Talk:Peng Shuai

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
Some references, and this would be a B.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the article importance ranking systems but the Peng Shuai situation is clearly a top-level global importance issue. The EU, Biden administration, et cetera — have spoken about it. The former US ambassador for women's issues said the WTA became the world's most effective human rights organization when it chose to pull its tournaments from China, a boycott, due to the Peng Shuai situation. Top-level sources have written not one, not two, but many articles about the situation. Coverage has spread beyond political and tennis-related media to tech media (such as Wired, which wrote about how the situation illustrates the strategy of destroying social resources). The chair of a House committee has released repeated strong statements about how the situation impacts the role of the US in the Olympics. Many articles have connected the choice of the United States to participate in the Olympics (and the IOC's handling of this situation) with Nazi Germany's hosting of the Olympics. This situation involves very large things, past and present. In terms of global importance, it is at least an A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  166.216.159.213  (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A is a quality ranking, not an importance ranking (and this is very far from being an A-quality article). Meanwhile the importance rankings (Low, Medium, High, Top) matter almost not at all; usually no one looks at them, to be honest, and regardless they are only suggestions. Nothing obliges anyone to spend their (unpaid) time working on any entry. If you think the entry is important, please do make an account, roll up your sleeves and add some references to high-quality sources! The entry sure could use the help. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Substituted at 02:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: hi i would like you to talk about the disappearance of peng shuai that occurred 15 days ago 2804:D41:A3B9:2900:80C0:CC95:458D:761B (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davi 

message: Why is she called a former professional player?  The article doesn't mention her retirement.
05:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all I could find re: retirement (dated Nov 2021): While not officially retired, she played her last match in Qatar in February 2020. “She’s definitely at the back end of her career," Siegemund said. "When we played in 2019 she was going more into doubles and wasn’t really communicating clearly what her priorities are, because I think she didn’t know herself.” https://qctimes.com/sports/tennis-trailblazer-peng-known-for-her-grit-on-the-court/article_47275350-b602-5d4d-9803-a8229e39349b.html Arstoien (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Former professional tennis player"? 

message: One of our editors has asked whether Nadal and Federer made their comments before or after the IOC spoke to Peng. This is what I have discovered.
* The IOC released its statement on 21 November.
* Tennis World USA reported Nadal's comments on 20 November.
* Tennis.com reported Federer's comments on 20 November.
Burrobert (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Should be removed per WP:NPS.
:I can shorten it and break it into sub-references with a quote for each sentence in the article. Also, the quote right now is already shortened compared to the original, arguable it might be better even shorter. Give me some time since it's work week. GeorgiaDC (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupidly long quote 

message: This is a list of players who have made public statements of support for Peng (concerning her treatment following her sexual assault Weibo posting). Badosa, Cornet, Djokovic, Evert, Federer, Fish, King, Mahut, Medvedev, Murray, Nadal, Navratilova, Osaka, Roddick, N. Rubin, and S. Williams. Some of the statements have been very short (such as Badosa's two-word tweet criticizing the ATP's statement) but others have been lengthy and quoted quite a few times in media, such as the NYT. An example is Navratilova, who has been quoted with a variety of statements. This article should be updated to be more comprehensive, as I didn't see Navratilova's statements linked to nor mentioned. Mahut also stated that he will refuse to play in China if the circumstances aren't resolved to his liking, a very strong stance. My list here is not necessarily complete but it's more complete than what's currently in the article. Please improve the article in terms of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.234 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Badosa didn't post that tweet. It was one of her fans. Your list is missing Brady and Robson; both of them retweeted #WhereIsPengShuai on the 18th of November. The list is also missing Jessie Pegula who issued a stronger statement than a retweet: "I hope @WTA continues to show what we stand for as players." She also asked for others to speak out, in addition to tennis players. That was November 17th. This article certainly is too weak when it comes to listing all of the WTA and ATP players, past and present, who have spoken out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATP and WTA players who have made public statements of support for Peng  

