Talk:Caroline Flack

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Caroline Flack has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 17, 2021 Good article nominee Listed
	A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 15, 2020.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). project's importance scale .

London Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: The X Factor Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the X Factor task force.

	Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

	Women in Green: 2021
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Green project in 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: February 9 to 15, 2020 February 16 to 22, 2020

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Why is there a Filmography here ? What films has she appeared in ? Jamie Stuart (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Oeuvre perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, that sounds bit grand. What about just "Television" as the main heading? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's a misnomer to use "Filmography" for performers not involved in the "film" industry and that a better term should be found for performers in television, more accurate and more specific to avoid confusion. Jamie Stuart (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hit an edit conflict with Gorilla Warfare (to whom thanks) trying to delete the reference from The Sun. Can all editors please remember that UK red tops and tabloids, including The Mail, Express and Sun are not reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are quite a few sources now saying "suspected suicide". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And The Independent says plainly here: "A lawyer for the Flack family confirmed that Caroline took her own life and was found in her east London flat." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed that it's sufficiently reflected in the reliable sources now. The tabloids are always the first to report things like this, but they're also more willing to be wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added with The Indy as the source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: The information was already in the article right before the sentence you added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. I guess that doesn't make it any more true, then. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in the UK "suicide" is a conclusion (verdict) that coroners come to, and there hasn't been an inquest yet. That's why none of the sources use the word suicide. I don't know if Wikipedia wants to pre-empt the coroners court, or if it wants to use the alternative wording given by the sources instead. DanBCDanBC (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the few uses of "suicide" from the article and replaced with either simply death or the more common (in the UK) "took her own life", which avoids the legal definition you mention above and also the awkward sounding "died by suicide", which barely features on British English sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:EUP. Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:TIES that's the terminology we should use, assuming there's consensus not to say "committed suicide".  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I notice that at the moment the lead again says "committed suicide"—phrasing I generally prefer to replace with "died by suicide" (for good reason). I notice the CNN source used for the lead sentence also says "died by suicide". I didn't realize there were legal connotations around it in the UK though. Personally my preference is 1. died by suicide; 2. took her own life; 3. committed suicide—I feel like "took her own life" is edging into

WP:EUPHEMISM territory and potentially might be difficult for ESL speakers, but if there are indeed legal concerns then I see the reasoning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Well "died by suicide" sounds like a euphemism to me, like you've just swapped it for "committed suicide" so as not to offend anyone. The CNN source is American so presumably it's a more common phrase there, but almost all UK sources are saying "took her own life". See [1][2][3]. Please let's stick that unless there are strong reasons not to.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not read the Guardian, thanks, it has a tendency to make my eyes bleed. "Took her own life" is a euphemism, nothing more. The same as "passed away", "reached out", "resting place". Yuk, yuk, yuk. Cassianto^Talk 17:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry to hear about your unusual ocular condition and sense of nausea when you hear the usage in question, but reliable sources and books appear to disagree with you, employing the term in formal writing, and that evidence has more bearing on the discussion than your insistence that a commonly-used phrase is a euphemism.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The left loves being politically correct; and all three sources you provide are left-leaning. So why don't you just stick to the OED, seeing as that's what this place is supposed to be guided by. Cassianto^Talk 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to use the word suicide we need to avoid "committed suicide", because that's not acceptable British English usage. There are cultural differences here between the US and the UK, and this is an article about someone from the UK. 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."; 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."; 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”." There are plenty more examples of the UK context of avoiding the word "committed" when describing suicide. DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of corrections to things written above. 1) It is only partially true that suicide is a verdict. It has a wider meaning outside the narrow legal definition, and can be used in more negeral English. 2) "committed suidice" is entirely acceptable in British English (it's a term employed in numerous reliable sources, and in the OED). "took her own life" sounds like weasel words to me, but may not to others - particularly those from outside the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "committed" is not acceptable in British English, and this is a British English article. The phrase commonly used would be "died by suicide". While you're right that suicide is a word that has a normal everyday English meaning it's not a word being used by any of the sources, and it's possible that her death is ruled as misadventure. You'd then have the primary source saying misadventure, the secondary sources saying misadventure or took her own life, and wikipedia saying suicide. Finally, in England they are not verdicts, they are conclusions. DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. "committed" is not acceptable in British English"??? Riddle me this then: why does the OED include the use "transitive. to commit suicide: to end one's own life intentionally; to kill oneself. Also figurative and in extended use"? The term is entirely acceptable in British English. You are twisting language into a bastardised version of politically correct usage. Some sources will use "died by suicide", others will use "commit suicide". Don't strangle what is commonly used and accepted, particularly in the most reliable source on the use of English there is.

