Talk:Caroline Flack

Filmography

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

"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)

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

SHE IS DEAD 15 FEBRUARY 2001:B07:645F:AC96:A597:D83D:7FC:CC85 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

Change date of death from 15th February 2020 to 14th February 2020 Hazard321 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back this up? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

Can we not use "took her own life". Took it where? It's nothing more than a MOS:EUP. Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: well if "died by suicide" is deemed to be not a euphemism, then there's no reason why "took her life" should be either. Both are in very common usage in reliable sources, but the latter is significantly more common in British sources (in particular those detailing Flack's death), so per 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

Date of Death: 15th February 2020 (Age 40) 51.52.204.133 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Already reflected in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Refs

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Reputable sources

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

Strictly results table

Should this be retained, even in collapsed form, or removed? A number of editors have argued over at WP:ITN/C that e.g. it "doesn't add to understanding the BLP" and that "unless there is some specific facet of her appearance on one of those shows that had more impact on her life/career, the summary is just fine." Flack herself described her participation on the show as "the best experience of her life" and the final was watched in the UK by 11.67 million people. Readers might be interested to see the songs used for each of the dances, or the scores for each, but perhaps the exact score breakdown might be too just see as so much cruft. The link to the series, from where the table has been taken, appears in the lead section and the sub-section of "TV career" anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Radio presenter"?

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)

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

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

Criticism of the CPS

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)

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)

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)

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

Non trial encyclopedic gossip?

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

This is not an appropriate forum for metaphysical discussion. Please take your persecution complex elsewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Manner of suicide

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)

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)

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)

Further to the above, @SchroCat: please refrain from edit warring. Your edit is clearly not in fitting with WP:EUPHEMISM - we would not use the words 'took (a person's) life' in place of 'killed (a person)' and 'took her own life' is equally euphemistic. As to the suicide link please discuss here as myself, Hanoi Road, and Martinevans123 have done so far, as there is clearly no consensus for a definite claim of suicide until a coroner announces such a result has been delivered. It is not a slow process so we will have information soon, no need to be hasty. Llemiles (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

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

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

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

Sorry I wasted my time on this article

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)

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)

Agree with Martinevans123 - I think what you are envisaging is an obituary. There is a place for those in newspapers and at funerals but Wikipedia cannot be used to promote a particular perspective on a person's life. If you feel there is notable information about Flack's life that should be cited in the article then go ahead and add it, but it does need to be from a neutral point of view. Llemiles (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Wallie, you seem to be getting back into personal attack territory, this time with SchroCat. I wonder had you thought of taking your editing skills to other, perhaps less contentious, articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@Wallie: I've only been minimally involved with this article, to ensure the cause of death was cited when the news first broke about Flack's death. Until seeing the page while Huggling I'd never heard of Flack. So I hope you'll believe that I really have no opinion of her, positive or negative, when I say this: I think it might be a good idea for you to step away from this article, as you (I think) implied you would in the section header. Your comments here have been extremely personal against other editors, and you appear to have a flawed understanding of what a Wikipedia article about a recently deceased person ought to look like. It's probably a good idea for you to step away of your own volition; I'm not sure you can continue to edit this talk page as you have been for much longer without being forced to step away from it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

taking her life because of trial

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))

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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

  "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.

  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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

I want to add that she presented Fash FC from 2003-2004 Wikifounder321 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, she seems to be mentioned at Fash FC. Do you have a suitable source? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Now added, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

sourcing

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

Death does not go in lead in this case

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Birth name field

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 Holly Willoughby, Bruce Forsyth or Phillip Scofield to name a few, and yet it is still included in their respective articles because it is different to the |name parameter. Alex (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)