message: Some editor insists on using the word 'vanished' in the intro to refer to Peng's disappearance. Doing so is inappropriate for numerous reasons.
1. We look at Google results, specifically ones that discuss Peng's disappearance or vanishing but chooses to use one term over the other. For disappear AND vanish, we have 264000 results. For disappear -vanish, we have 1940000 results. For vanish -disappear, we have 226000 results. This clearly indicates that the overwhelming majority uses 'disappear' in preference to 'vanish'; in fact, the usage of 'vanish' in preference to 'disappear' seems even lower than the usage of both terms together. You can obtain similar ratios by searching for 'disappearance' instead of 'disappear' or by requiring the inclusion of the term 'missing'. Even the most critical piece I've found uses the term 'disappear' exclusively without 'vanish'.
2. We refer to dictionary definitions, namely those from the online (a) Cambridge Dictionary, (b) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and (c) Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Here are the links to 'vanish': (a) (b) (c). And here are the links to 'disappear': (a) (b) (c). While the definition of 'vanish' refers to 'disappear', there is the additional connotation of suddenness or inexplicability. However, most results do not refer to anything being sudden. On Google, it comes down to 3550000 vs 401000. If you believe that she might have disappeared under duress, then there is even less reason to use 'vanish', because now you've found for yourself an explanation for her disappearance. This also goes back to the old statement's linked page to forced disappearance; there may be a good reason that it's not called 'forced vanishing'.
CurryCity (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Disappear, used as a verb, has a clear connotation (removal from visible society due to action by an authority) in contemporary English that vanish does not. That is really all you need to say to settle the matter. I agree that vanish is not the right word here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 'disappear' is a much better term to use than 'vanish' 

message: * Peng Shuai - Zhang Gaoli affair
* Zhang Gaoli sexual assault allegation
* Zhang Gaoli sex abuse scandal
LondonIP (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is centered around the international reaction to the (supposed) attempted coverup of the claim and concerns about Peng's safety, not the claim itself, or Zhang. I would suggest Peng Shuai sexual assault claim. Sod25k (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

text: But the entire "claim" has been nullified by herself, and the "disappearance" was completely untrue and unverifiable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim's ultimate veracity has no bearing on whether it and the reaction to it are deserving of a separate article. The international press coverage has been enormous and sustained. Whether her recent retraction is to be taken at face value given the pressure she would be under is a matter of opinion; the story is not yet over: Peng Shuai appearance fails to address concerns for her wellbeing, says WTA:  (2020-12-20). Sod25k (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's premature to split right now. There might be follow-up developments that could turn out to be important to how we decide. As for the title and scope of any new article, just because something has been covered heavily by English (not international) media or the WTA doesn't necessarily mean it should be a separate article. Not to mention that most of the current section revolves around comments on and reactions to the matter, not Peng's disappearance itself and her allegations. For comparison, see Trump-Ukraine Scandal, which is 3x as long as this article and has had a split template for over 1 year already. There's also been much coverage about her revelations themselves (sex, affair, political implications, social analyses, etc.) without going into her disappearance; would that be significant for a separate article as well? CurryCity (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page name ideas? 

message: ::One of the effects of hazing is positive, albeit often conflicted, feelings about the abuser. The connection between hazing and the feelings she expressed after her claimed sexual assault has not been examined, to my knowledge, by anyone in the media — even though the connection is obvious for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the field of Social Psychology. The positive feelings are not, in any way, proof that abuse didn't occur and that it wasn't serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be very helpful if we could at least add a link to a translation of the Weibo post, as it sheds a more nuanced light on the matter. But we'd have to find a WP:RS acknowledged translation I think. The only one I've found is the Reddit/tennistonic.com one mentioned above. Rwendland (talk) 14:17 UTC, 21 December 2021‎
* I think the 166 IP means ghosting, not hazing, but I agree with their point. I think  and  are saying this may be a case of abuse rather than an assault, a nuance that the BBC has also picked up on, but it and other RS note the seeming contradiction in her words. If we are going to include the Weibo post, I think we should summarise it with a few direct quotes. Importantly, the translator noted that the meaning of her comment about someone guarding the door was unclear. LondonIP (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add in translation of entire Weibo Post? 

message: :(Conversation moved from Jarvis section) Regarding CurryCity's recent edit summary, "as it happened media reported on the event they also reported that Peng agreed to it, now there's been two denials (email plus video), even if she's under some sort of pressure, it doesn't mean she's lying, because of the controversial nature we should not use wikivoice, see Talk regarding Jarvis", this gives some insight into the slant that this editor is trying to push through. FobTown (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that slant? Everything from media themselves. I'm not pushing my POV onto the intro like you have been doing.CurryCity (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you still fail to see any issue with your own behavior and POV and how much time I've put in to accommodate you and strike a balance  ? CurryCity (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  CurryCity you are not trying to accommodate, rather you are trying to establish that Peng's denials (e-mail, video) are truth when they cannot be independently verified, that is why "apparent" or "purported" is an apt description. FobTown (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the point of holding a discussion if you insist on making things up? I didn't say her denials were truth or put things in wikivoice only as you have. Look, these were your edit summaries for reverting, basically nothing, nothing, and nothing again. At the time, Lianhe Zaobao was the ony source regarding her 2nd denial. After a new source popped up doubting Lianhe Zaobao, even though it was from an anonymous China watcher, I let your version stay, instead of reverting repeatedly without discussion like you did. Here you claimed suspicion that the e-mail and video were staged, even though your source was 1 person (Jarvis), questionable in terms of NPOV, and even he only said "ham-fisted" not staged about the e-mail and never mentioned her denial video. Here are your reverts 1 2 3 even though talk had not settled. Yet here you are smearing me, putting questionable edits into the intro before you had verifiable sources, if another editor ever catches on, and insisting on putting them back without improvement or discussion, while conveniently not mentioning questionable sources with your assertions  ? CurryCity (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

text:  Ever since that anonymous China watcher source popped up, it's always been indicated that her denial was 'apparent' and from an interview video with Lianhe Zaobao. No one is saying it's the 'truth'. Please don't revert 1 2 3 without completing Talk, and don't add contentious content without specifying that the source is anonymous or potentially non-NPOV. CurryCity (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing wording of "in state media only" ignores a lot of the content in the article expressing doubt of the videos and photos and e-mails. FobTown (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The original wording had been there for weeks. CurryCity (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of Slant 

message: What's the best language to describe Peng Shuai's allegations, and should we use wikivoice or indicate "media reported"/"according to media"? This is also somewhat related to Zhang Gaoli depending how far we go with the langauge here. CurryCity (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can 'coercive' mean psychological pressure, such as withdrawing affection? I thought it has to involve some sort of threat that's unjustified. It seems Peng knew Zhang was already retired though. She sounded timid and afraid. Couldn't she have (she did disagree initially) attempted to leave, or at least not specifically agreed in the end and see what Zhang would do next? It sounds like she had to choose being liked & have sex versus no sex & not being liked by Zhang. CurryCity (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's tricky to re-phrase her denials, but technically, she denied only accusing anyone (ie making allegations), as reflected by the current article. Does that mean she's making a judgment on or denying any occurence of transgression? We don't know. I feel some in the media want to call this assault, but at the same time want to attribute the characterization to Peng, as opposed to being forthright and say that they themselves want to call this assault. CurryCity (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically we can't write as if Peng's denials are truth, similar to all the previous proof of life photos and videos, as they can't be independently verified. FobTown (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please make responses to the most relevant section. I'm not proposal/changing the article's phrasing about her denials, only tying the point into this RfC. CurryCity (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

text: For assault allegations. Peng had disputed it and her Post did say she gave consent.. Zhang did pressure her but it's not like he went for it after she said no.. it is only after she said yes, that they had sex so it's not a really typical criminal case of assault. If this was in a western court, I don't think it would even be heard. I think saying PRESSURE her for sex, is acceptable since that's what she had described in her post. However that's just half the story as she also said she carried feelings for him from their past that influenced her to give consent. So it wasn't completely one sided.WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Pressured" is not perfect; I'm not married to the term either. But Zhang was married to his wife, so ghosting Peng wasn't exactly surprising. He had some power before retirement, but I believe in China, former officials are stripped of any meaningful influence in case they might be up to something. Sexual coercion   might be general enough, with or without being threatened in typical ways. "Sexual abuse" sounds too strong to me, especially since Peng's relationship with Zhang does not appear to center around sex; see common descriptions  ) for "sexual abuse". CurryCity (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on What Language to Describe Peng Shuai's Allegations and the Reporting Thereof 

message: You really shouldn't need all those sourcing links in the lead section since the lead (it's not lede at Wikipedia) is always a summary of sourced information in prose. As long as it's properly sourced in the "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section of prose, it doesn't need it in the lead. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably added them out of caution while the story was developing. Should be able to do away with the ones already in body. CurryCity (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it's not in the body it must be. The lead is a summary of the body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in lead 

message: Given that Peng is alive and has been seen in independently verified videos, why is the page still referring to her as having been disappeared? Surely the issue now is whether she is being coerced in some way, not that she has not been heard from at all, which is what “disappearance” means. The heading should be changed to “Sexual assault allegation and aftermath” and references to “disappearance” as being current removed, unless there is reason to think she has disappeared since, in which case the timeline should be made clear. Sobeak (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: She did disappear for a while, didn’t she? Just because she resurfaced, it doesn’t mean the disappearance never happened.Tvx1 15:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  “disappearance” still valid? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: For 3O related to above discussion (link 1) that resulted from this edit (diff 1; not mine). Awaiting volunteer for next step. CurryCity (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Refusal of 3O.  Good afternoon.  I am Springnuts, a previously uninvolved editor.  I am turning down the 3O request because it is out of scope for the less formal nature of the third opinion process: "for more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment". This is clearly a complex dispute and a number of editors have been involved; and any attempt to restrict a 3O to just the one diff would be futile. Springnuts (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending 3O 

message: Should the L'Équipe interview be covered in the lede, or would it's inclusion be undue? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think interviews should be mentioned with or without naming them. Senorangel (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but it's still early to declare a horse (no pun intended to one of the editors here :) ) Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be too short. The other editor wanted 30%. That would be about 2 paragraphs. If it is this short, there would be no reason to name one of the interview in the introduction paragraph either. Senorangel (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments:  

message: As per Talk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments: a consensus is emerging for not including L'Équipe interview in the lead/lede/introduction. FobTown (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it's still early to declare a horse (no pun intended to one of the editors here :) ) Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be too short. The other editor wanted 30%. That would be about 2 paragraphs. If it is this short, there would be no reason to name one of the interview in the introduction paragraph either. Senorangel (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion etc.

message: Just bringing forward the results of the vote so far. The details have been spun off into a separate article, Disappearance of Peng Shuai, and L'Équipe interview no longer has an Update sub-header.  FobTown (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary vote on L'Équipe interview inclusion in the lede/lead/introduction

message: The main prose covering the sexual assault allegation, as mentioned several times, is pretty much ridiculous in it's content. This was mentioned multiple times (with links to the change) in several conversations which I saw no complaints. It could sure be different (like much shorter) but it certainly warranted a bold try by me before being tagged as trivial overload. It could probably be cut at least in half but it's about 64% of what it was. It wasn't so much a rewrite but more a dumping of trivial info. I'm still not sure it would pass muster by administration of undue weight and trivia, but at least it's manageable now. If you would like it trimmed more I can try another go at it to get it to 33% to 50% of what it was. Or someone else can give it try. But it really couldn't stay the way it was. I'm shocked some of that stuff even made it in the article to begin with. If you don't like my wording here's what I suggest. Take what was there a couple days ago and plop it in one of your sandboxes. I would suggest CurryCity's sandbox. Work together in that sandbox on making the content at 40% shorter or more, and more encyclopedic. Short and to the point. Remove anything that is not 100% about Peng. Use your passion for the topic and summarize summarize summarize. Then replace what I did. I really don't care the exact wording, and I don't care if my version gets replaced since this is just one out of countless thousands of tennis articles I watch, fix, stop vandalism, etc. And hey, mine was a bold edit here. It can be reverted. While I would be disappointed I would not be mad and I would not re-add without more discussion. That's the way Wikipedia works. Someone else might re-add it though, even if temporary, because what was there was so darned bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the way this works that we create a stand alone page for the sexual assault allegation and only cover the basics on the main page? See Wikipedia:Splitting, got a name in mind? We can make it right now. The topic passes WP:GNG as a stand alone so the split doesn't need consensus, it can just be done as a fait accompli. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you feel it dictates a stand alone, sure go ahead and create it. It sure can't stay the way it is on this article. It's trivial with off-topic tangents, and undue weight. I'm not sure why you would delete the change except to make it much smaller here. What would usually happen is you would have left it, created a new article, and then shortened my edit even more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's trivial with off-topic tangents, and undue weight." no it is not. It is coverage of the most notable thing to ever happen involving this subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article it is... as a stand-alone that might be different. It's ridiculous as it stands here right now and it is not the most notable thing about Peng. It wouldn't even be a blip if she weren't a past No. 1, 17-year professional tennis player to make her notable to begin with. Create the stand-alone as "Peng Shuai sexual assault allegation". That can always be changed later. The amount of detail here is like a novel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not ridiculous or trivial, sexual assault and political violence are very serious issues. Please refrain from making such disrespectful comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say they weren't serious charges. I said the amount of trivia, writing style, bloat, undue weight, and tangents unrelated to Peng Shuai and this article are ridiculous. And I stand by that. We'll have to just massively disagree if you feel differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay level, you appear to be letting your emotions get the best of you. There is a way to go about this without resorting to hyperbole like "ridiculous" or "massively disagree" and if you can not edit a subject dispassionately you are not to edit it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually quite fine. We just have to agree to disagree on what is on the page. It is really bad. I said you can create a new article and then we could chop this by 75%. If you feel that what we have now in this article is about right, then I feel we'd be at a total impasse. I took an initiative to fix an issue that no one else was doing. I saw or see nothing from you except to criticize. Please put the section in your sandbox and streamline it for use in an encyclopedia. This article was an absolute battleground when I noticed it. I got that, at least temporarily, stopped. There was an issue with the lead. I rewrote a suggestion trying to take into account everyone's wishlist. It may not happen but I tried to be a peacemaker. The prose section on the topic is a mess in my eyes and I have said it multiple times. That was also contentious. I took the time to trim it 36% to make it more encyclopedia and more to the point. I was open to discuss it. You reverted it. That's cool. But what did you put in it's place? Nothing. If you want to help, then please help. I put my money where my mouth is and rolled up my sleeves on an article where I have better things to do with my time. Would I split the article? Maybe not since most readers would look for it right here and I feel my edit gave good detail and links to where readers could find more "if" they really want those details of daily happenings. But if it got split I'd be cool with that also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split the article and restored your version of the main article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. This one might be able to be thinned down more now, but I won't complain about things unless the bloat creeps back. Thanks for taking the time to create the new article also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I recommend that we do away with the "Update" sub-header on L'Équipe and 2022 Winter Olympics, as per PraiseVivec's rationate below: FobTown (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I know that this isn't the subject of the RfC, but at the moment, the "Update" section (which surely cannot remain named like that much longer) is too long and does a poor job of summarizing the information. A one or two sentence version of the whole thing would be more than adequate. She doesn't actually provide any new information or claims in this interview than in others she gave to the Chinese media so I believe this is now given overdue attention in the article body. Its representation in the lede would be even more baffling, since it would give a "prime time slot" to the incredible revelation that she had an interview with a French magazine in which she said the same thing she says since her disappearance. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

text: How does sandbox work cooperatively? Isn't Draft space for that? CurryCity (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way. I've started items in my sandbox before and invited people to help edit the info. When we were satisfied I copied it over to the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using subpages of Talk here if that's okay, broken into smaller chunks like this CurryCity (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

text: In November 2021, Peng accused Zhang Gaoli, a retired Chinese vice-premier and high-ranking CCP member, reportedly of sexual assault in 2018. Her Weibo post also revealed an even earlier encounter between them. During her 2018 visit with Zhang and his wife, he made another advance. Despite mixed feelings and refusing at first, Peng was talked into agreeing. They renewed their semi-private relationship until a dispute on 30 October. Peng's post drew attention to the MeToo movement in China, where activist Zhou Xiaoxuan expressed her sympathies, but it was removed within 20 minutes of being uploaded, and related discussions became widely censored within China. Peng did not communicate on social media afterwards and was not reachable by the WTA. Chinese officials gave vague responses to inquiries, while the Chinese Tennis Association said Peng was safe. WTA chief executive Steve Simon called on Chinese authorities to investigate her allegations and stop censoring the subject, while multiple tennis personalities expressed their concerns: ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi, Novak Djokovic, Naomi Osaka, Serena Williams, Andy Murray, Billie Jean King, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Various footages of Peng surfaced in Chinese state media, which was met with skepticism. The International Tennis Federation, Amnesty International, the EU, and the UNHCHR called for proof of Peng's safety, while the WTA decided to suspend all tournaments in China. The IOC said it held two video calls with Peng. In a video from Lianhe Zaobao and an interview with the French L'Équipe, Peng said she had not accused anyone of sexual assault, although some doubts about the circumstances were raised. She attended a meeting with IOC officials and several events at the 2022 Winter Olympics. Her appearance and references to her "accusation" remained censored within China. CurryCity (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fyunck(click) did a decent job of trimming down the body already, as Horse Eye's Back created a spin-off for the original content. FobTown (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article about Peng should prioritize contents about her over indirect ones. CurryCity (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously we were working to shorten the introduction paragraph, so this is too much added detail particularly on the love life and list of sports celebrities. Also take issue with the selective inclusion of the interviews/appearances (Fyunck(click), PraiseVivec, Markbassett, Fieari, and myself have all opposed mention of a specific interview in the lead).FobTown (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also a bit confused. Is what you wrote about supposed to replace the entire "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section, or is what you wrote supposed to be placed in the lead? It is way too long and detailed for the lead. What is in the lead now is about right with extreme highlights only. If it's for replacing the entire "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" it seems too short with too many names. We don't want bloat but we need a summary. Some of her yearly sections also need a vast trimming. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for the whole section in the body. I done some thinking as you mentioned about how much article space it is taking up compared to the entire career of Peng and decided to boldly cut much of what was not directly about her, especially since we have split off the disappearance part. CurryCity (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different kettle of fish then. It seems too short but then again we have an entire separate article on the subject. I'll have to look a bit more at it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section in the body, Fyunck(click)'s truncated version is fine, as Horse Eye's Back created a spin-off article for the original detailed content. There are several flaws with CurryCity's proposed paragraph in that details are cherry-picked, with considerable emphasis on the love life, a long list of sports celebrities, and the selective inclusion of certain interviews/appearances. FobTown (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with mentioning sports celebrities? CurryCity (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the long list of names of sports celebrities isn't particularly pertinent. However the material that was cut from Fyunck(click)'s truncated version is pertinent and such material is conspicuous by its absence; (e.g. purported email was "not meant to convince people but to intimidate", "familiar tactic of bypassing critiques or questions by underscoring western hypocrisy", analysis of Twitter accounts identified 97 fake accounts promoting messaging about Peng from the Global Times editor and other Chinese state media, Marc Ventouillac, one of the two interviewers, voiced his doubts about Peng Shuai's freedom and said that the interview had been part of "propaganda" efforts to downplay the issue).  I suggest leaving Fyunck(click)'s truncated version as it is. FobTown (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your ideas are two- or three-steps removed from Peng, the pertinent essense of which has already been summarized by me without going too much into details. There's no need to add them to a growing pile of commentaries about CCP where everybody takes a stab at formulating what it might have been up to. CurryCity (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The love life might be directly about Peng but its actually bordering on tabloid speculation, so why devote a quarter of the section to the Sexual Assault Section on it? Indeed as Peng can't be verified to freely speak for herself and has likely been silenced, the numerous reactions of the state media including e-mails, proof-of-life videos and photos, Twitter bot accounts, Global Times foreign publication with a domestic blanking, are very pertinent to the topic. FobTown (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Love life is literally <16% or less than one-sixth of the section and <1% of the whole article. It's under-represented if anything. 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The less about love life the better, as this is not a tabloid. FobTown (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: No tabloid source has been used. CurryCity (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

text: This looks too short for the body. One of the other editors also said something, like 35%, of the original. That would be about 2 paragraphs, not 1. Senorangel (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a school assignment; we don't need to rigidly follow any number unless of course Fyunck(click) has some especially good reasons for it. CurryCity (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have ten paragraphs or more as Peng's sexual assault claim and dissapearance is a significant ongoing issue that has yet to be resolved, similar to Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum#2018_disappearance. One paragraph is appropriate only if the issue died down quickly, such as Tom Brokaw and Peyton_Manning#Sexual_misconduct_allegations (some tried to spin-off Peyton Manning's sexual assault into a new article but this did not stand, see ). FobTown (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 is too many. 2 paragraphs are about right. That would focus on Peng, without leaving out too many facts.  Senorangel (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now two short paragraphs plus one average-sized one. CurryCity (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The length is good. Not saying this is perfect, but I have added or replaced some words, after reading the CNN article by Gan and Xiong. Senorangel (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The yearly sections are mostly about Peng's wins and losses and can probably be summarized. CurryCity (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Went through years up until 2010. What do you think, too short, still too long? CurryCity (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

text: You might be misconstruing them, just saying. Senorangel (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Body overbloat, again

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I want to add that for the section we have been discussing, 10 paragraphs is probably too greedy. The final note says the discussion was closed, and to make comments on an appropriate page. I am confused, because talk page is the only place I know for discussing an article. Senorangel (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The closure template was messed up by the hidden discussion. It has been fixed, the Body overbloat discussion should not have been closed as it was tangential to the RfC - Floydian τ ¢ 00:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing it. Senorangel (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion