Talk:Caroline Flack

message: Why is there a Filmography here ?
What films has she appeared in ? Jamie Stuart (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Filmography" is a generic tern and we don't use the word "Televisionography". Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oeuvre perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that sounds bit grand. What about just "Television" as the main heading? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: I don't think that her death is contentious. It's an undisputed fact. Are refs needed in the main body AND in the lead section AND in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Given its recency I think it's worth doing at least in the lead and the body. I added them to the infobox because initially that was one of the only places in the article that mentioned her death, but I don't object to them being removed from there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'm not sure they are required in the lead by policy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEADCITE, I think it's worth leaving them—it is potentially contentious given that she has so recently been reported dead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. I've never understood it that way. I guess individual circucmstances vary anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: The page was edited to include her death before reputable sources were found to support the fact. However now that there is reputable and undisputed evidence of this, the section regarding her death could likely be removed and the citations in the infobox too. GSSNYC (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: She's dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been confirmed by reliable sources including the BBC, who have confirmed her death with her family. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes - I don't dispute that, this was explaining why there was excessive references and citations. I was responding to Martinevans123's point in the Refs section. I edited the page myself to include the BBC citation. GSSNYC (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it would be clearer if you responded in the same section. Her death should at least be mentioned in the article body somewhere—whether in its own section or not I don't really care either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Sorry for the understanding. The phrase "the section regarding her death could likely be removed" threw me somewhat. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem - I've edited to make that a bit clearer. GSSNYC (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I did - my response got moved by someone. It's been moved to the section in the page given that the policy on including it in the lead is only for if the death is particularly notable, which as of now it is not reported to be. GSSNYC (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: GSSNYC, I moved your comment to this new thread as I misunderstood what you meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah - hopefully my edit makes this clearer now. GSSNYC (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputable sources 

message: Apart from a mention of a single show in 2014 and a series in 2016, I can't find much in the article that would justify the prominence of the word "radio" in the opening sentence of the article and the infobox.  She was known as a television presenter.  Should the words "Radio and..." be removed - or, at least, be made far less prominent in the article?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Should be less prominent or removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps as an interim measure, I've changed the order to "television and radio presenter".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Radio presenter"? 

message: All of the BBC's coverage of Flack's death today has mentioned the criticism by her management of the Crown Prosecution Service. In some formats it has been the main angle of reporting and discussion. It is also getting widespread coverage on many other news outlets, including the Sunday broadsheets. How can this be seen as "The "non trial" gossip"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this has now been moved from the "Death" section to the "Personal life" section. Is it sufficiently clear that the criticism was levelled after she died? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: The thing is that the Wikipedia article is supposed to be a history of the person's life. It is not supposed to be a day to day update on the latest tabloid gossip. You mention the CPS. We will have to see if that is relevant, but the importance will not be evident for a few weeks. Criticism of the CPS is surely a separate article. It could be referred to in Caroline's article. As for the trail, it appears there will be no trial. Having a discussion about anything Caroline has done, like being arrested, pros and cons, not encyclopedic, can be intended to blacken her name, and is time wasting, to my mind. I guess we are now in the 20s, and standards might be slipping, making me out of touch. If so, I fear for Wikipedia's future direction. Wallie (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wallie, I have to agree with you there. "It appears there will be no trial." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the CPS 