There have been a couple of RfCs over the use of "commit suicide": they reached the conclusion that the term is entirely acceptable, regardless of the variant of English claimed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already supplied sources. Please take the time to read them. Your single source merely teels us what the language used to be, but this is precisely the point people are making: language changes, and when the law around suicide changed the language started changing too. But let's look at "suicide" - that does not mean "kill yourself", it means "kill yourself with the intent to do so". We have no idea of Flack's intent, so we should avoid use of the word suicide, especially because none of the UK sources are using it. "You are twisting language into a bastardised version of politically correct usage" -- please AGF and stop the insults. I am telling you the widespread common English usage, which is to avoid "committed", and I've linked to the BBC, the Guardian, and the National Union of Journalists. None of these organisations are driven by a politically correct ideology, all of them are driven by the need to respect freedom of speech. Here's another example from 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." DanBCDanBC (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresentation of the RFCs, which were all inconclusive. That's not the same as "the term is entirely acceptable". DanBCDanBC (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insulted you, so please don't say that I have. I have already said that you are correct to say that some style guides say to avoid the term, but there are others that do not. There are also examples from current UK sources that use the term. You may not like it, some organisations may not like it, but to try and claim "The word "committed" is not acceptable in British English" is utterly incorrect. The term "commit suicide" is still widespread common English usage, despite your protestations to the contrary. (For very recent uses in reliable British sources, see Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Times and various BBC). Oh, and please don't post in the middle of my post. You should only post after it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Took her own life" seems very much a euphemism to avoid saying the word "suicide" regardless of how the media phrase it. As we know, euphemisms should be avoided per

MOS:EUPHEMISM. I understand the stigma around saying "committed suicide", but to state that it is "not acceptable" in British English is incorrect. We also have to remember that we are not journalists. I would support the use of "died by suicide". Alex (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also linking to "died_by_suicide"_constitute_a_euphemism? which gained consensus that "died by suicide" is not a euphemism. Alex (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Took her own life" is not a euphemism. It's standard English and a phrase that's used extensively. I've never heard the phrase "died by suicide", and it sounds somewhat grotesque. "Committed suicide" would normally be used. I suggest "took her own life" is fine in the text, with "Cause of Death: Suicide" in the InfoBox. Also, I'm not sure how any of this relates to the inquest that will undoubtedly be held. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support "died by suicide", or "took her own life" or "ended her life". All of these are in common academic and journalistic use, and reflect the encyclopedic language we should be aiming for. SchroCat -- your BBC link lists use in the past from before 1961, when the word should be committed (because it was still a crime), or it lists use in fiction. It doesn't have anything from News for the past two years. Your Guardian link is to an American writer, and I'm not trying to change US usage. Your other links (OED, Times, and Sunday Times) are paywalled. DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, must ignore all evidence to the contrary, particularly when from things behind a paywall. I think there are enough examples to show current use in reliable sources, but I could get a couple of hundred more from reliable sources if you insist. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if the general use I posted above on the BBC site isn't considered acceptable by you, this is from their news feed. I'm still happy to provide others from reliable UK sources if you'd like. - SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the comment above that 'The word "committed" [suicide] is not acceptable in British English'. What absolute balderdash! Of course it is. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, yet again, please AGF and avoid personal attack. I've supplied plenty of reliable sources saying that the phrase "committed" should be avoided. You've provided only historical, fictional, or non-English sources using the word "committed". DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try and play that game. I am assuming good faith, so dont rty and claim I am not. Furthermore, to claim that "You've provided only historical, fictional, or non-English sources using the word "committed"" is deeply untrue; do not misrepresent what I have said or done. I'm going to step away from this thread because I do not see any use in seeing you make such claims that are so patently false. (I suspect you'll tell me to AGF again, but as I've provided information from 2019 and 2020 from reliable news sources and you're claiming I'm not, then there is no other conclusion to come to.) "historical, fictional, or non-English sources"?? BBC News and The Times from this year and last are absolutely none off those things.- SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are so many people not wanting to use the entirely appropriate term "committed suicide"? That is what happened. And it is absolutely usual in BrEng, which this article is written in, and this term has been around for hundreds of years. This is an encyclopaedia and it (is supposed to) report sourced factual prose. It is not a chance for people to start turning sourced factual language into fluffy euphemisms in order not to offend. Just drop it, for God's sake. Cassianto^Talk 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with "committed suicide" personally. There was a discussion on this a few years ago, and there was consensus not to deprecate that term, and it remains the most commonly used of the three options in ngrams. If we must avoid the "committed" usage though, then I much prefer "she took her own life" to "she died by suicide" as the latter is (as the ngram suggests) a niche term, and particularly uncommon in the UK in my experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some Wikipedia editors in this thread are equating "killing a person" - ie a crime, with "killing oneself" - ie not a crime. The 2 actions are entirely unrelated. Their only similarity is that someone died. There is some correlation/ causation evident when acts of one individual or groups of individuals lead to the suicide of a targeted individual, but in law this may mean that the billigerants killed the inidividual by causing their suicide, rather than the target "taking their own life". In any situation, the cause of death, is "death by suicide", or more simply put, "suicide". If the method of suicide is known, "suicide by x" is appropriate. 31.125.77.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a "method" is technically the "cause", suicide rather the "manner", but yeah, we all seem to agree she "killed herself" (as commoners say). Concise and precise. Maybe "reportedly" killed herself, but something like that gets my nod. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not sure they are required in the lead by policy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Oh, ok. I've never understood it that way. I guess individual circucmstances vary anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

