Popcornfud (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have not watched the movie as well, but I don't understand how that quote from the plot violates NPOV. In fact, looking at the overall picture, it seems like JzG is trying to push their POV onto articles about these films. On the talk page for God's Not Dead they claim that "this is being treated as a film, but it's actually proselytisation". This film, as well as the others in the trilogy, fits every definition of a film, and should be treated as such, with the same NPOV as all other film articles. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, and practice, the plot gets sources if the film/show is not widely accessible (i.e. it's obscure or old, not just on cable), if a point needs clarifying (e.g. confusing plots, or plot hole covers), or if it's contentious. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• In most films the plot sections are unproblematic and don't need refs but where there is a dispute refs from reliable sources can sort it out- for example on the Signs film article there was a dispute and edit war over which faith the priest/vicar played by Mel Gibson was, which was resolved by a reference, although the references actually went into the cast section, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Here's my $0.02:

1. Plot summaries for film and television do not "need" to be secondarily sourced if the summaries are "basic" or general descriptions, as per WP:PRIMARY.
2. That said, there is nothing that necessarily "prohibits" the addition of secondary sourcing to a film or TV plot summary (and anyone who tells you that adding such secondary sourcing is "wrong" is flat wrong themselves).

So, I would suggest that, especially for "controversial" films (and TV series), that it would be a good idea to add secondary sourcing to the plot summary as per WP:V... As others have already said, for most movies and TV series, this isn't probably necessary as most plot summaries won't be problematic (and such articles will have plenty of editors watching the articles correcting any mistakes). But in the case of "controversial" films and TV, adding some secondary sourcing would probably be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am responding here per the message alerting me that Popcornfud mentioned me in this discussion. When MapReader removed most of my addition, he did so with the rationale that "Plot sections shouldn't be including analysis or interpretation in the first place." Yes, this is true, but the reason I felt it necessary to include this is because of all the newbies and other non-policy-observing editors who add such material to plot summaries anyway. And believe me, A LOT of them do this. My feeling is that explicitly forbidding this in a guideline that can be cited makes keeping it out easier. I boldly reverted this, but with a tweak that addresses MapReader's point: Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative, should not be in the plot summary, unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t think the above subsequent addition was particularly helpful. The point about excluding analytical material is a repetition of an earlier sentence in the MoS. “Plot point” is ambiguous: some people will read it as “what happened” and others “why it happened”, and “unclear” can be read as the viewer not “understanding” it, thereby fudging the nub of the matter. I left it partly to avoid prolonging the argument, having already boldly edited once, and partly because the secondary source condition does, in practice, deal with 95% of the edit conflicts, since the type of edit that inserts stuff like “Feeling very unhappy about this, Joe....” rarely bothers with a secondary source. Nevertheless it remains my view that a plot section should describe what happens, in the manner of the accessibility voiceover you can often access on streamed TV, and not delve into explaining or analysing characters’ plans, motives or feelings etc. The quote way above is another example - the summary should say what Dave is seen to do and say on screen, not what a viewer speculated that he is “realising” inside his head. I prefer the wording in FILMPLOT since this talks about “clarifications” and is followed by general advice to stick to what happens. So my suggestion would be to remove Nightscream’s words and replace them with the FILMPLOT words. MapReader (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, I don't think it was me who you pinged you. Popcornfud (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Nightscream (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, MapReader and Masem, the reason I'd made this edit last year is because commentary from the creator can also clear up a matter. This may be a DVD commentary, or something like "HBO's inside the episode segment." As seen here, the latter came up in the case of the whether or not Daenerys had summoned Drogon (her dragon). Many viewers, including reliable source commentators, felt that she summoned Drogon when she closed her eyes, but, according to those who wrote the episode, she closes her eyes to gain some peace as she accepts her fate that she's going to die. Right now, the plot section there simply forgoes mentioning anything about her closing her eyes and summoning Drogon or accepting her fate, which resolves the dispute. But this is an example of viewers/critics seeing something different than the creators intended. In cases like these, are we considering DVD commentary and episode commentary from the creators sources to avoid to help resolve the dispute? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not for the plot summary, no. The PS should ONLY contain a description of content without any interpretation. Points of clarification can be relegated to other sections, like production sections. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Nightscream, we already sometimes include sources in the plot section for clarification. This is why 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." And we can see that there are others in this section who agree with going that route when needed. Of course, in-depth material on the disputed aspect should be in a separate section. Your WP:TVPLOT addition also allows for sources in the plot section by stating "unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by secondary sources." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think every article on a film should have a plot summary. In the case of fringe opinions, such as Death of a Nation (2018 film), we should use wording like "D'Souza claims ..." or "the film alleges that ..." and discuss mainstream backlash to these opinions in a later section. In the case of outright falsehoods and anti-science, such as Vaxxed, we should use stronger wording such as "the film incorrectly purports that ...", with secondary sources to verify that the film's claims are false. — Bilorv (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• If the plot is "blatantly dishonest" just remove it, as per any other form of vandalism on any article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can see a valid objection here. Lets take "I am Legend" I read the book and say "this is a great book in which A man fights both loneliness and vampires" Barry comes along and says "this is a great book in which A man fights both loneliness and delusions". Both are based on how an interpretation of the plot. Now wp:v covers this to some degree in that it says what a reasonable person would see (thus in my example the novel never says its a delusion, it does say its vampires ergo my version is verifiable). So (in the case of God is not dead) we go with what the film actually claims.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• The plot is the plot. That you disagree with the ideas presented in the film, Guy, does not mean you get to override WP:NPOV as it suits you. We're not "falling" for a film's viewpoint by presenting it as it is presented to viewers. There's plenty of room to discuss how it's received as propaganda in the article. Some of the other examples aren't really the same case, as we're talking about documentaries, in which case you're not really talking about a film plot per say; while most documentaries are often structured narratively, the element that can be controversial and should be sourced is the message itself, and just like any film article with a "themes" section we expect reliable sources to back it up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case we should treat them as we would a newspaper article. We say what it says, they offer the counter points made in RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think a point to stress above is "[from] a film's viewpoint". We can't shift that, no matter how much we may disagree. A case in point: Revenge of the Nerds - made in the 80s - has a scene that would be taken as rape today but presented then, in the time of much more lax attitudes about sex as a comedic hijinks. It is not our place - in the plot - to change that, though in any further analysis of the film we can include sourced criticism. If we had, for example, a film that blasted throughout a message of fringe science, we'd have to tell the plot with that fringe science intact and without any criticism towards it in the plot section, but then free to open the floodgates of criticism from RSes about how bad that fringe science is in an analysis section. The only time I think we can diverge from that is in the case of a pure documentary, which we'd treat more as a regular report or source rather than a creative work. There we'd not have a plot section, and instead would be able to do point-by-point criticism if there's sourcing for that. --Masem (t) 15:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this discussion would be more productive if it was split into "how do we deal with documentaries" and "how do we deal with dramatic works". Vaxxed and Death of a Nation purport to be factual investigations and should be analysed as such. But it would be absurd to write "this did not happen in real life" after every second sentence in the plot summary of Oliver Stone's JFK. At the moment we're trying to apples and oranges. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading the MOS I think they seem to apply to fictional works. Where it dopes mention non fiction it talks about format ans style, not content. But yes I agree we need two discussions (and two sets of MOS) as fiction and "fact" (even wrong facts) are not the same thing, and cannot be handled in quite the same way.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think that a plot can be sourced by the movie (or TV show, or book, or ...) itself as long as the plot summary provided is very simple and direct. "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events" is what WP:FILMPLOT says. Many plot summaries are over-written and that's when interpretation, synthesis, original research, and bias start appearing. "A small-town girl meets three magical friends and they embark on an incredible journey that ends in a surprise" is more than adequate. Anything else needs to be cited. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't agree with this. Teaser "summaries" like that are simply advertisements. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If such a summary is an advertisement, then it would be a very poor one indeed. WP:PLCUT says "The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included in the story." If we expanded on the sentence I gave, then we'd offer references to solidify it. Because only that sentence is supported by the material itself, without biased interpretation or definitive point-of-view. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: are you seriously suggesting that plot summaries should be one sentence long? Or was that just an example of simplicity? Because even then "A small-town girl meets three magical friends and they embark on an incredible journey that ends in a surprise" is not what I would define as simple and objective. El Millo (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying anything longer needs to be cited. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

What would you cite as a reference? Look at FA-Class Blade Runner's plot section, for example. What do you think is "definitive point-of-view" or "biased interpretation" out of everything there? El Millo (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This begs another question on sourcing. Unless you have a fundamentally "important" work such as Blade Runner here, a Shakespeare work, or other work that have been the subject of detailed analysis, it is rare to find sourcing that covers the entire work itself, save for popular serialized TV shows such as Westworld or The Walking Dead. For most films, the best you can source for a plot summary will be the first act from various reviews, but they rarely going into a full plot summary. Same with books, video games, etc. So we'd only be able to get a third of the way though a plot summary with external sourcing. TV shows as those mentioned we can easily source to recaps that are offered by RSes. So we'd be very inconsistent across the board here. That's part of the problem with sourcing plot summaries. --Masem (t) 04:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Dear colleagues, edit warring and other nonsense has erupted at the Joe Biden article. The matter of contention relates to various recent allegations of inappropriate social and sexual conduct. Any fresh eyes on that article would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Religion in Albania

The question is "Should the lede include an infographic (e.g. bar graph, pie chart, map) based on the 2011 census?" [1] Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Subtle pro-China tampering

I am an OTRS volunteer. In October 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation legal team received an inquiry from a journalist who expressed concern about some articles that may have experienced subtle whitewashing. The journalist's analysis is reproduced here, with permission:

We found evidence of what seems to appear to be organised editing happening to convey a pro-China stance on several pages of Wikipedia, both English language and Chinese. Some example topics include the recent Hong Kong protests (where changes in language have varied from the protestors being labelled as such or as rioters), Tiananmen Square (where the numbers killed are in dispute, and actions by the government are described as stopping the unrest to quell counter revolutionary riots and stabilising the domestic situation) and territories such as Taiwan and Senkaku Islands are suggested as being part of China. Similarly language changes are used to question the status of Tibet and the Dalai Lama. While the edits may involve nuanced edits, taken as a whole they help to change the way a situation is viewed.

The journalist included this list of articles to be evaluated by the community for neutrality or bias tampering:

• Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China
• Tibet Autonomous Region
• 2019 Hong Kong protests
• Tiananmen Square
• Taiwan
• Senkaku Islands

Due to the time passed since the original communication with Legal, it's possible that the problems have been cleared up. I'm posting this here to get some more eyes on these articles, and correct any remaining bias if found. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"China virus" and "Wuhan virus"

There has been continuous discussion for about a month over whether the terms "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" should be included in the lead as alternative names for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the cause of COVID-19. The discussion has reached a stalemate. One of the main proponents is a new editor who has contributed little to wikipedia aside from the topic, and was blocked for edit warring during the early stages of the discussion for repeatedly adding the former term despite oppositon. The argument in favour is based on its apparent inclusion in newspaper headlines, but while they are using the two words in succession, they clearly aren't being used as a noun. While the terms do have some use on social media, I think their inclusion lends undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

DRI Capital

DRI Capital is probably one of the most blatantly promotional articles I have ever seen. It has a whole suggestion full of buzzwords explaining how you can make money from the company. I'm not proposing to delete it, as it a genuine fund manager, but does anyone have any suggestions on how it could obtain a bit more of a neutral point of view? — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-NPOV at Climate Feedback (and budding edit war, poor sources, and more)

• Climate Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Science Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Health Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Yae4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Snooganssnoogans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Emvincent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Connected COI Editor and single purpose account)
• User:Newslinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:JzG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Personal intro: Anyone can go back through the less than 100 edits, and verify I added favorable information (here, for example), which still remains in the article. You can view the article Talk page where I have tried to start discussions. Trying to support notability, I added a couple less than reliable sources[2], which were later removed (rightfully). I fixed one of those by finding a better source.[3] I have made small corrections to better capture what sources actually said. I have undone my own edits to remove things I added, to be consistent with lessons learned from a "advertisement" Speedy Delete by JzG of another article I created.[4][5]

Issues: (1) Should the article on fact-checking sites Climate/Health/Science Feedback be whitewashed of all criticism, or should mentions of criticisms or mention of a censure for violating the Code of Principles of the "certifying" organization be included? I have added both favorable and unfavorable coverage to the article, but other editors persistently remove even the slightest mentions of criticism, leaving only favorable statements. (2) Is the certifying organization, Poynter/IFCN, "independent" secondary, or "primary" source as Snooganssnoogans' edit summary said when removing criticism in bulk? Note: This was after I already significantly shortened it, after User Talk page discussions with JzG and Newslinger. (3) Should any of the involved editors be given "discretionary sanctions" for conduct?

Background: Climate/Health/Science Feedback are websites, with a browser plugin available, that publish fact-checking reviews online for at least two (broad, multi-disciplinary) areas of science, using volunteer PhD reviewers, with summaries being written by an "editor." It's not clear how many, if any, "editors" are paid staff, versus volunteers. Climate Feedback was started around 2015, and Health Feedback was started around fall 2018. Note ClimateFeedback.org's and HealthFeedback.org's "about" links both go to sciencefeedback.co/about/. These sites are joined at the hip, or at Emmanuel Vincent, who sometimes also writes articles or what some would call posts. Brief summaries are posted both on Science Feedback website, and on Climate or Health Feedback websites, with links to follow back to those sites for more detailed summaries, and Science Feedback site adds (infrequent?) "news & events" summaries posted on ScienceFeedback.co. It is one operation with (at least) 3 websites.

Also, Climate[6][7]/Health[8]/Science[9] Feedback posts about Poynter or IFCN. Poynter/IFCN posts about C/H/S Feedback.[10][11][12] It starts to be unclear who is the publisher/promoter, and who is the "independent" certification or fact-checking organization.

Other interesting relationships, and coverage, or lack of, in WP: Poynter Institute runs the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which annually "certifies" organizations like Climate/Health/Science Feedback (for a fee). Poynter and IFCN also publish newsletter articles or posts. Poynter operates Politifact, but that fact is not mentioned in the Poynter article (where Politifact is mentioned once). Three (of 15) sources in Climate Feedback are from Poynter/IFCN.

Details of some edits and interactions history:

Snooganssnoogans started the article called Climate Feedback in late December 2018. Six weeks later, Citrivescence added the Notability Tag, rightfully. In my opinion, it then looked like a short advertisement. It looks like a longer advertisement today.

A few months later, Emvincent, who has a username resembling Climate/Health/Science Feedback's founder, Emmanual Vincent, removed the Notability Tag, and added a couple sources, in April 2019. With one exception, in article edits, EmVincent has only spread Climate Feedback info to articles. One of those sources he added is published by Facebook, is all about Facebook, and only lists "Science Feedback" the parent organization of Climate Feedback in a short line in a pulldown list, under United States; According to Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, the "certification" review organization, Science Feedback non-profit is registered in France, not in USA (but Vincent is located in California, according to this blog post, so the inconsistency is understandable). The second source added by EmVincent, an Axios post has published a "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." Climate/Health/Science Feedback ARE website operations, centered on ScienceFeedback.co, so this was an appalling error by Axios IMO.

Axios general reliability is currently being discussed. This was brought up in January on Talk:Climate_Feedback#Axios_as_a_reliable_source? as a question, with essentially zero discussion occuring - Snooganssnoogans responsed, "Axios is fine." In January I was undecided; now I consider Axios to be generally unreliable, and somewhat better than a Twitter feed.

Newslinger created a redirect from Science Feedback to Climate Feedback on October 6, 2019, and added Climate Feedback to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list on October 16, 2019, saying, it "is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change" and "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." I seriously question these statements, because (by my count) only about 16 editors participated, with about 9 clearly favoring, 4 with mixed opinions, 2 opposing, and 1 only commenting without a clear opinion stated. I brought it up on RSPS noticeboard, but the discussion was about other blogs, and Climate/Health/Science Feedback was not really discussed. Health Feedback is still a red link.

JzG aka Guy advised attribution for Axios, because they are "with an agenda."[13] So, I added attributions.

Snooganssnoogans latest edits removed all Axios attributions, and removed source details, and every bit of criticism. This includes the mention of the fact that (the month before Wikipedia added Climate Feedback to the Reliable Source Perennial Source list), they were censured:Source

In September 2019, Climate Feedback's parent non-profit organization, Science Feedback, was censured for failure to declare that two individuals, who assisted Science Feedback in reviewing evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations. This failure "fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."

JzG has done similar, a couple times claiming these are "a different site."

Other conduct creating or worsening a "difficult" editing environment:

JzG has thrown personal attacks in this article's edit summaries.

Snooganssnoogans has thrown personal attacks and accusations in this article's edit summaries.

Snooganssnoogans has attacked my integrity in previous Noticeboards and retracted it (see stricken paragraph).