message: Just curious about this edit, removing details about the alleged assault on Burton from the personal life section. I don't want to add this back, because this is a BLP and there may be good reasons for omitting it, but this is a topic that is being covered by media, well-sourced, and seems relevant in context of her death too. Why did you think it needed to be removed?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is outrageous that the girl is being smeared in this way after her death. The attacks on her character by this sort of comment on Wikipedia and other social media, prior, is what helped cause her death. It seems that evil conquers good in the 20s. Wallie (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: She is not being smeared. She was arrested. The article reflects that in a non-judgemental manner. - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a highly reported incident, Flack was arrested for it, and was to stand trial. Not including it in my opinion would be introducing bias to only share the positive, which, as we all know Wikipedia is to remain neutral and mention both positive and negative. As heartbreaking as her death is, it should still be in the article. Had she not died, I doubt the information would have been removed. Alex  (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the fact she died that makes it important that these character assassinations should be removed. She cannot defend herself now against people like you. Wallie (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? People like me? Please do not assume to know my character, nor my personal opinion on Flack. I see no encyclopedic reason to omit this from the article. Alex  (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that it is not encyclopedic. It is a tabloid generated attack on Caroline's character, and should certainly not be in the article. The fact that you support these attacks, even after she has died speaks volumes for both your personal character and your opinion on Caroline. Wallie (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: You are the one who reverted me, and are determined to crucify this girl's memory. You are aiding the work of the tabloids. Much of this conjecture you and they support is clearly biased and causes great pain to her friends and family. You may be able to publish this nasty stuff within the Wikipedia rules, but I certainly question your humanity. Wallie (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing nasty about what is here. We can't censor events just because we don't like them, or the way that they have been reported in the press. Given the subsequent events (and it is very possible that this was a factor in those events), we have to include a reference to them. We do this without making any judgements or being biased. And please don't question our humanity. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one being judgmental. You seem to think that some argument she had is relevant, because the tabloids reported it. Anyway, I never questioned "our humanity". It was your humanity I questioned. I think you are nasty to keep up this attack Caroline's honour, wven after she has died. In fact, I find it reprehensible, but I doubt you care anyway. Wallie (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly don’t care for your continual insults, so I’ll withdraw from this. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. But your mud slinging on the article remains. It is about winning with you, not about what is right. Wallie (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wallie, the tragic outcome here, many believe, is because the CPS decided to press ahead with a trial even though Burton did now want one? I'm not sure the reader could reasonably be expected to make any judgement about that matter without the necessary background. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The material which is damaging to Caroline is under the heading "Personal Life". If there is any criticism of the CPS, then there should be a separate article about that. How can what the CPS decided be directed at Caroline, as if she was guilty? The whole article as it stands is a dirty tabloid type attack on this poor girl. Articles like this do not build the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source. I can assure you that such stuff wouldn't have been written in encyclopedias in say the 50s. Maybe I am out of touch, as we are now well into the 20s. I do see a spiral downwards. Wallie (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't think that a "separate article". for any criticism of the CPS. is justified. But the best place to propose that might be Talk:Crown Prosecution Service. There is already a small section at that article headed "Controversy"; but I'm not sure this particular instance is sufficiently notable to be added there, or at least not yet. Are you seriously  suggesting that what may be the prime trigger for Flack taking her own life should be conveniently air-brushed out in some way? I think the article as it stands is perfectly balanced with no bias. We're not writing an encyclopedia for the 1950s, are we? We're writing one for 2020 onwards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia concerns itself with facts, not "good and evil". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it has come down to that. Good people present their ideas as opinions. Bad people present their ideas as facts. Wikipedia has changed a lot since I first started editing. It has been taken over by right wing zealots. A shame really. Wallie (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there's an accusation you don't hear leveled against WP every day. EEng 03:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: So you see fellow editors as just "good people" or "bad people", yes? Wow. And now you're ranting here about Wikipedia being "taken over  right wing zealots". Hmmm, I'm not sure you're going to be able invest in this project for much longer. But now about you remove just the personal attack you've made against Alex in the thread below? Maybe that would show us all what a "good person" you are? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You go on to me about personal attacks. You are actually attacking me. As for fellow editors, sure some are good and some are bad, in my opinion. I always qualify it as my opinion as that is what everything I say is. So many out there present their opinion as facts. I find that very frightening. I have removed the personal attack against Alex. This has been a learning experience for me. I fell sick. Wallie (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for removing that. How, exactly, am I "attacking you"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't see it. can you. You should read what you said about me, and imagine if I said it about you. I had this sort of experience with the Arnhem article in which a whole gang of admins battered me into submission. You talk of facts, and facts are truth. Tell me. What is the meaning of truth? I hate the way you support your fellow editors as you call them, but attack strangers like me. Wallie (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an appropriate forum for metaphysical discussion. Please take your persecution complex elsewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You talk of personal attacks. That sounds like a nasty one to me. I have not attacked you personally, and yet you quickly resort to that approach with me. Wallie (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non trial encyclopedic gossip? 