She's dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem - I've edited to make that a bit clearer. GSSNYC (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GSSNYC, I moved your comment to this new thread as I misunderstood what you meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - hopefully my edit makes this clearer now. GSSNYC (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be retained, even in collapsed form, or removed? A number of editors have argued over at

I think it should be retained, either full or collapsed - her involvement with the show is probably something readers of the article are interested in/looking for information about, so definitely should keep. MurielMary (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it before I saw this thread, but I've been reverted. There is zero reason to have it here, given the information is held on the series page. That's the reason we have links to other pages, rather than having to put superfluous information on all pages. The reversion also added the fake formatting use of semi-colon to form a title. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no reason for a table of performances to be in this article, or any contestants article, when the information is on the series article itself. Alex (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant enough to include it, especially since she won after having narrowly avoided being eliminated weeks earlier. Jim Michael (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not possible to put that single point in a text form? The fact it's using a dodgy fan site as a reference isn't the best idea either.

Do we have a consensus to delete? I'm not seeing a huge amount of support for keeping it. - SchroCat (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the ref isn't a RS, it should be replaced by one that is.

There's not much support for removing the results either. Jim Michael (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Should be less prominent or removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as an interim measure, I've changed the order to "television and radio presenter". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, Wallie, I have to agree with you there. "It appears there will be no trial." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallie: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Martinevans123 19:19 Maybe there should be a separate heading for CPS, then. I personally don't like controversy sections, as they see to attract "trolls" who want to "slag off" the subject person of the article. Mind you, it can develop into a trash can, which can be quickly removed. I think Wikipedia articles, especially about people who have died, should be a celebration of their lives. It should not be a means of tearing them down, destroying any good they did. In essence, Wikipedia should be a force for good, not evil. Wallie (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia concerns itself with facts, not "good and evil". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

taken over by right wing zealots – Now there's an accusation you don't hear leveled against WP every day. EEng 03:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for removing that. How, exactly, am I "attacking you"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not an appropriate forum for metaphysical discussion. Please take your

persecution complex elsewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further to the above, @

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wallie, that's a personal attack. I think you should withdraw it immediately. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to. Otherwise you will axe me. Huh? Wallie (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Take his life? EEng 03:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@SchroCat: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@31.52.163.160: 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)[reply]

@Llemiles: 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)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: sorry I meant to respond to User:31.52.163.160, my bad. Llemiles (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llemiles:. That's as maybe, but it's virtually unknown in British English. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WT:WTW. Llemiles (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I was not worried about the terminology. Cheers. Unfortunately she did die. Wallie (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with

neutral point of view. Llemiles (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Woman. She was a 40 year old woman, not a girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.216.71 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect a person's life in a positive way". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm very sorry,

WP:FORUM this Talk page is not for your own personal battles against perceived injustices. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

So much agreeing here. Good teamwork. Do you "fellow editors" ever disagree? Wallie (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I came here from ANI to support Wallie's position that the (here we go again for those following my edits) arrest and all should be removed. However, it looks balanced and deals with the impact on her life as well as the compassionate response from the alleged victim. looks like her public figure status apples as well. Did not examine the sourcing, so maybe there's a handle there.-- Deepfriedokra 02:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Public figure status apples"? EEng 03:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "How do you like them public figure apples?" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. still struggling with the thought of Adolf Hitler as the host of Love Island.[reply]

  Deepfriedokra, yes, it's not Wikipedia saying that the suicide was three weeks before the trial, it's a rather large number of reliable sources. Guy (help!) 09:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says this: " the media reported her death as a suicide.[3][4]". Only one of these sources uses the word suicide. You won't find any UK sources using the word suicide until after the inquest. If you're going to use the word suicide you need to source it correctly. DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Say wut? In two seconds, I found Sky and The Guardian both using the term "suicide". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian piece is an opinion, not news, piece. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it in The Guardian piece. But I can't see that term in the Sky one. Has it perhaps been altered now? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It may have been changed, but it's still present in [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/caroline-flack-death-suicide-love-island-police-lewis-burton-latest-a9338606.html

• And a couple of others, one the New York Times: NYT, CNN. The family lawyer has even confirmed it was suicide. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the family lawyer has NOT used the word suicide. The lawyer confirmed she "took her own life". DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's suicide. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OED may be of use here:

1. suicide, n.1

...One who dies by his own hand; one who commits self-murder. Also, one who attempts or has a tendency to commit suicide....

