# Talk:Phoebe Plummer

Think editors need to be careful on neutrality here. Plummer is an activist convicted by English courts and is thus also a criminal. Venividiscripsi (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The word 'criminal' is anything but neutral in this context, because it evokes associations with the organized, serious criminal circuit. It is unnecessary to call them 'a criminal' because - as you yourself say - that information is already in the word 'convicted'. Moreover, they are appealing, the case is not over yet. 2001:1C08:70C:3800:D480:F100:634C:B700 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree with your edit. Appeals not relevant (though could be added). Venividiscripsi (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Venividiscripsi: The word "criminal" is a value-laden label and its use needs to be supported by reliable sources that use the word to describe the subject. See MOS:LABEL and and the essay about Wikipedia:Crime labels. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Late to the party, but yes. Venividiscripsi (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Folkezoft: You added a {{POV}} tag to this article. I believe this to be a fair reflection of the sources, but perhaps you've seen something I haven't? This is at DYK anyway so doubtless the reviewer will pick up on it.--Launchballer 09:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I noticed you removed the class assessment while posting your previous comment. I see no reason to change my previous assessment of this article as being Start class at the moment, if that is what you intended to happen. If there was another reason for your edit, then please explain the need to remove the assessment rating. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised to see it assessed as that as similarly-sized articles of mine tend to be assessed as Cs and Bs. What is this missing?--Launchballer 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
This article primarily deals with the subject's criminal convictions for their activist behaviour. While the article covers their education, it doesn't explain what a "Mander Portman Woodward" is and suggests they have only attended school for 3 years. The article also doesn't really explain how they became involved in the "Just Stop Oil" protests nor how their activism evolved over time. The article goes from them reading a paper about climate change to being arrested for protesting as if it was some sort of religious conversion or miracle, without providing any analysis of how they joined any activist organisations. While the change in mindset might have been quick, I don't think it was as sudden as the article portrays. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Per The Telegraph, Mander Portman Woodward is a college in Kensington. I've added this to the article. I haven't found exactly when they started doing what or how exactly Plummer became involved with Just Stop Oil (although Politico implies that they found the organisation via its activism); might have a rifle through some podcasts.--Launchballer 18:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

{{subst:trim|1=
Says shes a climate activist. Should be updated to "convicted felon"
 Not done: Putting "convicted felon" at the top of the lead would be undue weight.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why on earth is this person considered to be of sufficient importance to merit a Wikipedia article (and such a lengthy one, at that)? I suspect this is a "back door" attempt to promote "Just Stop Oil". 86.14.43.73 (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If this article was an ad, it would have been deleted and/or rewritten and the people involved with its creation would have their editing privileges taken away a long time ago. Their (Plummer) actions, whether you support or oppose them, were worthy of coverage in reputable sources, that's why there's an article covering them on Wikipedia. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 16:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Usage of non-standard English pronouns makes this article very confusing and unnecessarily difficult to read : especially considering that 2 people are involved in the case, bringing repeatedly confusion about whether a sentence refers to both or either of them. 
I fail to see how twisting the English backwards thus making it harder to understand (especially for non native speakers) serves any encyclopedic purpose. 
Also if an article is going to mix the usage of "they" for example, as per standard English, and "alternate-English", it would be greatly helpful to visually highlight what is English and what is not. 89.85.251.23 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You are right that there was some ambiguity. I have done a little copy editing and hope it is now clearer Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Please read MOS:GENDERID.--Launchballer 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I read it, agree with it, and think I am following it but if I made a mistake please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: Please revert this edit per WP:BRD. Your edit is not sourced.--Launchballer 18:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
You are right that it is not stated exactly in the source, but as we don’t know which of the two 2019 reports influenced Plummer I thought the link and footnote would be useful to some readers. If you agree to abide by a 3rd opinion (such as the GA reviwer @Jolielover:) I will too Chidgk1 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I have no objection to the footnote, I just want it sourced. I am very happy for jolielover to adjudicate as part of her review.--Launchballer 19:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The pronouns make this the most confusing Wikipedia article I have ever read - and I read a lot.
May I ask the obvious, why cannot this person be referred to as 'she'/'her'? 117.20.66.76 (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer I am a bit confused what you think is the problem with the link and/or footnote in:
In 2019, Plummer read a United Nations report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ……… Chidgk1 (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn't sourced.--Launchballer 14:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The source is Politico which says “In 2019, a report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared that heating the planet by 2 degrees Celsius — the world is currently on track for 2.5 C or more — would lead millions to suffer or die as the world became markedly less habitable. Plummer could not stop thinking about it.”
However it is possible that either Plummer or Politico misunderstood one of the 2019 reports, or more likely they read a newspaper article which may have exaggerated one of the reports. As they are long and detailed I have not completely read the 2019 reports. Several reports were later combined and summarized for policymakers in https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
but annoyingly it is not CC-BY. As it is only 31 pages long I will reread it and see if I can find anything to support our text - hope you might have time to read it too. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I looked through the link above - which is the most authoritative source up to January 2021 - and I don’t think they forecast how much extra deaths and illness there will be.
More recently a study only about Europe https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIiS2468-2667(24)00179-8/fulltext
estimates extra deaths for Europe but as far as I know there is still no global estimate.
I guess that is because nobody knows how much the world will spend on climate change adaptation like air conditioning, as mentioned at the end of https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/27/dangerous-temperatures-kill-50-percent-more-europeans-end-century-climate Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I meant I need a source for the fact that there were two reports in 2019. And I'm pretty sure it's improper synthesis at any rate.--Launchballer 16:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah I see. It would be easy to cite that there were two reports in 2019. However I deleted “which declared that heating the planet by two degrees Celsius would cause the world to become much less habitable and result in millions of people suffering or dying,” as I think Politico is misrepresenting the report. I will maybe put some “see also” at the end Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover
I am neutral on or like most of your proposed copyedits but for the below which I wrote:
I used “a” in "A Vincent Van Gogh Sunflowers painting" because Van Gogh painted many sunflower pics
"they started engaging non-violent direct action" - I don’t think we need “engaging” Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted, I have removed those recommendations. jolielover♥talk 08:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is surely far too long and detailed and out of proportion to the notability of Phoebe Plummer. I'm sure this is just the result of lots and lots of good faith edits over time. Wikipedia articles need to be encyclopedic - i.e. concise and readable. I'll try and give it trim. Seaweed (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is she adressed to as non-binary? I regard the topics of pronounces more of an agenda than full existing linguistic reality. Since this is not the case and the aim of Wikipedia is to inform the masses as objective as possible, I would ask to adress her as who she is: a woman 93.209.85.218 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Take it up with MOS:GENDERID.--Launchballer 22:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)