message: A separate thread has dealt with the legalities (or appropriateness) of using the term 'suicide' without a coroner's verdict. However, it is not inappropriate to pre-empt this conclusion if the manner of death points inevitably to suicide. Does anyone have information on the manner of death in this case? Hanoi Road (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if anyone does have "information on the manner of death" I think it would be quite inappropriate to include it before an inquest has been held. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Martinevans123, I think we're right to avoid clearly attributing a formal cause of death until a coroner's verdict has been delivered. For now it seems appropriate to quote the family lawyer in the article, but leave out the official 'Cause of Death' section of the infobox until we have a final verdict. Many such deaths can begin as suspected suicides but eventually change, not that I expect that to happen here but it would be naive to assume things too soon. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above,  please refrain from edit warring. Your edit is clearly not in fitting with WP:EUPHEMISM - we would not use the words 'took (a person's) life' in place of 'killed (a person)' and 'took her own life' is equally euphemistic. As to the suicide link please discuss here as myself, Hanoi Road, and Martinevans123 have done so far, as there is clearly no consensus for a definite claim of suicide until a coroner announces such a result has been delivered. It is not a slow process so we will have information soon, no need to be hasty. Llemiles (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back to the STATUS QUO. This, handily, reflects multiple reliable sources too. You are the one who edit warred first, before my second revert. (Ie. You made a bold edit that I reverted. You re-reverted then accused me of edit warring). - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is laughable. Only on Wikipedia would you see such B/S talked. "Took her own life" is not euphemistic. It's a standard expression in BrE. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is flawed there. "Passed away" is also a standard expression used, but that doesn't mean it is not a euphemism. If taking someone else's life (killing someone) is considered a euphemism then I fail to see how this phrase is any different. Alex  (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Took her own life is not idiom or euphemism, it's the language used widely in British academic suicide research. See for example NCISH. But this is a cultural use -- we don't see it in some other English speaking countries.  While I'd prefer "took her own life" I can see that other editors have a problem with that.DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wallie, that's a personal attack. I think you should withdraw it immediately. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I have to. Otherwise you will axe me. Huh? Wallie (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for removing it. I'm not quite sure here you got the notion that I "would axe you", whatever that might mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Take his life? EEng 03:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  "Hmmm, I'm not sure you're going to be able invest in this project for much longer." sounds like a big threat to me. The fact that I have edited in Wikipedia for over 16 years means nothing. Admins have the power... A whole cluster... even better.  Wallie (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Again, don't presume to know my personal opinion, this is the second time you have done so. I fail to see how this comment (which, is about a phrase and actually has nothing to do with Flack herself) is "trashing" her memory. It still seems you're too biased. Alex  (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am biased. Sure. I don't like it when someone who has committed suicide is taken apart, tabloid style. It is very serious. What you have said will be still there as a record in 2350. It will be there to haunt Caroline's relatives and friends, and their descendants, thousands of people. In my opinion, it is not encyclopedic, only muck raking. It may be factual, but it is also, in my opinion, nasty and ill willed. Secondly, to say it is not your personal opinion. Come on. Everything anyone says is their personal opinion. And yes, everyone is biased too - including me. Wallie (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: "The lawyer acting for her family confirmed that she had died by suicide". But he didn't use those words, or anything like them. "Died by suicide" sounds ridiculous. I've never come across it in BrE. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I raised my concerns about your edits as they clearly ignored and disregarded the talk discussion taking place here. Stating that she "died" is the lease disputed version currently available until a consensus can be reached here. Llemiles (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit disregarded nothing. The reliable sources state that she took her own life. We reflect the sources, not censor what has been reported. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is ultimately guided by its policies and guides if it is ever to be coherent and concise. WP:EUPHEMISM controls what to draw from the source material, unless there is a consensus against the policy. At the moment, you're the only one with that view. Llemiles (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with  SchroCat  that simply using the word "died" in the lead section is insufficient in terms of summarising the content of the whole article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  the phrase "death by suicide" is referenced within the articles Suicide and Suicide methods as well as appearing across Google so I fail to see how it is unacceptable to be used here.  Llemiles (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, have you responded to the right person? I even stated in a previous comment in another section that I support the use of "died by suicide" and my comment above is stating that I fail to see how "took her own life" is not a euphemism. I'm a little confused here. Alex  (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry I meant to respond to User:31.52.163.160, my bad. Llemiles (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . That's as maybe, but it's virtually unknown in British English. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: , I appreciate your concern about the media coverage of this topic and your worries that Wikipedia may be amplifying it, but I would urge you to try to think about this in a more cold manner. Wikipedia is not an place for emotive coverage of topics, and stating that she "passed away" is a euphemism. The sad fact of this matter is that she has died, that is the terminology that fits best with Wiki guidelines. If you feel those guidelines are not appropriate, please raise your views at WT:WTW. Llemiles (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not worried about the terminology. Cheers. Unfortunately she did die. Wallie (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manner of suicide 