2. suicide, n.2

...The or an act of taking one's own life, self-murder....

3. ˈsuicide, v.

...intransitive and reflexive. To commit suicide....^[1]

Perhaps we can just move on from this endless circular discussion on reconfiguring the English language? – SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DanBCDanBC I don't understand at all. Are you trying to ban the use of the word "suicide"? Or the phrase "to commit suicide"? I'm really not following your thread, and I certainly don't understand why you would make false claims about the UK press, nor the world press, about Flack's death. And to somehow suggest that her family lawyer saying that she killed herself doesn't equate to her suicide seems frankly bizarre. But I'll leave it to you to debate this, it's clear that I somehow have a blocker here and yet I'm not going to spend any more time on it. If the OED is clear on it, and suicide isn't clear enough for you, then I don't know what is. Good luck. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There a stack of references from the tabloids too. Although they are not reliable enough to use in the article, they do provide more evidence that the attempts to ban the use of certain words or phrases is misguided, even if it is well meant. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some editors just object to use of the word "committed", as it may imply (to some) a criminal act. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As a committed atheist in a committed relationship I hope neither of those are considered crimes. Trying to ban certain words or phrases is always a backward idea. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem, I think we both know perfectly well those are adjectives not verbs. So your argument there may not quite go the distance. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I know that - just as I knew that when I played rugby I was committed to the tackle, and when I was injured from doing it badly I was committed to the doctor - I had to commit funds to him too. All this was legal too. We can keep doing this for ages if you want, but the archaic reason for using the term disappeared nearly 60 years ago and the language is still the same without any suggestion of "committing" a crime or "committing" a sin. The OED shows this is still a valid term, there is significant current use in numerous reliable sources, as well as common parlance. Trying to ban the term is, frankly, ridiculous, regardless on how well-meaning it is. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, I know all about common parlance. But then Wikipedia has this thing called WP:Manual of Style, doesn't it, that has pieced together all sorts of weird and wonderful rules. And I seem to recall it wasn't just the crime/sin thing; there was also some other kind of expert advice, from mental health professionals, being brought to bear. Personally I think "died by suicide" should pretty much be avoided at all costs. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Died by suicide is the language used by most UK newspapers, and the vast majority of UK academics working in suicide research. DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives a toss what the newspapers are "saying"? All we should be using them for is the reference, not the terminology. Cassianto^Talk 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You’re right, we do have the MoS: attempts to stop the use of “commite[d] suicide” have failed at every attempt. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's simply incorrect to say "media reported the death as suicide" and then source that to a newspaper that has not used the word suicide, especially if there are other sources that have used the word suicide.DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually there are several links to the term "suicide", but you're just ignoring them all. We get you don't like "commit suicide", but you're just continuing to bludgeon all-comers on this by ignoring all everything that you don't agree with. There are several links in this thread alone that refer to her "Suicide". Stop trying to debar the use of common terms for a separate agenda. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, why are we using sources to configure language? The only reason we should be using a source is to back a claim; everything else should come from the OED, or similar. Also, why not wait for the inevitable pathology report to determine the cause? I think you'll find that most (if not all) pathologists will not record a verdict of "took her own life". I think it's safe to say she's dead - any RS will be ok to use for that. Let's leave it there and await the pathologists report when we can go into more detail, eh? Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say "media reported the death as suicide" and then link to a newspaper that has not used the word suicide. The problem with the word suicide is that it requires intent to end your life, and we do not know what Flack's intent was. We do know she ended her own life, so we can say that. But until the inquest has said it was suicide we are speculating, or we have reliable sources saying she intended to end her life, we would be speculating if we said she had that intent. DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you re-read my post, learn it, and get back to me with a more coherent reply than the one above? Cassianto^Talk 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you can, because they mean exactly the same thing. Wikipedia paraphrases all the time. Often to avoid copyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I believe the coroner, in England and Wales at least, has the comfort of being (usually) committed to a single word verdict conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you call it a "verdict" is a good signal -- they're not called verdicts in England. You're ignoring the possibility of a narrative conclusion.DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should look before you bludgeon: "they also have some discretion, and may even issue a narrative verdict" was one of the edit summaries to that comment. - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why that should be seen as a "good signal". But yes, as the article for Coroner tells us, "Conclusions (previously called verdicts)". So I've amended my comment above for you. Is that better now? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death does not belong in lead unless it in itself was notable. No exceptions. Suicide is not considered notable. I've tried to remove it twice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy or guideline to back that up? It's not a rule I have ever come across before. Even if it is the case, there is a strong argument that it is notable. There is considerable discussion in the UK media about suicide, the role of the gutter press as a possible factor and if the CPS have contributed to the pressures on her. Given WP guidelines (not policies, note) are inherently flexible, there is no need to remove without discussion, although ide still like to see the "policy" (or guideline) to which you refer. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, so whether it should include the circumstances of the death depends how relevant they are compared to everything else in the lede. In this case I agree that it is relevant that the death is considered a suicide. And even better, the current wording doesn't use the awkward "died by suicide" formulation.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Died by suicide" is not an awkward formulation. It's in common use in British English, and it's the wording used by most of our sources, along with "took his/her life" and "ended his/her life". DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a stack of sources that use the phrase "commit[ed] suicide" too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DanBCDanBC, there are currently two sources after the word "suicide" and neither of them use that phrase? I would disagree that the phrase is "common use in British English". Or, at the very least, is not nearly as common as the other varieties. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And none of the other three sources in that section use it either. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or have I misunderstood what you mean by "our sources"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both her suicide & her awaiting trial are easily relevant enough to be in the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADBIO "unless the cause of death in inself is a reason for notability ... none is included in the lead at all." If Ms Flack's suicide is not a reason for her notability, it should definitiely not be included in the lead. Do we have sensationalists and/or haters gloating here, or why are we flaunting her suicide as a "reason for notability", against policy no less? Shameful, in my opinion. Get a grip, people! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, that's horseshit. I think you need to read the guideline a little more closely, and quote the relevant part, not just ignore the bit you don't like.The guideline states that unless it is notable, "a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient". There is just a single sentence and this single sentence does not breach the guideline. Given the navel gazing/soul searching/finger pointing going on in the UK press about how they may bear some responsibility for creating the circumstances of her death, it is entirely reasonable and relevant to include this single sentence. There is nothing shameful in this, and your hyperbole is, frankly, ridiculous.

If you can't get to grips with the fact that the manner of her death is notable, see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc, etc to see just how it is being discussed. If we ignore this level of discussion simply because of one mis-reading of the flexible guideline we have, then there is something rather wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more misinterpretation than we need going on here.

1. "a single sentence" refers to the body of the article, not the lead, where only the death date is supposed to be;
2. "reason for notabilty" refers to the death being part of what's notable about a person, not about mentions in several newspapers of a death. Every death of every famous personality is written about in press, but the death is very rarely described by serious writers as a part of a person's notability; this suicide is no different than other suicides, which are not mentioned the leads - it is not a defining factor in the person's notability, and I feel very strongly that it is very inappropriate for Wikipedia to treat is as such;
3. I apologise if my question about flaunting this particular suicide as notabilty-enhancing caused any reply to include lamentable terminology like "horseshit".

Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've missed the point by a country mile yet again.

MOS:LEADBIO refers to errr... the LEAD of a BIO. It states "Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date." The "single sentence" refers to the LEAD of the BIO. We actually have a half sentence (the part after the semi colon in the sentence in the lead "On 15 February 2020 Flack died at her home in Northeast London; the media reported her death as a suicide." Go back to LEADBIO and try to take on board that the section is about how to treat the lead of a biography. Nothing else: the LEAD of the BIO. We stick within the guidelines as outlined, and if you don't like the guideline, then you need to hold an RfC on the MoS guideline page, about changing it, as we stick to the guideline about the LEAD of the BIO in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, horseshit. How lovely. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• @
  WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept that consensus is to include her death in the lead. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If anyone doubts whether or not her suicide was a significant part of her life, try starting a conversation about her & see how few seconds it takes for her suicide to be mentioned. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People tend to talk about what's in the news. Especially after only four days. A fairer test might be in a year's time? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a conversation about CF in a year's time, or even a decade's time, her suicide would be very likely to be mentioned within seconds. Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm late to this but @
  Vincent Van Gogh. Nonsense to assert that suicide should not be mentioned in an intro. Llemiles (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As a UK resident (but a BBC Radio 4 listener rather than a watcher of Love Island or reader of tabloids) I can only say that I had never heard of Flack until she took her own life. It looks to me as if it is appropriate for this to be mentioned in the lead of her article. PamD 09:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think her death, and the reaction to it, is so significant an aspect of Flack's biography that it does belong in the lead. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any valid reason for this to be removed. The template very clearly states Name at birth; only use if different from name. which this is. Reason given was that Flack does not use a stage name, however, neither do

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

(edit conflict) I am sorry but you are using the same untrue claims yet again: "the word "committed" is not used by UK news or academic sources". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The OED consistently uses the term 'self-murder'. Would you describe this as a murder? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Flack is the fourth person linked to Love Island to have killed themselves 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)[reply]

It appears she put her £1.1m flat in Islington up or sale when she lost her job. The one where she died is in Stoke Newington. Perhaps this is all trivia, and need not be mentioned. But I can't find any sources apart from the Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is moot, IMO. Where she died is what's relevant. Cassianto^Talk 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she put it up do sale, I guess she owned it. The one in Stoke Newington was rented. But not so much the ownership that I thought needed clarification, just he locations. There is local newspaper source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source here gives the address of the flat. Which is in Clapton^[1]

Here's another source for Stoke Newington? Also here and here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google places Northwold Road, N16 in Clapton. So I'm not sure what is best. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources should be used in article, but the infobox should be generic (London). Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clapton's postcode is E5, not N16. Jim Michael (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her flat is in Stoke Newington (N16), adjacent to Stoke Newington High Street, at the junction with Northwold Road (N16). I identified it by a detail visible in a photograph of the block (a former school) published in the Daily Mail. Dubmill (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the lead currently has "... at her home in Northeast London". This is consistent with the Stoke Newington article, which opens with "Stoke Newington is an area occupying the north-west part of the London Borough of Hackney in north-east London... " Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think so. Already added as a Category. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, we may have to wait until (at least) 5th August. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cause of death in infobox

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)[reply]

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). Cassianto^Talk 21:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Amakuru has a clear view. Maybe it's just easier to leave it blank.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Caroline’s unfortunate cause of death has been released by the coroners, as a suicide by hanging, I feel awful editing the infobox to say this but it must be done, please do not edit it out. (Airline7375 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Not entirely right, but please see the thread above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this is a BLP issue and until the cause is definitively proven we shouldn't state it in the Infobox. The article has more nuanced discussion anyway so its not like this is essential. Please do not reinsert unless there's strong consensus to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If one or more of the sources used in the article say "death was a suicide", or "killed herself" or "took her own life", etc., should we insist on using the term "committed suicide"? This seems to be an issue yet to be fully resolved across the encyclopedia. I'm guessing that, in this case, the primary source would be the exact wording used by the coroner Mary Hassell in her verdict. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not "took her own life". I put that in the same stable as "passed away" and "resting place". Cassianto^Talk 22:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we all have our own personal preferences and pet hates. And we need to respect

WP:EUPHEMISM. But it's just not clear to me why "a coroner's inquest determined she committed suicide" is always to be preferred over "a coroner's inquest determined that her death was suicide." Maybe there's a need to have some clear policy on the wording around suicide. The word "committed" is a problem for some editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There has been a lot of past discussion of this question, but no consensus yet so far as I know. The latest discussion (I think) is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the various threads above, in which there is no consensus against using the term, which is still in common usage. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur with Ghmyrtle that there is no consensus yet. The link to last October's discussion is very useful, thanks. I'd argue that just because something has not been proscribed does not mean it should be always preferred. Certainly not when there are perfectly acceptable alternative constructions. The fact that a legal verdict for Flack has now been reached may bring sharper focus to bear on the issue in this article and may also lead to more attention from other editors. I think we should be prepared to hear the views of other editors, if there are any, who have not previously contributed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the "perfectly acceptable alternative constructions" I've seen is that they either jar because of their awkward construction (i.e. they are a long way from perfect), or they fall foul of EUPHEMISM (ie they are a long way from acceptable). - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea. Go with what reliable sources say, recognise that there may be national and/or cultural differences in usage, and rely on centralised discussions rather than having a debate on every page on which the issue arises. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah!! That's several ideas all at once! If only the "centralised discussions" had produced a consensus that could be relied on? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. I see nothing awkward or euphemistic about "a coroner's inquest determined that her death was suicide."[reply]

A lot of US newspapers are using "died by suicide" lately. I agree with that construction. Ceoil (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds odd to my ears but, perhaps surprisingly, also now used by the NHS, sponsored by Public Health England and the National Suicide Prevention Alliance: [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, we've avoided it for Mark Salling. Discussion: Talk:Mark_Salling#Mention_of_suicide. Editors mentioned there has been considerable discussion at Talk:Suicide as well as Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_197#Use_of_"died_by_suicide"_at_the_David_Reimer_article. My take is that the phrase is going out of use and current standards in journalism/etc are against it's use. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking now? Unbelievable. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's called "Providing detailed information on related discussions". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, that's disruption, harassment and now stalking. Cassianto^Talk 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a great deal of time and effort into reviewing the general consensus on the matter of this question of terminology, and have been looking for discussions exactly like this one to expand upon what I've already done. If there's anything that I've written here that could be refactored to help the situation, let me know. Now please

WP:FOC. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

UK sources generally use "took his/her own life" as the way to describe this these days. E.g. [12]. I see no reason to consider this a euphemism, as it's so commonly used and pretty much describes what happened. "Died by suicide" is rare, and sounds odd to me. Until and unless it appears more in British sources, I think it should be avoided in articles with

WP:TIES to the UK. I have no problem with "committed suicide" either BTW, the anger over that seems misplaced, because lots of things are committed without being crimes.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think the exact wording used by the coroner Mary Hassell in her verdict is relevant? Or should we simply follow the wording used in the majority of secondary (UK) sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are preferable to primary ones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that's generally true. But for legal judgements, I think exact wording tends to be quite important? I see many primary trial papers and legal judgements used as sources all over Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say "the coroner described her death as....", rather than using WP's own voice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or you could even say "a coroner's inquest determined that her death was suicide." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. Cassianto^Talk 17:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, took their own life where? Where did they take it? Also, suicide has been legal in the U.K. since 1961. So how can you commit it? Cassianto^Talk 10:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The verb 'take' has many different meanings. What you are referring to is definition 2 ('Remove (someone or something) from a particular place) at [13]. In the phrase 'took her own life', which is related to the concept of 'taking' someone else's life, the sense is definition 1.5 ('Dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove'). Dubmill (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubmill, fascinating, thanks for the lesson in semantics, much appreciated. But it was suicide. She didn't take her own life. You cannot take something you already possess. Cassianto^Talk 17:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, according to definition 1.5 as mentioned above, she did 'take' her own life because she dispossessed herself of it. It's about dispossessing, not taking possession. For example, when someone 'takes' someone else's life, they are dispossessing the other person, but they do not take possession of their life. It's a peculiar phrase but to me it's logical. That's not to say that I think it should be used in the article. I think 'a coroner's inquest determined that her death was suicide', as suggested above by Martinevans123, is quite good. Dubmill (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to cheer you up, there's this RfC from November 2019 about Categories (Consensus was to keep the word committed in the Category names). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well there we go. Much ado about nothing. We can just stick with "committed suicide" until the community decides to explicitly reject that. Then we can decide whether to also reject the very well-attested and probably the most appropriate idiom "to take one's own life" on the grounds that Cassianto thinks it doesn't make sense. Fun times.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or no, there we don't go. I don't see why article main body has to follow the Category name. Categories are hardly "in your face" for most readers. If anything, I'd say that Categories should follow the pattern set by the text, not the other way round. Also happy to discuss articles case-by-case, as circumstances will vary. My suggestion was just aiming to try and avoid "much ado" altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and incidentally I personally have no objection to your alternative phrasing "a coroner's inquest determined that her death was suicide". I don't share others' aversion to the "committed" thing, but your wording is just as good and ought to be fairly acceptable to all. It's only the "died by suicide" thing I don't like - I know it is promoted by some mental health charities and suchlike, and may well be more popular in the US, but to me it is just too infrequent a term to justify its use, and it doesn't really follow normal English usage - you don't "die by cancer", "die by road accident" or "die by COVID-19", so why would we suddenly use that preposition here? Anyways...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I pretty much agree with you 100%. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. I live in hope that Cassianto doesn't commit any more errors, or he would face arrest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle, you seem to link the word "commit" to "arrest" or doing an act that is unlawful, but suicide has been legal in the U.K. since 1961. Cassianto^Talk 09:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "seem to link" to anything. But I was amused by your suggestion that anything that anyone "commits" is necessarily a crime. It isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle, you seem to have committed to some very poor humour there. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, don't be impertinent. Cassianto^Talk 09:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• committed when paired with a word that ends in –cide certainly implies criminality, or at the very least implies wrongdoing. Why the heck are we arguing on keeping it? What possible benefit is it? "Died by suicide" is now a very common phrase and has been used to describe this death.[14][15][16] What could you possibly gain by using committed suicide?

The World Health Organization writes:

The phrase 'committed suicide' ... contribut[es] to the stigma experienced by those who have lost a loved one to suicide and discouraging suicidal individuals from seeking help.

I agree with them. I know when I was 17 and I experienced suicide ideation, I thought it was a crime. That even talking about it was wrong and would get me into trouble. This is exactly what this does. I am NOT try to right great wrongs out in the world. I am trying to right a wrong being caused right here, on our encyclopedia. Shameful! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear if we look to the best sources (about the person and about the use of the phrase), that "committed suicide" is not the wording to use. It looks like changing its use within Wikipedia is going to take some effort. I suggest starting with all articles where the phrase isn't used in the best references specific to the person. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could you point out where the article could be improved? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could you point out all the material that you see as being "negative towards Caroline"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This thread seems unnecessary. @Wallie: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Caroline Flack/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Works for me, taking it out will probably stop arguments about what goes in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a comma after "Shortly after her birth".
• Remove the comma after "a decade earlier".

Both done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "most watched" → "most-watched"

Is that grammatically correct? In this case "most-watched" is not a direct adjective. Any grammar pedants around to clarify? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can #Legacy be merged into #Death (
  MOS:PARA
  )?

As far as chapter and verse of the MOS goes, it's right on the edge. However, "Legacy" is posthumous activities celebrating her life and work, without directly referring to her death. Although it's short, it's not too short. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the filmography tables:

• References should be centered.

I don't know how to do that, sorry Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Year/Title/Role should be sortable.
• Use scope row for the first column.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Every guest appearance needs a source.

I've removed the unsourced entries. I did have a look for them, but only found IMDB and tabloid newspapers, which is a more general problem with this article anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• #Radio should be converted into prose.

The problem then is it turns it into a duplicate of the existing prose in "career", making it redundant. It should either be the table here, or removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can #Television, #Radio, and #Bibliography be merged?

This came up on the talk page (see Talk:Caroline_Flack#Filmography), but there doesn't to be any consensus. Other television actor GAs (eg: Graham Chapman, Laurence Fox) use a single "Filmography" section, so I've gone with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive sources (you can do it manually or use this tool).

I think that's been done; it was run about 7:00 UTC yesterday. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark references from The Daily Telegraph with "|url-access=registration".
• Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".

Both done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Properly cite #8 (found after "Watton, Norfolk").

Replaced with a citation from her autobiography. I've tried to limit the number of citations to this, but I think it's reasonable to assume Flack is the best source for which school she attended. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't use "publisher" for websites such as Deadline Hollywood and Sky News.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• #89 is missing a website (Deadline Hollywood).

Fixed. My gut feeling was Deadline Hollywood doesn't sound like a good source, but consensus at

WP:RSP is that it can be used for biographies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Progress

here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( lists ): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism ): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have suitable captions ):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Burial place (subject to RS being found)

I am pleased to see this page now has Good Article status. Only improvement to content I can suggest would be if someone could add mention (under Death section) of her burial place, which I have read is at a Memorial Park near Norwich, Norfolk. However I have only seen it identified in reports of the funeral in tabloid newspapers like the Daily Star but not in 'quality' newspapers or those local to the Norwich area. (I am not a Norwich local.)Cloptonson (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the entry from FAG. Can we use that or not? Yes, it's also reported in The Sun and the Daily Mirror, and in the banned Daily Mail here. There's a piece about her memorial bench at HITC.com here, but it too is sourced to the DM. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Find A Grave is much cited in wikipedia articles (usually minor articles that may not be rigorously 'policed'), I say. from experience of having used information from FAG in another article, only for it to be deleted by a user who said it is not considered RS by wikipedia (and I am aware of times FAG has been incorrect in attributing someone to a last resting place that wasn't). This discouraged me from using FAG in wikipedia. I wonder what say those editors who police this article? I have looked at the picture of the bench but I notice that the family (for reasons I could understand, if they want to avoid abusive vandalism) are quoted as not wanting to disclose its exact location beyond saying it's in Norfolk, so it cannot really be used in support of any claimed location of funeral. Memorial benches can be almost anywhere, they are not restricted to burial grounds and crematoria. A source should name the location and indicate it is the last resting place. As to the Daily Mail report, I notice that Caroline's mother is stated to have spoken to the Eastern Daily Press, which covers East Anglia, about the funeral, but the only EDP report I could easily google up, again, does not name the place.Cloptonson (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This report from sky.com says that her funeral was a "two-hour service at Greenacres at Colney on the edge of Norwich." I think that's a perfectly reliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have introduced it into the text. You are welcome to improve the format of the citation.Cloptonson (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have tweaked. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the discussion, but for the record, the last discussion about Find A Grave is

WP:RSP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

So, we should add Sky and restore "Resting place " in the infobox? (It's also on Facebook page c/o "Kevin Cobbold Funeral Services"?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Sky News is okay as a source, but I'd prefer to have another source of similar reputation first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Might be a bit unlikely by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flack2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]