-- Yae4 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor above has gripes about Climate Feedback (a website dedicated to fact-checking media coverage on climate change), and is trying to ruin the article because of these grievances. The bad editing above takes three forms: (i) Attributing every single RS statement of fact about Climate Feedback. This only makes the article unreadable but makes basic uncontested information seem like it's some random person's opinion. (ii) The editor sifts through reviewer assessments of whether Climate Feedback should be certified as a fact-checker in the Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network, and adds every single item from those reviews where Climate Feedback was considered to fall short on Poynter's many evaluation criteria. The conclusion of those reviewer assessments was that Climate Feedback should be certified, yet by adding every single critical item from the reviews (note that gold-standard RS also fell short on some aspects in these reviews), the editor seeks to deceptively portray the organization as if the Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network has problems with the organization, which is a clear NPOV violation. (iii) The editor makes awful edits, partakes in discussions where the problems with his editing are highlighted, but returns later to effectively restore the awful edits again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In no way can this be considered "sifting through assessments."

The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories. This has been communicated to Science Feedback.(Detailed ARTICLE on an INVESTIGATION into conduct)

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yae4 is correct that there are NPOV issues here. He is incorrect about the source of those issues. His editing serves, in general, to boost Judith Curry, a prominent figure in the climate change denial movement - a review of Yae4's edits to other climate change related articles will readily reveal a distinct sympathy on his part for the denialist sstandpoint, including creating Mototaka Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Curry has an agenda against the Climate Feedback website, and it is the nexus with Curry that first drew Yae4's edits to my attention.

Yae4's presentation above is, unsurprisingly, incomplete. For example, he highlights Snooganssnoogans' addition of the Facebook source but fails to note that Yae4 tried to remove this entirely but I have subsequently sourced it to a reliable indpeendent source making the explicit link between Facebook and Climate Feeedback. Overall it appears that Yae4 wants to include all critique of Science Feedback on the Climate Feedback article, though some is clearly irrelevant to the Climate Feedback site. I suggested a WP:SPLIT, but Yae4 seems reluctant for some reason.

Also of some relevance: Snooganssnoogans has about 28,000 edits, Newslinger has over 40,000, I have over 130,000. Yae4 has 1,272, and his top edited articles are related to Kali NetHunter and its parent, Offensive Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and to topics related to Judith Curry including Climate Forecast Applications Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - that article I deleted as spam, the spammy nature was the consensus view at DRV, it was then draftified, and guess who moved it back to mainspace? If you said Yae4, you'd be right. Much of this editing is promotional in tone, including adding slogans and marketing claims.

Example:

[14] "In Flood Forecasting: A Global Perspective CFAN's Bangladesh flood timing and flood risk predictions were called "skillful," despite over or under estimates of peak magnitudes."

What the source actually says is:

[for the Brahmaputra River] The timing of flood (the onset and end of the flood period) and forecast flood probabilites were skillful, despite the considerable overestimation or underestimation of peak magnitudes. For the Ganges, forecasts were less skillful after 5-day lead time; [authors' rationalisation]

His edits around Kali strongly suggest a COI. And Emvincent's edits also suggest a COI - at least, the five (of 8, tiotal) that are to article space, over a period from July 2015 to April 2019, which was the last time he edited.

Yae4 is an inexperienced user who seems to be passionate about a small number of topics and who appears to misperceive his own biases as neutrality and to attribute motives to much more experienced editors who are trying to manage the problems he introduces to mainspace. Guy (help!) 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion should focus on NPOV of the article. I recall seeing somewhere we all know all editors have POVs...

To clarify explicitly: Mention of Newslinger above was only to the facts they were the editor/admin who did the redirect and added Climate Feedback to the "generally reliable" source list. My comment was directed to the "consensus" statement. We have disagreed on several issues, but they are a great example of someone who works well collaboratively, while disagreeing politely. That applies to this article as well as generally. They are listed as involved because they also significantly edited this Climate/Health/Science Feedback article.

Re Mototaka Nakamura, and the ~14 other new articles I've created in my short editor history: Does it occur to you, assuming good faith and all, this editor may talk with people out in that big real world, know some stuff, and be surprised when something seems notable, but is not found in Wikipedia? Then they go and find sources and makes articles the best they can? It's no coincidence only 2 of those articles were targeted for deletion - the two involving climate change and (3+) well qualified scientists who don't silently go along with "the program."

At Kali NetHunter I identified a COI editor, welcomed them to Wikipedia, discussed issues with their userspace draft changes and worked collaboratively to improve the article and address COI and "advertising" concerns. That's me having COI?! Really??

Newslinger was also helpful with moves, merges, and suggestions for Offensive Security and Kali NetHunter as discussed here on their Talk. I also asked their opinion on your massive deletion, and for a second opinion on whether it looks like hounding (but haven't heard back yet). One should compare and contrast Kali NetHunter before your deletions, with a similar article such as LineageOS, which I had in mind as a benchmark.

The Speedy Delete Review of CFAN was far less than unanimous, with a few editors agreeing speedy delete was unjustified, and most agreeing bringing it back to Draft was appropriate. [15] Compare CFAN before Speedy delete versus now. After being moved back to Draft, there were mostly format improvements and some reduction in sources, but it's now not very different than before speedily deleted, in terms of overall content and presentation. Note it was Jlevi who first implicitly suggested the CFAN article with a Red link.

Specific Fact-checks:

"For some reason" not to SPLIT: IMO, it's one small operation/company with a few, inter-connected websites, as stated above already. Two or three stub articles doesn't make sense or seem better than one short-medium length article in this case, to me.

Re "he highlights Snooganssnoogans' addition of the Facebook source": It was not Snooganssnoogans who first added the Facebook source. It was connected COI SPA Emvincent (Emmanuel Vincent, founder of Climate/Health/Science Feedback). That is what was highlighted above. Thank you for finally acknowleging that apparent COI by Emvincent.

Supposed promotional excerpt at CFAN: I took one favorable word, and one UNfavorable phrase from the source. Looks like balance towards UNfavorable if anything. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, I'm an admin, I am looking at your behaviour. I see an inexperienced editor whose main involvement on Wikipedia has been promotion, who has now blundered into an area where there are more people looking and where promotional content is much less tolerable. As noted above, some of your edits are cherry-picking to the point of being actively misleading, and the POV problems are mainly being inserted by you. Your fixation with Emvincent is particularly unhelpful: that account has made five mainspace edits since registering in 2015, and none in the last year. Guy (help!) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What is termed personal attacks above appear to be aspersions although they were not thrown without evidence. Your main activities appear to be to promote climate change denialism on Wikipedia and this board may not be the best place to address this problem. —PaleoNeonate – 09:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" on his userpage is something of a red flag... Guy (help!) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, Please look at the numbers and kindly retract your "main activities" statement. Judith Curry tops the list because climate alarmists would not tolerate even mention of her "Climate Models for the Layman," and linking to it was treated as blasphemy until more experienced, less fanatic, editors stepped in, and it was begrudgingly allowed. Same story now, here with Climate/Health/Science Feedback.

JzG aka Guy, Like User:JzG/Politics is a green flag for being Curator for JzG/Guy version of truth. Commitments met? "intention not to use admin powers where I am involved in a dispute," and (not) "to delete speedy candidates on the more contentious categories."[16] -- Yae4 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The way you put it is like if there was no hard evidence that emissions should be reduced, like if it was only political opinions. Use of the "climate alarmist" slogan confirms that, as has already been mentioned above. You're not the first one to push those fringe ideas on Wikipedia, but it's not a platform for such promotion or claiming that all sources are equal (WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YESPOV are relevant here and part of the WP:NPOV policy that this noticeboard is about, but the WP:ABIAS essay is also useful). You may also want to read Scientific consensus on climate change and its sources. You are already aware of WP:ARBCC, please see sections 21.1, everything is important there but I'd like to put some emphasis on 21.1.9-11: "provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints" means that we can have an article about denialism (and we do), not that we must promote it in other articles (relevant: WP:NOT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:ONEWAY). If a person or organization is notable enough for an article to persist, reliable sources must be used to cover them rather than fringe or self-published ones (WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:NFRINGE). Sources too involved can only be used to support non-controversial, non self-serving statements (like WP:SELFSOURCE). "In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated." in relation to climate science, the "authority" are reliable sources by mainstream experts and derivatives (WP:DUE). Please try to understand why a delete consensus is forming at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura, or why using this as a source was unacceptable (removed here when I noticed it)... —PaleoNeonate – 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Question on RfC/canvassing rules

I started an RfC about a week ago at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on motives for targeting ACORN and, since no one has commented since then, wanted to post a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. Although this is the only WikiProject listed at Talk:Project Veritas, I'm concerned this may be perceived as canvassing. Can someone here please give me guidance on whether such a notification would be appropriate? (Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas.) Sal at PV (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)