message: I am saddened by the way the article has descended into a tabloid style attack fest. The Personal Life section is just an all out attack on the poor girl's memory. It does not reflect on her life as a whole, what her friends and family remember her for - the good times. I just hope her parents never read this stuff, as it would hurt me, if my daughter was written up this way in an encyclopedia, a testament, a legacy which will last for hundreds of years. Wallie (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Personal life" section of any article is not meant to "reflect on someone's life as a whole". It's meant to give just a little detail on what has been reliably reported about their personal life? What her friends and family remember Flack for is not necessarily really encyclopedic material. This article, in its current form may not even last a week, let alone "hundreds of years". If you feel there are factual inaccuracies, you should try and correct them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Martinevans123 - I think what you are envisaging is an obituary. There is a place for those in newspapers and at funerals but Wikipedia cannot be used to promote a particular perspective on a person's life. If you feel there is notable information about Flack's life that should be cited in the article then go ahead and add it, but it does need to be from a neutral point of view. Llemiles (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the whole point. Wikipedia is "promoting a particular perspective on a person's life" - a bad one in this case. I suspect her obituary will be more balanced that the Wikipedia article about her. For one thing, it will say some positive things about her, not just "throwing her to the wolves. Wallie (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: That is the whole problem. Negative comments are put up against a person which cannot be proven to be false. Anyway, if I try to rectify anything, I will be challenged on principle by your fellow editors. I think the article is all wrong in its present state, but suspect the situation will get worse. Unfortunately, people do not write good things often, but dwell on the bad. I am sorry, but this Wikipedia article could very well have contributed to Caroline's death. Wallie (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point. You refer to her as a girl, repeatedly. It's both sexist and paternalistic, infantilising her and negating her life and career. Would you call a 40-year-old man a boy? I highly doubt it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.216.71 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Wallie, what an utterly preposterous thing to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Wallie, you seem to have this 'romanticized' notion of what a Wikipedia article should look like when reporting someone's death. Are you proposing that we scrub the article of anything that could be potentially perceived in a negative light? The purpose of this article is to report on objective, referenced and notable facts. Given that it has received more than 50 edits in just one day, it's highly unlikely that this article will be "a legacy which will last for hundreds of years." It is not in any way supposed to reflect on her life as a whole or just "the good times" - that's not the point of an encyclopedia. The article as it stands lists, amongst notable details of her life, what are at most highly-reported controversies. GSSNYC (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect a person's life in a positive way - not in a tabloid style way. Take Napoleon, for example. The press after Waterloo could say nothing good about him. In fact, he was depicted as being much worse than Hitler was in 1945. Now Napoleon is shown in a reasonably positive way, and that is as it should be. As for being "highly reported", it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Much of it is sensationalism, to tear her down. Wallie (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "". No, it's not. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect a person's life in a neutral way, reflecting the life honestly, neither positively or negatively. - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is complete tosh. I have an encyclopedia that says that Hitler started out badly, but has shown that he is now a good leader and a reliable statesman.". The encyclopedia article is from 1935. As for neutral, everyone has a bias - except you, I suppose. I expect that you will redact anything I edit on Wikipedia, as you have done previously to me. Wallie (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing about that is at all encyclopedic. Saying that "Hitler started out badly, but has shown that he is now a good leader and a reliable statesman" is a wholly emotive statement, not backed up by fact. Additionally, the fact that is from an encyclopedia article from 1935 does not really add any legitimacy to that encyclopedia - especially because Hitler was not dead in 1935 and, on the contrary, had an extreme amount of dictatorial power over a country. It is possible to make a statement without bias and it is certainly not acceptable to introduce bias merely because somebody else did. GSSNYC (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wallie, you seem to be getting back into personal attack territory, this time with SchroCat. I wonder had you thought of taking your editing skills to other, perhaps less contentious, articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I get the psychological bullying approach. As I said, Wikipedia has deteriorated from when I joined. SchroCat has replied to me, but always in a negative manner. When I try to respond, you say I am attacking him. The whole atmosphere is poisonous here anyway. Wallie (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that SchroCat replies to you "in a negative manner" because he disagrees with you? Who do you think is "psychologically bullying" you here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He disagrees with everything I say, as do you. You and he are in lockstep, and in complete agreement with each other. I do recognise the tactics, and why the article is the way it is. Someone said it might change, but I doubt it. It will still show Caroline in a bad light. Wallie (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I make no apologies for agreeing with another editor. Editors can agree, you know. And it's not proof of some evil conspiracy against you. I've also agreed with you in the thread "Criticism of the CPS", above. You've made two edits to the article and both been reverted. But I now think you're wasting not only your own time here, but also wasting the time of other editors too, with your subjective opinions and wild accusations. I think it's time you went elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: No, an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the notable facts of a person's life in an objective way and both Napoleon and Hitler's pages convey objective facts about both those respective people. You're choosing to read those articles as being positive and you may do so at your discretion but it is not and should not be the intention of an encyclopedic author to take a positive OR negative stance on a subject or topic. Take for example, Flack's alleged assault; it is stated as a fact in this article based upon it being widely reported and undisputed. You cannot argue that it was not ALLEGED that Flack assaulted her boyfriend - that is a widely known and documented fact. You also cannot argue the statement that the lawyer made to the press - that is a documented fact. And both of these facts should remain in the article because they are relevant and notable. What you're proposing, is that we take away information that some people could perceive to be negative for the benefit of the people who want to remember her in a positive light. While a noble principle and obviously something I'm not morally against, that goes against the purpose and intentions of an encyclopedia - which is to portray objective facts and allow people to read all the facts and to form their own conclusions or conduct further research. GSSNYC (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm having a little difficulty comparing the life of Caroline Flack to that of either Napoleon Bonaparte or Adolf Hitler. But then, they weren't "girls", were they. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. They were human beings. Napoleon was trashed immediately after his death. He has that in common with Caroline. Wallie (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it may be that both of them were trashed after their death, but the discussion here is what to include in Wikipedia, not what we're going to post on Twitter or write in a tabloid. If you read the [Criticisms section of Napoleon's article], you'll see that it is objective - as is the intention for this article. It includes facts such as "Napoleon ended lawlessness and disorder in post-Revolutionary France" which most people would read in a positive light (a provable, undisputed and documented) and facts such as "He was considered a tyrant and usurper by his opponents" which most people would read in a negative light (yet still also a provable, undisputed and documented fact). GSSNYC (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm very sorry, Wallie, but your own personal views on Flack and of the reaction to her death seem to be rather biased and getting in the way of what most editors would consider objective editing. As per WP:FORUM this Talk page is not for your own personal battles against perceived injustices. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Actually, since I see I'm hardly the first to warn Wallie about this, I've gone ahead and opened an ANI thread. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry I wasted my time on this article 

message: I understand it can seem quite obvious caroline took her own life because she couldn't face her trial, but the section on her page, saying three weeks before her trial she took her own life makes it sound like she was guilty, I would recommend this taken out and left as on 15 Feb 2020, Flack took her own life at her London home.
(Airline7375 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does. If you think so, just try removing it/rewriting it yourself. The whole intention of putting this sort of stuff up is to create a discussion, throw some mud. It is almost always that these ideas are found to be completely false later on. It is the way the tabloid press operates. Unfortunately, this approach is contagious. Wallie (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: There is so much wrong with all of this. Firstly we do not know why she took her life at all. Any speculation is erroneous and, in WP terms, WP:original research. Trying to say it makes it look like she was guilty is wrong: no-one is making the connection at all. Wallie, we are not following what the tabloids do, end of story. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Why does it suggest she was guilty? Why does it not simply suggest she could not face the emotional stress of a criminal trial? I'm not sure this is "throwing mud" of any kind. It's just a record of what happened, enlightened by the sincere and frank comments of her management team. But I agree with SchroCat that we do not know at all, for certain, why she took her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So much agreeing here. Good teamwork. Do you "fellow editors" ever disagree? Wallie (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do, fairly often actually, but we don't feel the need to cast aspersions about each other when we do it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking her life because of trial 

message: I'm not seeing any valid reason for this to be removed. The template very clearly states  which this is. Reason given was that Flack does not use a stage name, however, neither do Holly Willoughby, Bruce Forsyth or Phillip Scofield to name a few, and yet it is still included in their respective articles because it is different to the |name parameter. Alex  (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So, like very many people, she didn't use her middle name professionally. That's why it has to appear in the infobox? Even though it's in the first three words of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name field 

message: The discussion about language has been split across several discussions on this page. This new section is an attempt to provide a bit more clarity.
My preference is for "died by suicide" (although we shouldn't source that to newspapers that are not using the work suicide) or "took her own life" (which is perfectly acceptable English usage, commonly found in news, legal, and academic sources).
Sucide -- someone has killed themselves, can we use the word "suicide"? In England suicide is a conclusion that a coroner can return if they think the deceased ended their own life and intended to do so. But it's also an everyday English word that means "the act of killing oneself intentionally". Both definitions include intent. We do not yet know Flack's intent, and so we should be cautious with the word suicide. We do know that she killed herself. Other phrases are clear that she killed herself, but avoid the problem of intent. "She took her own life", "she ended her life" are commonly used phrases in England and they are clear to most English speakers.  
Committed -- some people seem to think this is a matter of political correctness, but it isn't. Others have said it's an attempt to police language, but again it isn't.  Wikipedia uses encyclopedic language, we use the language our sources use, and the word "committed" is not used by UK news or academic sources. Yes, you can find examples from a few years ago, and you can find examples from fiction, and you can find examples from opinion pieces, and you can find examples from outside the UK. But none of these are relevant for a death that happens today. (There will be a short term problem after a highly publicised death where freelancers bang out articles. Some of these will use the word suicide, or the word committed, but they tend to get edited out over the next few days and weeks.) The only time it's acceptable to use the word "committed" in a UK article is when it's a direct quote of a person (and these are the only examples that have been provided from UK news sources, an article that quotes a member of the public that uses the phrase, not the newspaper itself using the phrase).
I wanted to show that "took their own life" or "died by suicide" is acceptable and commonly used English use. I also wanted to show that advice to avoid the word "committed" is common and mainstream advice. Here are some sources.
Advice to coroners: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-17-conclusions.pdf "Thirdly, coroners may wish to alleviate the impact of the conclusion of suicide where proved with a form of words such as: ‘Those findings of fact lead me therefore to the following inevitable conclusion. I am satisfied to the relevant standard of proof that [the deceased] took his own life and intended to do so. For the purposes of the law I must therefore record the formal conclusion as suicide."
BBC Editorial guidelines 5.3.47 https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-and-offence/guidelines "5.3.47 We should be sensitive about the use of language. Suicide was decriminalised in 1961 and the use of the term ‘commit’ is considered offensive by some people. ‘Take one’s life’ or ‘kill oneself’ are preferable alternatives. We should consider whether to provide a link to a BBC Action Line when our output deals with such issues. The Samaritans are usually willing to be consulted by content producers about the portrayal of suicide and have published their own guidance for broadcasters. Editorial Policy should usually be consulted."
Guardian Style Guide https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-s "Say that someone killed him or herself rather than “committed suicide”; suicide has not been a crime in the UK for many years and this old-fashioned term can cause unnecessary further distress to families who have been bereaved in this way."
IPSO: https://www.ipso.co.uk/member-publishers/guidance-for-journalists-and-editors/guidance-on-reporting-suicide/ "However, journalists should be aware that the Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised the act of suicide. Many organisations working in the area of suicide prevention are concerned about the use of the phrase ‘commit suicide’ and argue that the phrasing stigmatises suicide and is insensitive to those affected by suicide. They prefer to refer to a person’s decision to take their own life, or that they died by suicide."
National Union of Journalists: https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/mental-health-and-suicide-reporting-guidelines/ "Remember suicide is not a crime so it is inaccurate to use the word ‘committed’.
Describing someone as having ‘committed suicide’ reduces the person to the type of death or implies criminal or sinful behaviour. An alternative term is “died by suicide”."
Samaritans: https://media.samaritans.org/documents/Samaritans_Media_Guidelines_UK_Apr17_Final_web.pdf "Check that inappropriate language has not been used, such as referring to a death as someone having ‘committed suicide’. Try an alternative such as ‘died by suicide’."
DanBCDanBC (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd agree with SchroCat, wouldn't you, that WP:MoS says nothing definitive? I mean, I'm really suggesting that your argument here belongs at Talk:MoS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I am sorry but you are using the same untrue claims yet again: "". This is untrue. You may have reason to try and avoid it, but please don't just make things up. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree that using the word suicide is premature. The lawyer for the family, as far as they can be quoted, said that Flack 'took her own life'. This wording is repeated in reliable sources almost universally, and you can guarantee these words were used carefully. Suicide is defined as the intentional or voluntary act of taking one's own life - to take one's own life intentionally. This is normally determined by a coroner examining the evidence, though I don't think we necessarily need to rely on a legal verdict. At this time we have no knowledge or intent or deliberation, and suicide is plain speculation, or original research in wikispeak. For future reference, should suicide be determined, I also think we can avoid using the word 'committed', and that 'died by suicide' is perfectly cromulent. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if one is redesigning the use of the English language. Yes, suicide is a conclusion/verdict of the inquest, but it has a wider meaning outside that. "suicide" is synonymous with "taking one's own life" (the OED definition above gives some clues on this), and intent is not included in this wider meaning. It is not OR to use the term (unless one wants to ignore the OED, which I'd advise against). I also advise against using claims such as "took her own life" being used "almost universally": again, in several threads above this has been shown to be untrue. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The absolute majority of reliable sources use the words reportedly used by the lawyer. Suicide is not exactly the same as taking one's own life, if we are being accurate, due the use of intention in the definition. From what what I can tell, the OED retains this distinction with the term self-murder. It also uses the phrase 'take one's own life'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED says nothing about intent at all. It also uses the term "cimmit suicide" if you want to try and only use things from that most reliable of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED consistently uses the term 'self-murder'. Would you describe this as a murder? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "consistently" you actually mean "twice", then I would decribe her death as "suicide", and I would say that she has "committed suicide": when I say "committed" I would say that is a describtion of the act she took, with no implication of "commiting" a crime or a sin, but "commiting" in the dictionary definition of the term, as I have outlined elsewhere on this page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that "suicide" may imply a legal determination, whereas "taking one's own life" cannot? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am completely leaving aside the issue of legal determinations - as I mentioned above this is normally for a coroner to determine, however this does not need to be the case. All it requires is for someone to determine intent, and that is lacking. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks for clarifying. I guess it's possible that her agent found her dead and from the circumstances determined she had killed herself. We may never know. That's why we'll probably have to rely on the inquest? I imagine that the police were called, but this has not been reported in the press. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Note: the inquest is to open tomorrow at 10am: . Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I have always assumed that "to take one's own life" implies intentionality. Just as "to kill oneself" does. There may be a subtle distinction in emphasis, but I think intentionality is assumed. If there was no intent, the construction would be "died when..." or "was killed by accident when..." etc. I think the question of having a legally determined conclusion is a different one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just came to this discussion because I had never heard of this poor woman before coming across her name by chance and looked her up. As a purely personal view on the subject, "took her own life" implies intentionality unless one adds "accidentally" before but this seems like an oxymoron. Killed herself is rather harsh sounding but when the results of the inquest come out one could add "intentionally" or "accidentally" before. However neither of these can be used until the verdict comes out as there may have been foul play involved (however unlikely this seems). I think the lead is perfectly balanced as there is actually no suggestion of foul play and the media and her family's lawyer use the words suicide. However in the main body it says  and I feel this is much more problematic as this states a fact but the result of the inquest is not known yet. I would suggest changing this to "Three other people linked to Love Island have taken their own lives" or something similar (I checked and the inquests ruled that suicide was the cause of death for them all). Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some clarification about language 

message: Should the Instagram post, now revealed by her family, and reported in multiple sources, be mentioned? e.g. BBC here, Sky News here, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it probably should be, but it has to be done carefully. It provides some background to the final month of her life. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with SchroCat that we need to do it carefully. I do think we need some additional context on the situation. I don't think we should base anything on any one post, or statement, but there is room for more context.  -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the report that she told police, when she was originally arrested, that she wanted to kill herself? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been widely covered, so probably fine, but as said the context is important. And we should say it was released by the family, not by her.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socia media post 

message: Now the inquest has happened, can Suicide by hanging be added as the Cause of death  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:C1E:DA42:5CD4:629B:6F2C:DE83 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Already added as a Category. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I won't complain if it is or isn't used, but I suspect there will be complaints that the inquest has not ended so it is not an official verdict conclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we may have to wait until (at least) 5th August. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much wait, more have to constantly revert. As much as I like accuracy, I've been on Wikipedia long enough to recognise potential futility. Plus the inquest today has shed a bit more information. Therefore no complaints from me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

text: No, it shouldn't. I'd also drop "hanging", if I'm honest, and just leave it at asphyxiation. It's too brutal to be in the box, which is the first thing (allegedly) some people see (including friends and family). CassiantoTalk 21:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Amakuru has a clear view. Maybe it's just easier to leave it blank.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well I looked at the source and found it didn't mention asphyxiation at all so something didn't seem right. And the hidden comment on the infobox said not to include anything until the inquest announced the finding. I don't have a highly strong view on this, but we generally should avoid using Wikipedia's voice for something that sources are qualifying as "provisional" or simply what "the court was told".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd agree with that. There is always a chance that the coroner reaches a different verdict conclusion if other facts are uncovered by the police or third parties. Really we should wait until August until we complete this field. There is no rush to complete it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I'm late to this but just voicing my agreement with User:SchroCat and User:Amakuru - we should await the full coroner's report. However I would disagree with one of the other editors above who felt we should follow the court guidance in phrasing the cause of death in a way that can 'alleviate the impact of the conclusion of suicide'. We should report the cause of death in the infobox word for word to match the coroner's report. Wikipedia is not a place for sensitivities when describing a factual, professional verdict based on scientific evidence. Ideally we'd have an infobox option for 'believed cause of death' or something subject to a final verdict. Llemiles (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide by hanging 

message: The infobox currently has: "Cause of death: Asphyxia caused by suicide by hanging". But the source there actually says this: "Her body was identified by her sister, Jody Flack. The inquest heard that the provisional cause of death was given as suspension by ligature." Should the word "suicide" even be mentioned there, as that is a means or method of death, not a cause? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't. I'd also drop "hanging", if I'm honest, and just leave it at asphyxiation. It's too brutal to be in the box, which is the first thing (allegedly) some people see (including friends and family). CassiantoTalk 21:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Amakuru has a clear view. Maybe it's just easier to leave it blank.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well I looked at the source and found it didn't mention asphyxiation at all so something didn't seem right. And the hidden comment on the infobox said not to include anything until the inquest announced the finding. I don't have a highly strong view on this, but we generally should avoid using Wikipedia's voice for something that sources are qualifying as "provisional" or simply what "the court was told".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd agree with that. There is always a chance that the coroner reaches a different verdict conclusion if other facts are uncovered by the police or third parties. Really we should wait until August until we complete this field. There is no rush to complete it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I'm late to this but just voicing my agreement with User:SchroCat and User:Amakuru - we should await the full coroner's report. However I would disagree with one of the other editors above who felt we should follow the court guidance in phrasing the cause of death in a way that can 'alleviate the impact of the conclusion of suicide'. We should report the cause of death in the infobox word for word to match the coroner's report. Wikipedia is not a place for sensitivities when describing a factual, professional verdict based on scientific evidence. Ideally we'd have an infobox option for 'believed cause of death' or something subject to a final verdict. Llemiles (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death in infobox 

message: I have been told to take Prince Harry's "involvement" to the talk page due to "edit wars" by user SchroCat. If that is the case, I will surrender, as we all know where it would end up. I do not have lots of friends here. I have no intention of being banned yet again. I don't think it is right, but then again, life isn't always fair.    Wallie (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You were advised not to just edit war to your personal preference, but to come here to discuss. The information in the section is sourced to, among others, The New York Times. It's a notable fact, and one supported by at least one reliable source (I could also add references from The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian too). Despite your claim in one of your edit summaries, it is not there to slur anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: It is a pity that ill intentioned actors on this article have trashed the memory of a beloved daughter, sister and friend, those who loved her. Wallie (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point out where the article could be improved? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. A lot of the material concerning bad mouthing her, including her character should be removed, as they are unsavory. The whole tone of the article is negative towards Caroline. It is a sad reflection on society that negative people, some of them who could be described as "trolls", muck rake and try to tear down the memory of people who we should feel compassion for, rather than gloat over their suicide. In essence, Wikipedia authors are in general not kind people. A benevolent attitude towards people might help. Wallie (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point out all the material that you see as being "negative towards Caroline"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I could reverse the question by asking if there is anything positive written about her. In my view, the entire article is negative. It seems that Wikipedia is biased in its treatment of people. In my view, this article is a disgrace. It certainly reflects the character and tone of the participant editors. To be honest, it saddens me that some people are like this. Wallie (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm very sorry that you are saddened and that you think "this article is a disgrace". But I'm not quite sure, on the basis of your three posts here, that there is justification for deleting the entire article. If you can give any clear example(s) of bias, these could be corrected. If you can't do this, the article can stay exactly as it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you win - again. I can't change anything in the article, as you will revert me, and have me banned again. I know that Caroline's memory is being trashed by her enemies. I hope that some day, someone will come along and speak up for Caroline. Wallie (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread seems unnecessary.  it seems you only came back here to complain about an article where editors disagreed with you and you dislike the content. What was the purpose? This isn't the place for people to "speak up for Caroline". Alex (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I've never "had you banned". I have no intention of "having you banned again." Whether I revert you will wholly depend on what you put. Why should I bee seen as an "enemy of Caroline's memory"? If you have any suggestion for improvements, please go right ahead and suggest them. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A sad reflection 

message: I'm not a "stick big tags on an article" kind of guy, as you may have guessed, but I think the citations to Daily Mirror and Metro have got to go, and be replaced with a more reliable source. I'm not sure what off the top of my head, so if anyone has got any better ideas, shout! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid sources 

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) 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion