Talk:Peng Shuai

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Some references, and this would be a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the article importance ranking systems but the Peng Shuai situation is clearly a top-level global importance issue. The EU, Biden administration, et cetera — have spoken about it. The former US ambassador for women's issues said the WTA became the world's most effective human rights organization when it chose to pull its tournaments from China, a boycott, due to the Peng Shuai situation. Top-level sources have written not one, not two, but many articles about the situation. Coverage has spread beyond political and tennis-related media to tech media (such as Wired, which wrote about how the situation illustrates the strategy of destroying social resources). The chair of a House committee has released repeated strong statements about how the situation impacts the role of the US in the Olympics. Many articles have connected the choice of the United States to participate in the Olympics (and the IOC's handling of this situation) with Nazi Germany's hosting of the Olympics. This situation involves very large things, past and present. In terms of global importance, it is at least an A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A is a quality ranking, not an importance ranking (and this is very far from being an A-quality article). Meanwhile the importance rankings (Low, Medium, High, Top) matter almost not at all; usually no one looks at them, to be honest, and regardless they are only suggestions. Nothing obliges anyone to spend their (unpaid) time working on any entry. If you think the entry is important, please do make an account, roll up your sleeves and add some references to high-quality sources! The entry sure could use the help. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peng Shuai/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Biography assessment rating comment == WikiProject Biography Assessment Some references, and this would be a B. The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Davi

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

"Former professional tennis player"?

Why is she called a former professional player? The article doesn't mention her retirement. 05:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbarich (talk • contribs)

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

Who has seen Rod Laver in the last 2 weeks? Not clear what "disappearance" means. Millions here in the US disappeared for most of 2020 because of this darn virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhmoulton (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Moreover--I have seen two translations of her Weibo post; they did not indicate she was making a sexual assault allegation. Hopefully someone can find a verified translation and reference it. NBC, after writing about the 'sexual assault' at least acknowledged they had not seen the post! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhmoulton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

disappearance/detainment

I don't think using "disappearance/detainment" in the lede is in-line with our WP:MOS. Can we go with forced disappearance? NickCT (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither source says her disappearance was forced. "Disappearance from public view" is a reasonable description of what happened. Burrobert (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is it "clear" that she "more than disappeared". The new source does not say her disappearance was forced. Burrobert (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: - You're right the source doesn't specifically use the term "forced disappearance". A lot of sources do talk about "secret detention" though. I added one. Here's another.

If someone goes into "secret detention", I think it's a little euphemistic to say they simply "disappeared". If you really feel strongly about this, we use the term "secretly detained" to better reflect the sources. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Afaict, sources only say she disappeared from public view. Nothing is known about the reason why she was unseen for a while. She herself says she is fine and did not mention that any force was applied. If we stick to what is known, all we can say is that she disappeared from public view. Anything further than that is speculation and should be attributed to the person making the claim. The LA Times source uses the following language:

• vanished from public view.
• Since then, Peng had not been heard from in public
• He said he had received confirmation from the Chinese Tennis Assn. that Peng was safe and not under physical threat.

The article does mention some historical cases. I am not sure how we would use those comments in a way that is relevant to Peng's bio. For example,

• Many of China’s feminist and LGBTQ groups have had their social media accounts erased this year. Some Chinese feminists have also been detained.
• Huang Xueqin, an independent journalist who reported on some of China’s first #MeToo cases, was detained on her way to the airport in Guangzhou last month.
• That places her in immense danger, said Yaqiu Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch. The Chinese government has a history of “disappearing” critics and extracting forced confessions from them, she said.

Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The thing about secret detention is that it's secret. Nobody really "knows" that it has happened. Everyone just speculates it's the case.

We can't use a person's potentially coerced statements as a reliable source.

When multiple RS make a non-extraordinary claim or speculation, there's no need to attribute to an individual source. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The thing about secret detention is that it's secret. Nobody really "knows" that it has happened. Everyone just speculates it's the case". I don't see how that argument supports the use of the term "secret detention".
• "We can't use a person's potentially coerced statements as a reliable source". It is important that we don't use speculation by people who did not speak to her as a reason for censoring her statement from her own bio. It is fairly simple. Give Peng's statement. Then provide any attributed speculation related to it. Btw, has anyone said outright that Peng's statement was coerced? Has anyone said here disappearance was forced? Has anyone said her disappearance was the result of "secret detention"?
• "When multiple RS make a non-extraordinary claim or speculation, there's no need to attribute to an individual source". What claim are you referring to here? Burrobert (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"I don't see how that argument supports" - So your statement was that we need an RS to explicitly say someone was secretly detained. I'm saying, if someone is secretly detained, no RS will explicitly say they've been secretly detained, b/c no one will know for sure. Secret detention is secret, so no one knows, they can only speculate. Would you argue that we should never say someone has been secretly detained, b/c there will never be a source supporting it?

"censoring her statement" - Oh. I'm definitely not saying we should exclude it. We should include it, but qualify it by pointing out that folks have suggested it was made under duress.

"What claim are you referring to here?" - The speculation that she's been secretly detained/forcibly disappeared. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Would you argue that we should never say someone has been secretly detained, b/c there will never be a source supporting it?" My argument is that, if we don't have a source saying Peng was secretly detained, then we don't include that claim in the article.
• "We should include it, but qualify it by pointing out that folks have suggested it was made under duress". I agree that we should include it. Has anyone said it was made under duress? Only three IOC members spoke to her and one said she looked relaxed. It appears that the video was not made available. If anyone notable has expressed doubt about her statement then we could include that opinion with attribution. From what I have read, most attention seems to have moved to ensuring that an investigation is conducted into Peng's allegations.
• "The speculation that she's been secretly detained/forcibly disappeared". I have not seen that speculation. Where is it? Burrobert (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"if we don't have a source" - You concede that if a detention is secret, there won't be a source, right? So by extension, you think we should never say that people who've been secretly detained are secretly detained. How do we treat all the speculation?

"If anyone notable has expressed doubt" - A whole slew of sources have expressed doubt. A whole slew of people have questioned the independence of IOC members. Seems a little crazy that they selected a guy at IOC who works directly w/ Peng's alleged rapist to interview her about how "safe" she feels.

"I have not seen that speculation" - I feel like you're not listening or not looking. There are dozens of sources, a couple of which I've already pointed to. Here are half-a-dozen more:

Articles that have talked about secret detection/forced disappearance

ABC - "Peng Shuai is the latest to disappear .... Mr Xi introduced new laws that essentially made arbitrary and secret detentions legal"

PBS - "hustled out of view, charged with crimes or trolled and silenced online for speaking out"

KOTV-DT - "global concern that she may have been detained"

Time - "Peng adds to a growing number of Chinese businesspeople, activists and ordinary people who have disappeared .... Some reemerge weeks or months later without explanation, suggesting they are warned not to disclose they were detained"

LA Times - "That places her [Peng] in immense danger, said Yaqiu Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch. The Chinese government has a history of “disappearing” critics and extracting forced confessions from them, she said"

Indian Express - "what appears to be a forced disappearance, following her revelations"

Happy? NickCT (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• "You concede that if a detention is secret, there won't be a source, right?" Have you considered the possibility that she was abducted by aliens. If she were abducted by aliens, there would be no witnesses. So, the fact that no one has said she was abducted by aliens is further evidence for the theory. See Falsifiability. You can prove some incredible things by assuming what you are trying to prove.
• Regarding the sources, some are speaking in general terms and not about Peng. For example: "The Chinese government has a history of “disappearing” critics and extracting forced confessions from them" is not about Peng. With others, be careful in the way they are presented to readers. For example, if a source says it "appears to be a forced disappearance" or that "she may have been detained", we don't say in Wiki-voice that "it was a forced disappearance" or that "Peng was detained". As I said earlier, most sources I have read use the term "disappeared from public view". Burrobert (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone was genuinely abducted by aliens, and you had a bunch of RS saying things like "Many people suspect alien abduction", then we'd probably use language like "Person X disappeared and is believed to have been abducted by aliens". If instead you said simply, "Person X disappeared from public view", that would be an excellent example of burying the lead. It's burying the lead b/c if someone were abducted by aliens, the interesting part of that isn't that the person simply disappeared. It's that there are fricking aliens. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I find most of NickCT's argument to be inapplicable. Speculations and interviewees by reliable sources are not themselves automatically reliable, and should be noted as such as opposed to masquerading them as facts. Als most of the quotes NickCT used are not about Peng Shuai's case but about other people, and none of the RS editors or reporters themselves specifically describe the disappearance as forced or secret. On the same note, I made a compromise using "... which was followed by her abrupt disappearance from public view and the censoring of the subject by the Chinese government. Despite her reappearance, concerns remain over the nature of her initial forced disappearance and her safety", but that was reverted along with the [update needed] tag. Now from reading just the intro, pepole might think she's still missing even though numerous Western media have reported on her video footages. We should indicate that she's reappeared in state media videos but there's still concerns about her safety etc. GeorgiaDC (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The so-called compromised wording of "Despite her reappearance, concerns remain over the nature of her initial forced disappearance and her safety" is misleading. The concerns on her whereabouts still remain, and indeed the e-mail and photos have raised more questions. So far all instances of her reappearance has only be released by China state media, without confirmation by an independent body. FobTown (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

more accurate than the version you support right now, which pressumes her disappearance was forced and says nothing about her reappearing in state media videos, some of which took place in public venues. GeorgiaDC (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if it was a "public venue", independent sources could not verify their authenticity (i.e. the time & date that the videos and photos were taken).[1] FobTown (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we say something like her abrupt initial disappearance + despite video footages from state media, concerns remain over her ability to travel and communicate [without duress|forced disappearance]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaDC (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Her status has not been resolved yet. FobTown (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even include her status or 'reappearance'? Right now the sentences are undue by stating her forced disappearance as a fact as opposed to a concern, creates the impression that she's missing ie not seen at all, and omits the important albeit less-than-satisfactory fact that judging from the videos she's most likely still alive. GeorgiaDC (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we're getting to consensus wording. I guess I'd concede that we shouldn't be stating the forced disappearance as fact in narrative tone. That said, given the widespread suspicion in RS, I think it's due to state it in a qualified manner in narrative tone (e.g. alleged forced disappearance, or suspected forced disappearance). NickCT (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

One of our editors has asked whether Nadal and Federer made their comments before or after the IOC spoke to Peng. This is what I have discovered.

• The IOC released its statement on 21 November.
• Tennis World USA reported Nadal's comments on 20 November.
• Tennis.com reported Federer's comments on 20 November.

Burrobert (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Peng says she is safe and well, living at her home in Beijing

The following text was removed from the article with stated reason "the IOC videocall isn't conclusive":

On 21 November 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) said Peng had spoken to Thomas Bach, Emma Terho and Li Lingwei in a video call and said she "is safe and well, living at her home in Beijing, but would like to have her privacy respected at this time". Peng had been seen in public twice in the days prior to her call.

Can anyone explain the meaning of the given reason and why it justifies the removal of information provided by the International Olympic Committee, including a statement by the subject of this biography? Burrobert (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There's pretty substantial speculation (including in the article you cite) surrounding whether her statements were coerced. NickCT (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes there was a statement from the WTA about that and others have also speculated. Some of the speculation is in Peng's bio. The solution is not to censor Peng's statement on the grounds that some people think it may have been coerced. The solution is to include her statement and then to attribute any speculation to the people making the claims. Burrobert (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Attribution isn't really necessary if there are multiple reliable sources making the same speculation. Would you have us list out all of the dozen or so sources that are speculating that the statement was coerced? NickCT (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone said the statement was coerced? Burrobert (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

CNN said the IOC interview seemed like a "proof of life" video. The People source you provided and the NYT said the e-mail that went out seemed like a "hostage note".

No one has explicitly said it was coerced, but again, if it's a secret detention, how'd you know? NickCT (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed the phrase "Peng had been seen in public twice in the days prior to her call" since it didn't match up with the IOC call and subsequent reactions to the IOC call, plus her "seen in public appearances" (covered in the previous paragraph) are the instances where China state media released photos of her at a restaurant and at a kids tennis tournament. FobTown (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Stupidly long quote

Should be removed per WP:NPS.

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

ATP and WTA players who have made public statements of support for Peng

This is a list of players who have made public statements of support for Peng (concerning her treatment following her sexual assault Weibo posting). Badosa, Cornet, Djokovic, Evert, Federer, Fish, King, Mahut, Medvedev, Murray, Nadal, Navratilova, Osaka, Roddick, N. Rubin, and S. Williams. Some of the statements have been very short (such as Badosa's two-word tweet criticizing the ATP's statement) but others have been lengthy and quoted quite a few times in media, such as the NYT. An example is Navratilova, who has been quoted with a variety of statements. This article should be updated to be more comprehensive, as I didn't see Navratilova's statements linked to nor mentioned. Mahut also stated that he will refuse to play in China if the circumstances aren't resolved to his liking, a very strong stance. My list here is not necessarily complete but it's more complete than what's currently in the article. Please improve the article in terms of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.195.234 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Badosa didn't post that tweet. It was one of her fans. Your list is missing Brady and Robson; both of them retweeted #WhereIsPengShuai on the 18th of November. The list is also missing Jessie Pegula who issued a stronger statement than a retweet: "I hope @WTA continues to show what we stand for as players." She also asked for others to speak out, in addition to tennis players. That was November 17th. This article certainly is too weak when it comes to listing all of the WTA and ATP players, past and present, who have spoken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Why 'disappear' is a much better term to use than 'vanish'

Some editor insists on using the word 'vanished' in the intro to refer to Peng's disappearance. Doing so is inappropriate for numerous reasons.

1. We look at Google results, specifically ones that discuss Peng's disappearance or vanishing but chooses to use one term over the other. For disappear AND vanish, we have 264000 results. For disappear -vanish, we have 1940000 results. For vanish -disappear, we have 226000 results. This clearly indicates that the overwhelming majority uses 'disappear' in preference to 'vanish'; in fact, the usage of 'vanish' in preference to 'disappear' seems even lower than the usage of both terms together. You can obtain similar ratios by searching for 'disappearance' instead of 'disappear' or by requiring the inclusion of the term 'missing'. Even the most critical piece I've found uses the term 'disappear' exclusively without 'vanish'.

2. We refer to dictionary definitions, namely those from the online (a) Cambridge Dictionary, (b) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and (c) Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Here are the links to 'vanish': (a) (b) (c). And here are the links to 'disappear': (a) (b) (c). While the definition of 'vanish' refers to 'disappear', there is the additional connotation of suddenness or inexplicability. However, most results do not refer to anything being sudden. On Google, it comes down to 3550000 vs 401000. If you believe that she might have disappeared under duress, then there is even less reason to use 'vanish', because now you've found for yourself an explanation for her disappearance. This also goes back to the old statement's linked page to forced disappearance; there may be a good reason that it's not called 'forced vanishing'.

CurryCity (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Disappear, used as a verb, has a clear connotation (removal from visible society due to action by an authority) in contemporary English that vanish does not. That is really all you need to say to settle the matter. I agree that vanish is not the right word here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Why suspected forced disappearance fails WP:BLP

Per WP:BLP, "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)." Moreover, "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." However, words or phrasing to the effect of suspected forced disappearance is problematic in light of the criteria above.

1. Suspected forced disappearance is not neutral. Per WP:NPOV, "giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Google results for 'forced disappearance' (~1K) and 'forced to disappear' (~20K or only ~20 excluding similars) are relatively few. Among the first 2 pages of the respective results, I see only 1 perennial RS, The Australian, quoting 1 person, Dhongdue, who cautioned the IOC not to participate in any forced disappearances. Just 1 person, not even directly stating what she suspects, if any. On the other hand, the results also turned up a perennial unreliable source, The Epoch Times. In contrast, searching for Peng's disappearance in genereal yields ~800K results, and excluding 'force' still yields ~500K results. Quickly going through the references in the article we currently have, I caught only one, from Stan Grant writing for the ABC, that mentions anything in length about forced disappearances. Therefore, presenting this viewpoint in wikivoice is already giving it undue weight, especially when placed prominently in the intro, as WP:NPOV elaborates: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery."

2. Suspected forced disappearance has questionable verifiability. 'Forced disappearance' has a specific meaning, especially since the old statement in this article's intro links to a Wikipedia article on this very topic; the article cites the relevant ICC statute (in footnote 259) that defines the term to mean "the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State of a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time." However, the piece by Stan Grant does not actually state this. The closest he came was with this paragraph: "We cannot know. But if history and my own personal experience is any guide, we can be sure Peng Shuai is under enormous pressure." This is not sufficient to be interpreted as 'forced disappearance' per the definition above. While Grant might have liked his readers to make such inference, he does not do so himself.

3. Suspected forced disappearance is likely original research. This follows from interpreting Grant's piece to mean something more than the author himself states, as explained above.

I'm removing the contentious wording from the intro per WP:BLP due to this ongoing debate. CurryCity (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC) updated by CurryCity (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reason for the international incident (and the presence of this subject in the lead at all) is concern her disappearance was involuntary. This edit has obscured that basic element. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. Is there majority RS stating that X or Y suspects Peng was forced to disappear, per the definition above, from the previously linked Wikipedia article? We already had "However, concerns continued to be expressed over her ability to travel and communicate freely." It's been expanded upon to emphasize international concerns without violating NPOV and other policies that your element brings. In fact, even sources expressing concerns for Peng do not actually state whether they suspect she was forced to disappear. And I'm confident her allegations alone would have made it into the lead. CurryCity (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Since my comment, the language The incident elicited international concern over her safety and whereabouts, has been added, resolving my concern. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@CurryCity: - To the editor who joined a month ago and seems to be an WP:SPA for China related issues; you appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please follow WP:BRD. This edit was inappropriate based on the conversations on this talk page. You'll notice there was a previous conversation involving multiple editors in which no one objected to the term "suspected forced disappearance". If you had a problem with that previous conversation, you should have continued it rather than posting a wall-of-text here and undoing previous consensus. There are a bunch of RS which support the wording you're trying to remove. Please explain in clear and concise terms why you feel we should ignore those RS. NickCT (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I joined much more than just a month ago. I've never been in any edit war. Regarding your previous Talk conversation, it was neither about WP:BLP nor did it reach any consensus. Burrobert disagreed with your position throughout most of the Talk, while GeorgeDC used different terminologies. After you wrote about what you "think" should be consensus, there were no replies. My explanation for why your wording fails WP:BLP has already been given above; in summary, I found no majority RS stating, in their own voice, that they suspect "forced disappearance" per its specific definition for Peng Shuai's case, therefore your wording placed in the intro is undue, questionable in terms of verifiability, and likely original research. CurryCity (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

When making the change on 11 Dec, I wikilinked the relevant Talk sections in my edit summary. A minor correction: should have stated that I removed your wording due to WP:BLP, then afterwards (not the other way around), Innisfree987 raised their concern, which was resolved satisfactorily on 12 Dec. CurryCity (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

re "I found no majority RS stating, in their own voice" - This seems to be a misinterpretation of WP:BLP. There's no requirement that a "majority" of RS used a certain terminology for it to be included. I provided a bunch of mainstream RS's that support the inclusion of the term in the section above. Again, why should we be ignoring those RS's? B/c you don't like them?

WP:BLP requires neutrality. As explained above (point 1), your wording is minority POV at best and therefore undue to be placed prominently in the lead. Does any of your RS state someone or the RS itself suspects "forced disappearance" of Peng Shuai under the term's specific definition? Suspicion of "forced disappearance" is a strong claim and warrants solid, majority RS. You may be conflating your own interpretation of sources, ie what they want you to think, with what they actually state. CurryCity (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You're making up this "majority RS" rule. That's certainly not a requirement. The requirement is simply that something be well sourced. I provided half-a-dozen mainstream sources above. Sure only one uses the exact phrase "forced disappearance". Another says "she was disappeared". Another uses "secret detention". Another says "hustled out of view". All these phrases mean the same thing, and they more than "someone simply disappeared" (i.e. the non-neutral wording you're trying to insert). NickCT (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. BLP needs to be neutral, and minority views should NOT be presented in a way that's undue, as explained numerous times already. The cut-up, out-of-context quotes you are using were either NOT about Peng Shuai's case, as other editors have pointed out as well, or NOT "forced disappearance" under the term's definition. CurryCity (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

re "NOT about Peng Shuai's case" - What!?!? That's nuts. They're all about Peng's case.

re "NOT "forced disappearance" under the term's definition" - Give me an example. Do you think "secret detention" doesn't mean "forced disappearance? NickCT (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are just going in circles with your incomplete argument like you've been doing all this time. A source must state Peng Shuai (not someone else) is suspected to forcibly disappear (consistent with the ICC definition) to count as support for your language in intro. Taking 1 piece about forced disappearance but not about Peng Shuai, taking another piece about Peng Shuai but not about forced disappearance, and adding them together for your assertion is synthesis. CurryCity (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is getting a little circular. What do you think about an WP:RfC? NickCT (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"i.e. the non-neutral wording you're trying to insert": That's funny. Why have my edits been removing contentious wording that you insist on putting in the intro while your edits have been adding them back then? CurryCity (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The gist of previous consensus on this was that "forced disappearance" shouldn't be used in an unqualified, narrative way. I agreed w/ that. I proposed "suspect disappearance", and as you pointed out, no one disagreed. If you disagreed, you should have posted there rather than having started this wall-of-text section. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No response/disagreement does not equal consensus, given that the editors had previously disagreed with your positions. Despite some overlap, this section is also fundamentally different from your conversation due to the added concern of WP:BLP and specific definition of "forced disappearance". It has been wikilinked in my edit summary numerous times since 11 Dec 2021, and Innisfree987 was able to successfully navigate the text. Your repeated 'wall-of-text' comparison does not detract from the validity of my argument. CurryCity (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there was a response or not, there was a conversation that appeared to reach a consensus that wasn't being challenged. You came in and without continuing that conversation took it upon yourself to make a change that only you seemed to think was necessary. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As explained many times, that conversation had nothing to do with WP:BLP and the definition of "forced disappearance". CurryCity (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You're the only person bringing WP:BLP into this, and you seem to be making up rules. There is no requirement for a "majority of sources" to use a particular wording. It only has to be well sourced. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Again neutrality is required and not negotiable, especially for BLP intros. Your assertion is minority viewpoint (point 1 of this section), questionably in terms of support from your sources, and often a product of your own synthesis. This is like the fifth time I'm pointing out to you Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which are written clearly. CurryCity (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Not negotiable. I have a bunch of sources supporting the statement that this was more than just a "disappearance" (your language). You've offered no sources saying it was a simple disappearance. Let's reflect the majority of sources. I'm opening an RfC. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nick's interpretation of NPOV and BLP appears to be correct... Yes our policies and guidelines are written clearly, which is why its so concerning that you are apparently unable to understand them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• See RfC. CurryCity (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New article split proposal

I suggested splitting the article's section on the sexual assault allegation and disappearance into a new article, as there is quite a lot to cover. I suggested the name "Disappearance of Peng Shuai" as the new article name but this can be amended as I couldn't think of a good title that would adequately cover both the assault allegation and the disappearance, while maintaining conciseness. Holidayruin (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

First, sorry for re-ordering your section because my last one took so long to write. Second, may I recommend thinning some of the materials from the current section first? There are long paragraphs about what different people said in reaction, especially after her disappearance. Also, are we going to give equal weight to her affair, allegation, and disappearance in a new article? If she were to turn up in public, I think there was a plan in Jan, are we going to change the name of the new article to reflect that, as well as any future updates? CurryCity (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The main reason why I recommend making a new article is precisely because of how much material there is in the current section. We can keep the most essential info in the current section and move a lot of the more detailed text to the new article.

Regarding the name, I think discussion of the disappearance is impossible without discussion of the assault allegation. "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance of Peng Shuai" could work. The "disappearance" part of the article name would still work because she did still disappear for a period of time. And future updates regarding the matter would go in that article and this one too, yes. Holidayruin (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's probably okay to keep everything here for the time-being. There are links to this section already, and they might also needed to be adjusted depending on the composition of any new article and how that might change. CurryCity (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

When and if the situation has been resolved it would be appropriate to split. Right now, it's not appropriate because it sends the message that Wikipedia is trying to bury the story. What the article actually needs is more thorough coverage. Martina Navratilova, for example, was cited by the NYT and plenty of other top-line presses, where she gave detailed statements about the situation, and her name isn't even in the article. It doesn't have a full list of the ATP and WTA players who have spoken publicly about the situation. Not presenting the full scope of support and concern for her is not a good look, even if it comes down to not having enough editors available to do the due diligence. Given that the Peng Shuai situation has been covered by so many top-level sources with top-level global impact statements (such as how the situation may prompt huge corporations to begin to publicly oppose policy from the Chinese government, detailed analysis about the methodology involved in censorship of social groups by the Chinese government, and even questioning the viability of the Olympics being held there shortly) it is important for Wikipedia to do an adequate job in terms of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That might be a lot for Wikipedia to take on; editors mostly just collage end-product information from available sources. There are professional folks who work on advocacy campaigns, white papers, etc and make money from doing so. CurryCity (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support There are enough RS on this to make it notable for a standalone article. The Sexual assault allegation and disappearance section is large enough to justify a WP:SPLIT. LondonIP (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support The section is dominating the page, so needs to be split off. Sod25k (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a notable situation that deserves its own entry. 110.142.225.47 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep here and condense. Being too big and too detailed is a common problem with WP:PROSELINE type sections. I think the section can be rewritten to summarize more, use less dates, and use less quotes, which should remove the need to split it, assuming this fizzles out soon. If this generates additional coverage, we can of course re-evaluate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep here and condense - and condense greatly. We aren't writing a book on this subject so it should be cut by at least 2/3 and let the sources lead our readers to more detailed analysis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support The history about the allegations of sexual assault and disappearance further exceed the scope of her biography and have encyclopedic relevance on their own. One thing is Peng Shuai the person and tennis player and another thing are the allegations of sexual assault and disappearance including their political and sport implications, such as the diplomatic boycott of the olympics, cancellation of WTA tournaments, questions about freedom of speech and justice in the PR China, etc. SFBB (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

New page name ideas?

• Peng Shuai - Zhang Gaoli affair
• Zhang Gaoli sexual assault allegation
• Zhang Gaoli sex abuse scandal

LondonIP (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The story is centered around the international reaction to the (supposed) attempted coverup of the claim and concerns about Peng's safety, not the claim itself, or Zhang. I would suggest Peng Shuai sexual assault claim. Sod25k (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

But the entire "claim" has been nullified by herself, and the "disappearance" was completely untrue and unverifiable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The claim's ultimate veracity has no bearing on whether it and the reaction to it are deserving of a separate article. The international press coverage has been enormous and sustained. Whether her recent retraction is to be taken at face value given the pressure she would be under is a matter of opinion; the story is not yet over: Peng Shuai appearance fails to address concerns for her wellbeing, says WTA: The Women’s Tennis Association has reiterated its call for an investigation into the welfare of Peng Shuai and said a public appearance by the Chinese star on Sunday still did not address its concerns about her wellbeing. (2020-12-20). Sod25k (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's premature to split right now. There might be follow-up developments that could turn out to be important to how we decide. As for the title and scope of any new article, just because something has been covered heavily by English (not international) media or the WTA doesn't necessarily mean it should be a separate article. Not to mention that most of the current section revolves around comments on and reactions to the matter, not Peng's disappearance itself and her allegations. For comparison, see Trump-Ukraine Scandal, which is 3x as long as this article and has had a split template for over 1 year already. There's also been much coverage about her revelations themselves (sex, affair, political implications, social analyses, etc.) without going into her disappearance; would that be significant for a separate article as well? CurryCity (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Add in translation of entire Weibo Post?

Much of her Weibo post isn't just narrowly about the assault. She seems to be really in love with him and said many good things about him. Then later the rest of her post was about her being unhappy in being Zhang's mistress and talking badly about his wife, and how she hated him for playing and dumping her in the end. And that she needs closure after he started ignoring her after 3 years. If the Weibo post is legit, it looks like she wanted to get a lot of stuff off her chest and she had lots to say. And why I think it's best to just add in a full translation of her entire Weibo post into the article, so readers can read in full what all her grievances were. One source that shows her full translated post is : Destinyseeker89 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the effects of hazing is positive, albeit often conflicted, feelings about the abuser. The connection between hazing and the feelings she expressed after her claimed sexual assault has not been examined, to my knowledge, by anyone in the media — even though the connection is obvious for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the field of Social Psychology. The positive feelings are not, in any way, proof that abuse didn't occur and that it wasn't serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.213 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful if we could at least add a link to a translation of the Weibo post, as it sheds a more nuanced light on the matter. But we'd have to find a WP:RS acknowledged translation I think. The only one I've found is the Reddit/tennistonic.com one mentioned above. Rwendland (talk) 14:17 UTC, 21 December 2021‎

• I think the 166 IP means ghosting, not hazing, but I agree with their point. I think Destinyseeker89 and Rwendland are saying this may be a case of abuse rather than an assault, a nuance that the BBC has also picked up on, but it and other RS note the seeming contradiction in her words. If we are going to include the Weibo post, I think we should summarise it with a few direct quotes. Importantly, the translator noted that the meaning of her comment about someone guarding the door was unclear. LondonIP (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Regarding Jarvis's article and its use in intro

There has been a disagreement between FobTown and me regarding using an article by Jarvis in the intro. Due to Jarvis being the only source claiming that some events might have been staged, the speculative nature of the claim, and the potential for bias considering the publisher (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) of Jarvis's article, I do not think it should be in the intro, especially since the intro already mentions "state media" specifically with a link to the related article. CurryCity (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Other observers accused it of being staged.[2][3] FobTown (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail article is behind paywall and an opinion piece. The CTV article is about the IOC call. Reverted. CurryCity (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Per your edit summary, I don't think screencaps can be considered state media photos. Also, only 1 person Peter Dahlin claimed the IOC call was staged, not CTV news itself. Your sources are not that reliable nor do they reflect majority RS for making the kind of assertion you keep placing into the intro. Lastly, since you added this assertion, shouldn't you have the burden of providing justifications? Instead of reverting before this talk is settled. CurryCity (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikky Dryden, Elaine Pearson, and Craig Foster has also accused the IOC call of being staged.[4] FobTown (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This is another less-than-truthful statement from you. Only Foster called it staged. Put this where the IOC call is mentioned in the body if you want to. The IOC call is not mentioned in the intro. Staging a call generally does not have the same meaning as staging photos and videos. CurryCity (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The screencaps aren't state media as were taken by China netizens who were aware that Peng's post would be censored/deleted, and the screencaps were subsequently shared with media outside of China. FobTown (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about state media, or the IOC call? CurryCity (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My wording "suspected of being staged" mentions such a possibility based upon analysis and past incidents, without saying for certain.[5][6][7][8] FobTown (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your wording for this the intro of a BLP relies on some questionable or unrelated sources; see above. CurryCity (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(Conversation moved to a new section) Regarding CurryCity's recent edit summary, "as it happened media reported on the event they also reported that Peng agreed to it, now there's been two denials (email plus video), even if she's under some sort of pressure, it doesn't mean she's lying, because of the controversial nature we should not use wikivoice, see Talk regarding Jarvis", this gives some insight into the slant that this editor is trying to push through.

We don't say "as the media reported on the event", as Peng was in control of the Weibo account until it got censored/blocked. (See Elon Musk regarding the tweets that led to the SEC lawsuit.)

We're not discussing who's in control. We're disucssing who characterized the content as assault, Peng or the media. Respond to the RfC below not here. CurryCity (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My wording "suspected of being staged" mentions such a possibility based upon analysis and past incidents, without saying certainty.[[9][10][11] FobTown (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Already responded above. CurryCity (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since you haven't been engaging in this discussion here, I'm making an edit combining all your stuff without the problems your sources have. For example, your Jarvis source is 1 person published by a POV organization. Your other sources involve the IOC call only. I don't see a majority RS categorically suspecting all state media photos and videos to be staged (your version, which was very loaded language and overreaching claim).

Original version: Afterwards, Peng disappeared from public view, re-surfacing two weeks later in state media photos and videos only.

Your version: Afterwards, Peng disappeared from public view, re-surfacing two weeks later in state media photos and videos which were suspected to be staged.

New version: Afterwards, Peng disappeared from public view, showing up in state media two weeks later in several potentially arranged appearances. CurryCity (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Its not overreaching, its a good summary without going into too much detail. FobTown (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is your second time reverting while waiting less than 5 minutes after you write something in Talk. CurryCity (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It's overreaching because you're suspecting all state media photos & videos. You have only 1 source, not NPOV, suspecting some of the appearances may be staged, while another calling only the IOC call not 'staged' but a publicity stunt. No majority RS doubting all photos & videos themselves. Your overreaching, cherry-picked summary should be re-phrased or not in intro; the related info can stay in the body. CurryCity (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of Slant

(Conversation moved from Jarvis section) Regarding CurryCity's recent edit summary, "as it happened media reported on the event they also reported that Peng agreed to it, now there's been two denials (email plus video), even if she's under some sort of pressure, it doesn't mean she's lying, because of the controversial nature we should not use wikivoice, see Talk regarding Jarvis", this gives some insight into the slant that this editor is trying to push through. FobTown (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

How is that slant? Everything from media themselves. I'm not pushing my POV onto the intro like you have been doing.CurryCity (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you still fail to see any issue with your own behavior and POV and how much time I've put in to accommodate you and strike a balance [12] [13]? CurryCity (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

CurryCity you are not trying to accommodate, rather you are trying to establish that Peng's denials (e-mail, video) are truth when they cannot be independently verified, that is why "apparent" or "purported" is an apt description. FobTown (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of holding a discussion if you insist on making things up? I didn't say her denials were truth or put things in wikivoice only as you have. Look, these were your edit summaries for reverting, basically nothing, nothing, and nothing again. At the time, Lianhe Zaobao was the ony source regarding her 2nd denial. After a new source popped up doubting Lianhe Zaobao, even though it was from an anonymous China watcher, I let your version stay, instead of reverting repeatedly without discussion like you did. Here you claimed suspicion that the e-mail and video were staged, even though your source was 1 person (Jarvis), questionable in terms of NPOV, and even he only said "ham-fisted" not staged about the e-mail and never mentioned her denial video. Here are your reverts 1 2 3 even though talk had not settled. Yet here you are smearing me, putting questionable edits into the intro before you had verifiable sources, if another editor ever catches on, and insisting on putting them back without improvement or discussion, while conveniently not mentioning questionable sources with your assertions [14] [15]? CurryCity (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ever since that anonymous China watcher source popped up, it's always been indicated that her denial was 'apparent' and from an interview video with Lianhe Zaobao. No one is saying it's the 'truth'. Please don't revert 1 2 3 without completing Talk, and don't add contentious content without specifying that the source is anonymous or potentially non-NPOV. CurryCity (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The existing wording of "in state media only" ignores a lot of the content in the article expressing doubt of the videos and photos and e-mails. FobTown (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The original wording had been there for weeks. CurryCity (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC) The article saying some events might have been pre-arranged according to some commentators, not that the videos or photos themselves might have been edited, as you're suggesting for the intro. CurryCity (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on What Language to Describe Peng Shuai's Allegations and the Reporting Thereof

What's the best language to describe Peng Shuai's allegations, and should we use wikivoice or indicate "media reported"/"according to media"? This is also somewhat related to Zhang Gaoli depending how far we go with the langauge here. CurryCity (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources have used words such as or similar to "forced", "pressured", "assaulted", "nonconsensual", even "rape", especially in headlines. Peng wrote that she was scared and nervous at the time and had disagreed at first. There is speculation that Peng's 1st denial (Nov 2021 email) might not have been authentic. As for her 2nd denial (Dec 2021 video), Asia Sentinel quoted an anonymous China watcher, who claimed that the Chinese government was "behind" Lianhe Zaobao and compared the video to "self-incrimination" under pressure.

Sources have also indicated that Peng agreed to the sexual advance, carrying feelings for Zhang from the past. She seemed conscious and capable of taking physical actions throughout the ordeal. I haven't heard reports of any threats or physical force from Zhang, who was retired at the time and at home with his wife according to Peng. She has also made denials twice so far. While Peng might be under some kind of pressure, it doesn't imply she's lying regarding the sex or trying to incriminate herself.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the act, I think if we insist on using words such as "force", "coerce", "nonconsensual", "assault", or the like, then we should indicate "media reported"/"according to media" and not use wikivoice. CurryCity (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I recently started Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (allegations) following a RM and AfD discussion on whether the China COVID-19 cover-up allegations are notable enough for a standalone page. I think this discussion demonstrates the need for such a page. LondonIP (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think this would be best described as overall as a scandal or affair, and I agree we shouldn't put any allegation of assault in Wikivoice, but we should not give undue WP:WEIGHT to her denials either. Given his position of power, and her low self esteem (which she describes in her Weibo post), it is clear he was coercive and that his conduct meets the definition of Sexual abuse. Here is a translation of her Weibo post with translator notes. LondonIP (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Can 'coercive' mean psychological pressure, such as withdrawing affection? I thought it has to involve some sort of threat that's unjustified. It seems Peng knew Zhang was already retired though. She sounded timid and afraid. Couldn't she have defered the advance,(she did disagree initially) attempted to leave, or at least not specifically agreed in the end and see what Zhang would do next? It sounds like she had to choose being liked & have sex versus no sex & not being liked by Zhang. CurryCity (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's tricky to re-phrase her denials, but technically, she denied only accusing anyone (ie making allegations), as reflected by the current article. Does that mean she's making a judgment on or denying any occurence of transgression? We don't know. I feel some in the media want to call this assault, but at the same time want to attribute the characterization to Peng, as opposed to being forthright and say that they themselves want to call this assault. CurryCity (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Technically we can't write as if Peng's denials are truth, similar to all the previous proof of life photos and videos, as they can't be independently verified. FobTown (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please make responses to the most relevant section. I'm not proposal/changing the article's phrasing about her denials, only tying the point into this RfC. CurryCity (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC) In short, Peng's initial allegations could be her idea (to accuse Zhang of assault) or something only the media characterized. It would be better to indicate that the "media reported". CurryCity (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well I don't think Peng can fit everything in her post. And a lot of what she wrote is open to interpretation. I know they had history together. Zhang previously dumped and ignored her in the past. Then afterwards he comes back and Peng mentioned that when he came back for her, she refuses him twice. But he persists and she does give consent for that night. Then afterwards they have a 3 year consensual relationship where she doesn't describe him poorly. Instead she seemed to really have heartfelt positive feelings towards him afterwards but is emotionally devastated when he started to ignore her and seemingly break up with her. She wrote her post during an emotionally charged time when she had to face a break-up, and typically people don't Deal with breakups well. Majority of her post wasn't about that controversial night but on how she hated him for being secretive about their relationship and also his wife who was abusive to her. It sounded like Zhang is a bad boyfriend, uncaring about her mental state. And he was married. It sounds like a secretive AFFAIR and adultery to me..so overall it should be described as an AFFAIR as there is no dispute over that term on what it is.

For assault allegations. Peng had disputed it and her Post did say she gave consent.. Zhang did pressure her but it's not like he went for it after she said no.. it is only after she said yes, that they had sex so it's not a really typical criminal case of assault. If this was in a western court, I don't think it would even be heard. I think saying PRESSURE her for sex, is acceptable since that's what she had described in her post. However that's just half the story as she also said she carried feelings for him from their past that influenced her to give consent. So it wasn't completely one sided.WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Pressure" could be a good choice in wikivoice, since it means "to persuade somebody to do something, especially by making them feel that they have to or should do it" [16]. Or badger--to put pressure on somebody by repeatedly asking them questions or asking them to do something [17]. This article's section heading can probably remain as-is for the time-being; sex scandal might be a good choice for a stand-alone article when we come to it. CurryCity (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  @CurryCity: I'm no expert on sociology, but I do not think "pressured" is the right way to describe what would normally be a case of abuse. Zhang was clearly abusing his position of power in the way he initiated and reinitiated a relationship with Peng, and ghosting is also described as abuse, which leaves us only with the sex where there is some ambiguity. LondonIP (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Pressured" is not perfect; I'm not married to the term either. But Zhang was married to his wife, so ghosting Peng wasn't exactly surprising. He had some power before retirement, but I believe in China, former officials are stripped of any meaningful influence in case they might be up to something. Sexual coercion [18] [19] might be general enough, with or without being threatened in typical ways. "Sexual abuse" sounds too strong to me, especially since Peng's relationship with Zhang does not appear to center around sex; see common descriptions [20] [21]) for "sexual abuse". CurryCity (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Add in timing of her post or not, in lede?

The fact that she posted her Weibo Post on the day immediately after her break up, on 2nd November. That's true context of the type of situation she was in, and where she felt prompted to make that post. She was freshly in pain of a break-up when writing that post that day. Readers should know that important context. And my Sentence is a short sentence yet one editor keeps removing. Give your opinion on why or why not should it be mentioned in lede without edit warring. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Having a separate sentence means too much detail for the intro, so I incorporated the extramarital affair into the first sentence. FobTown (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

::Okay, I can accept that. Though the original sentence wasn't even that long. But I consider this edit dispute between us resolved. WesternChristianitytestballi (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

On a quick read of FobTown's edit, it sounds like the sex took place right before the affair 'ended'. CurryCity (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Edited so that the timing is more easily comprehended. CurryCity (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, as the most notable part of this is the assault allegation, then we can add a brief mention of the extramarital affair for context. FobTown (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You're putting the sex right next to the end of the affair without specifying that they happened 3 years apart. It's misleading to have in the intro of a BLP. Your edit (first) compared to mine:

"On November 2, 2021, Peng posted on Weibo accusing retired CCP PSC member and Chinese vice-premier Zhang Gaoli of coercing her into sex; Zhang had recently ended his extramarital affair with Peng."

"On November 2, 2021, as her extramarital affair with Zhang Gaoli was ending, Peng accused him on Weibo of coercing her into sex three years ago when Zhang retired from the CCP PSC and vice-premiership of China."

Mine is much clearer about the timeline, for only 14 letters longer. CurryCity (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Related Comment - You really shouldn't need all those sourcing links in the lead section since the lead (it's not lede at Wikipedia) is always a summary of sourced information in prose. As long as it's properly sourced in the "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section of prose, it doesn't need it in the lead. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

(continued below)

Sources in lead

You really shouldn't need all those sourcing links in the lead section since the lead (it's not lede at Wikipedia) is always a summary of sourced information in prose. As long as it's properly sourced in the "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section of prose, it doesn't need it in the lead. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC) (from above)

We probably added them out of caution while the story was developing. Should be able to do away with the ones already in body. CurryCity (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And if it's not in the body it must be. The lead is a summary of the body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

“disappearance” still valid?

Given that Peng is alive and has been seen in independently verified videos, why is the page still referring to her as having been disappeared? Surely the issue now is whether she is being coerced in some way, not that she has not been heard from at all, which is what “disappearance” means. The heading should be changed to “Sexual assault allegation and aftermath” and references to “disappearance” as being current removed, unless there is reason to think she has disappeared since, in which case the timeline should be made clear. Sobeak (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

She did disappear for a while, didn’t she? Just because she resurfaced, it doesn’t mean the disappearance never happened.Tvx1 15:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove "suspected forced disappearance" from the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus among participants that the words "suspected forced disappearance" should remain in the lede. Most of the support comes from WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, with the article dedicating several paragraphs to the topic. Another point raised was whether this should be said in Wikipedia's WP:VOICE, and those supporting the sentence said there are more than enough reliable sources that agree with the statement to justify the lack of attribution.

Some WP:BLP issues were raised during discussions about the usage of this exact wording (as well as wikilinking to enforced disappearance), noting either attribution should be given or the words changed, as "forced disappearance" is a WP:FRINGE point of view. While BLP violations are to be taken seriously, participants appeared to be aware of the facts raised by those who opposed the current wording and agreed that the synthesis utilized here is a fair representation of what reliable sources say.

Some alternative wordings were suggested during the discussion, but they did not garner support. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 04:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

---

There's an editor who's repeatedly tried to remove from the lead the assertion that Peng's disappearance was suspected to be forced.

Do the sources provided in the discussion above support the use of this characterization? NickCT (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - In addition to the half-dozen sources offered above that use terminology like "forced disappearance" or "secret detention", there are bunch of other sources that use terms like "otherwise detained, "disappeared Chinese tennis star", or "secretly sequestered" in relation to the case. It's pretty obvious that saying simply "she disappeared" doesn't fairly represent what the sources are saying. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. There's approximately 10 paragraphs about it in the body. The lead must proportionally summarize the body, per MOS:LEAD. Even if it ends up being untrue, it generated enough media attention that it needs to be mentioned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Plenty of sources describing the event in those terms, this isn't a fringe view. Also, as stated above, would be very weird to not have this clearly stated in the lede when so much of the article's body deal with this very topic. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - per Novem Linguae. 10 paragraphs is a lot. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep (Summoned by bot) – It's not about whether the discussion above supports saying the disappearance was "suspected to be forced", it's about whether the reliable sources support it, to a sufficient extent to say this in the lead in Wikipedia's voice, without requiring in-text attribution. In this case, clearly the sources do support it as the long treatment in the body demonstrates. Mathglot (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• at minimum Rephrase because (1) undue for intro: Google results for 'forced disappearance' (~1K) and 'forced to disappear' (~30K) show almost no perennially reliable sources, even counting false hits not about Peng. In contrast, Peng's disappearance in genereal yields ~1.7M results, and excluding 'force' still yields ~1.3M results, many from perennially reliable sources; (2) questionable support for terminology: "Forced disappearance" has a specific meaning, especially since NickCT wants to wikilink to an article that cites the ICC statute (in footnote 259), which requires direct action/support/acquiescence + denial of knowledge/information on subject + intent to keep this up for a "prolonged period of time". It's often linked with torture, murder, and disposal of body. Most sources and the people they quote do not support these implications for Peng's case; (3) synthesis: NickCT takes different pieces from different articles and add them together. The editor is also linking other examples in those articles to Peng's case or apparently believes the articles themselves suspect Peng to have been "forcibly disappeared" and goes on to cite them as RS. I don't think articles should be interpreted to hold positions, even if they happen to include certain related facts. You have to attribute suspicion of X or Y to some person(s). When an editor combines pieces, uses other facts to link to Peng's case, or interprets some sort of position out of an article, it's synthesis. (4) somewhat redundant: The term "disappeared" is already being used in the same sentence; see comment by the IP editor on 13 Dec.

NickCT's argument relies on the following articles to push "forced disappearance" into the intro and wikilink to its more serious legal definition, even though support from them is weak and mostly agrees with the wording "disappeared from public view" as opposed to NickCT's edit:

ABC 1: Characterizes Peng's disappearance without using "forced", references other celebrities such as Jack Ma, Zhao Wei, and Fan Bingbing (debatable whether those were "forced disappearances").

PBS: Uses the wording "Peng Shuai disappeared from public view".

News On 6: Uses "may have been detained" and "disappeared from public view", but detention by itself is not always "forced disappearance".

Time: Uses "disappearance" without "forced", and that "Peng Shuai reappeared in public".

Los Angeles Times: Mostly about other people detained (unclear whether extrajudicially or not), quotes Yaqiu Wang regarding critics of the Chinese government being disappeared.

Indian Express: Only source that's used "appears to be a forced disappearance" but is it reliable? It also compares Peng's case to Jack Ma, Zhao Wei, and Zhang Zhehan.

Daily Mail: Uses "disappear" in headline and caption, no mention of "forced".

Washington Post: This is a sports column under "Perspective: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences".

ABC 2: Uses "she disappeared from public view" without "force", mostly about journalists in China being detained.

I suggest changing from "Peng disappeared from public view in what was suspected to be a forced disappearance" to "Peng disappeared from public view, under what some suspect to be government pressure" without wikilinks. Updated CurryCity (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Remark: NickCT opened this RfC referencing their perspective only without referencing another discussion on this topic with which they were heavily involved in. The omitted discussion included my initial reasons in early Dec (which were different from NickCT's previous Talk) for the removal, as well as comments from Innisfree987. In my view, not only was this RfC started in NickCT's advantage, but they also restored their edit even before opening the RfC, even though "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material" per WP:BLP. CurryCity (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per the summarization of both references and the article's body. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep but rephrase (Summoned by bot) endorse CurryCity's suggested text as an improved form. Something akin to: "Peng disappeared from public view, under what is suspected to be government pressure". The suspicion that CCP is implicated is near-universal, so I don't see the need for "some suspect". Apart from the reasons offered by CurryCity, this is more specific and clear as to who is suspected of 'forcing' the 'disappearance'. Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per User:NickCT. Peter Ormond 💬 17:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per User:NickCT, virtually all references to her sudden absence credibly described or suspected it of being a forced disappearance. OgamD218 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it synthesis to read an article and interpret it as suspicion? News sources almost always report on selective related facts, but they are not doing so to take any position. The suspicion itself should be reported, ideally attributed and not requiring interpretation, to count as a 'reference'. CurryCity (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Every reference to the "disappearance" and "abuse" of Peng Shuai is speculative. Nobody has ever shown any evidence that she was "disappeared", suffered any pressure from the Chinese government, that her Weibo account was taken down by the Chinese government (rather than closed, or made private, by herself), or that her post was deleted by the Chinese government - far more probable that she herself removed the post, after calming down. If we search the Internet, the only "argument" sustaining the allegations, is: "We can't' trust the Chinese government". Therefore, the version given by "The Hill" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD4CXoQvues) seems more realistic, and the title "Disappearance from Public View" acceptable. If someone has seen, ANY evidence beside of the argument "we can't trust", well, it should be shown. Speculation is neither proof nor evidence, no matter how many times published and rewritten. And if Wikipedia starts to allow any politically speculation to be taken as "Encyclopedic Information", this will go down to "angry widow's talk", no longer worth to be called a "Pedia". What if Wikipedia also starts to publish speculations about Donald Trump, Or Biden, Or all what was said about Bill Gates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Otto Kroeger (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC) There is no problem to publish speculations made by dubious media, and discussed everywhere on Social Media. But if it is done, it should be clear that no evidence has been found sustaining the speculations. Also, if that is done, "the other side of the story" has also to be shown, as also what the mayor victim of all this speculation, Peng Shuai, has to say about this. I tried to upload "the other side of the story", but it was taken down within minutes. Only the "Anti-China" version remains, and the barely mentioned remarks from Peng Shuai herself are directly being dismissed as "not trustworthy", because she is being oppressed by the CCP (evidence: "CCP is not thrustworthy"). The matter lacks balance. And let us not forget what Mike Pompeo said: "We lied, cheated and stole", before judging the "trustworthy" argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Otto Kroeger (talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:SUMMARY and MOS:LEAD. LondonIP (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Peng Shuai Weibo (2 Nov 2021).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Article fully protected for one month on March 18, 2022

It looks like the article is fully protected for a month. Please iron out any new items or changes in talk and ask an administrator to make the update when agreed upon. Edit warring has been bad for months and was recently getting even worse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The administrator who imposed page protection made the following observation:

@CurryCity: Is this content covered by the RfC on the talk? What other WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION has been tried? Looks like you were reverted at one point by @Fyunck(click): Mote in God's Eye? and at another by @Horse Eye's Back:. @FobTown: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

FobTown wanted to rm the whole paragraph from intro on Feb 21. I made a short version. Horse didn't seem to like it. I gave up and restored the Feb 9 version before FobTown's changes. Fyunck didn't revert me but actually restored back to it, but FobTown again reverted that restoraton. You can rv to the RfC version if you don't want to appear to be taking a side. This is not a content dispute of FobTown's vs so-called "my version"; they're creating reasons in order to undo long-standing edits and inject changes at variance with even previous BRD. CurryCity (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: my criticism of your changes in the lead of Peng Shuai are as follows:

• You removed "Information about her story was censored by the Chinese government."
• This is more reflective of how foreign news sources viewed the state-owned media: "She showed up in state media two weeks later for appearances that observers believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries."
• This sentence sums up Peng Shuai's numerous denials: "E-mails and interview publications have depicted her denying that she made the accusation of sexually assault." On the other hand, you highlighted two interviews without mentioning widespread skepticism of them being staged/controlled. FobTown (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

1. I told you already that sentence was caught up with citations. Here's where I corrected it. Here is you reverting after/despite the fix. Here is Floydian reverting your rv and restoring mine.
2. This is still coming up? We already had a (BRD), which I opened for you even though you were the one injecting changes, and left as-is with this version (yours) all the way back on Dec 29. But after almost 2 months, you want to change it again?
3. For the 5th time or something, I'm not the one making these changes or highlighting anything. The paragraph was mostly written by PRRfan. And again, the Feb 9 version, my rv [22], Fyunck's rv [23], and Flyodian's rv [24] already explicitly include the words "staged" and "managed", so you're basically making up a strawman and throwing false statements around. "Deny" already hints at some doubt; we don't need more unnecessary doubt casting in the form of "depicted" denials or "publications" of e-mails and interview. For the record, it should be e-mail (singular) and interviews (plural). The original wording had been long-standing, and your removal of an entire para, including mentions of the Western media that conducted the intervew and Peng's retirement, as well as re-adding citations already in body despite Talk and possibly MOS, cannot be explained by your arguments and edit summaries. CurryCity (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

   I'd rather stay neutral on this, because it is well outside my knowledge zone. However, for frig sakes, all of this could have been avoided if WP:BRD was followed and discussion took place here, rather than via edit summaries. Sadly, I can sympathise with CurryCity's frustration here, which is what led me over here in the first place. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Jumping into a dispute taking sides automatically is not Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

CurryCity's short version of the intro resulted in several omissions, notably that foreign observers regarded the state media apperances to be staged.[25]

It was appropriate to remove the entire intro paragraph on the L'Équipe interview as that would be WP:UNDUE. Why don't we highlight the e-mail on 17 November with the typing cursor too? FobTown (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

None of these matter now. I've long abandoned the short version after you first reverted the Feb 9 stable version [26], which had already included the 17 Nov email, the words "staged" and "managed", and fixes to other issues that you keep re-hashing.

The most glaring problem is that you've doubled-down on reverting that established version, which had been there until your Feb 21 revert [27]. Multiple editors worked on the L'equipe paragraph because the interview was non-Chinese language/Western/international/independent [28] [29] [30] [31]. Yet you keep removing it [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38], ignoring opposition, without discussion. In your final reversion [39], 1 email + 2 interviews that took 3 paragraphs in the body has 1 sentence in the intro, not much longer than your new insertion "observers believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries" questionably supported by only 1 sentence in the body. Your insistence on pretending issues that do not exist or have long been fixed in established version, while ignoring what's legitimately problematic with your reversion, is why it is so difficult to AGF about you. CurryCity (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not patient enough to compile stuff as above, but I agree with the sentiment. I've been here for almost 20 years, I know when "assume good faith" has passed its limitations. FT, you've got a long history of not working well with anyone. Your entire edit history and talk page shows a repeat of the exact same thing, which frustrates every editor you work with: If your edit doesn't stick, you slowly revert entire changes over some minor sticking point that you feel needs to be mentioned, over the course of MONTHS if need be. Open a talk page section, and discuss for a few days, a few weeks, whatever it takes! You'll find a lot of this crap (which, speaking for myself, is at times very stressful) can be avoided by speaking to someone whom can better integrate the changes you want, without reverting entire paragraphs that have been modified. I have searched through the past 2,500 edits you have made, and cannot find a single instance of you initiating a talk page discussion over a reverted change you have made to a page. Post the wording you would like to see on the talk page, and cooperate towards a mutual agreement with fellow editors! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"observers believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries" is in line with the article content below FobTown (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Overall Chinese state media have "focused on her smiles and apparent good-spirits" and have not mentioned Peng's sexual assault allegation. According to Maria Repnikova, director of the Center for Global Information Studies at Georgia State University, they appear to be deploying the "familiar tactic of bypassing critiques or questions by underscoring western hypocrisy".[73][90]

Maya Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), describing Beijing's silencing campaigns, said "What we have here is essentially a state-controlled narrative: only the government and its affiliated media are generating and distributing the content about Peng's story. While it is possible that Peng is well, the history of the Chinese government disappearing people and then making videos of them to prove that they are unharmed when it is, in fact, the opposite, should make us worried about Peng's safety."[73] In The Strategist published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, OSINT journalist Tom Jarvis writes that despite "unanswered questions about Peng’s situation", events "may have been staged to ease international pressure on the China Open and the government".[96]

WP:LISTEN: As explained to you before, we had BRD over this, settling on YOUR version [40] on Dec 29, almost 3 months ago. I repeatedly pointed out that your only RS was really just the Jarvis OSINT analysis (last sentence). None of this is new. Your Dec 29 version, the Feb 9 stable version that you have reverted who knows how many times without discussion, both already included the wording "staged". I think you're refusing to get the point CurryCity (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I can also copy multiple body paragraphs (way more than what you have above) about the 1 e-mail and 2 interviews that you've now reduced to only 1 sentence in the intro. Your removal of an entire para from the intro contradicts the very argument yourself use to add more of what you want into the intro. CurryCity (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries" is a more neutral alternative to "the history of the Chinese government disappearing people and then making videos of them to prove that they are unharmed when it is, in fact, the opposite" or "the interview had been part of "propaganda" efforts to downplay the issue"

The L'Équipe interview isn't so distinct than the other earlier e-mail and interview denials, such that it should receive its own paragraph in the lead. Aside from WP:UNDUE, the truncated presentation could be further misconstrued as a "breakthrough" interview that answered all foreign concerns.

The following addition in the lead would clarify the above problem. "Following the interview Marc Ventouillac, one of the two interviewers, voiced his doubts about Peng Shuai's freedom and said that the interview had been part of "propaganda" efforts to downplay the issue saying “It’s important, I think, for the Chinese Olympic Committee, for the Communist party and for many people in China to try to show: ‘No, there is no Peng Shuai affair.’”

It is still best to avoid highlighting specific e-mails and interviews in the lead altogether. FobTown (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The same source also said "it is possible that Peng is well". Should we also say that it might actually be authentic? Basically, you complain when any part of a source in your favor isn't included, but want to exclude anything that's not in your favor, in order to move away from established neutrality.

There's no support for "in response to foreign inquiries" besides the single OSINT by Jarvis published by ASPI, which is not NPOV. Again, nothing new here from previous BRD.

If you only wanted to incorporate quote about propaganda regarding L'Équipe interview, why did you remove its entire paragraph?

E-mail and interviews have 3 paragraphs in body. Your suggestion of excluding them would be POV. CurryCity (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The general vibe about the e-mails and interviews is that many suspect that they were staged, similar to those proof-of-life videos and pictures. To date none of these (including the L'Équipe piece that you want to spotlight in the lead) have satisfied international concerns about her being free to speak. FobTown (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

For "believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries", good example is the Global Times editor going on Twitter and posting in English while not covering it domestically. David Bandurski, director of the China Media Project, said "We could talk here about a two-pronged strategy, about how China has enforced complete silence at home while pushing a narrative externally about meddling journalists and the politicizing of sport. FobTown (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This not so-called "my spotlight". The para came out here, and edited again here, and by a bunch of other editors in between. This is you removing a para included by many edits and editors, unchanged since Feb 9 until your Feb 21 edit, which characteristically had no summary, for a silent rv of an entire para from intro. CurryCity (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't remove significant facts just because they might not meet everyone's concern internationally, or you think there's certain vibe. Your edits to intro were based on pieces of tangential speculations as well; maybe they also should be removed, but you never apply the same goalpost (which keeps moving) to yourself. Censorship was in stable version and does not support "in response to foreign inquiries" as explained before, but you don't get the point. Just re-interpeting old stuff and trying to escalate them, while pushing for removal of what you don't like. CurryCity (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The L'Équipe interview isn't significant, in the sense that it didn't settle international concerns about Peng Shuai being free to speak, like all the earlier e-mails and interview. It is more likely that other editors didn't notice it but that silence doesn't imply endorsement, plus its continued inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. FobTown (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like "believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries", we should use this instead: "We could talk here about a two-pronged strategy, about how China has enforced complete silence at home while pushing a narrative externally about meddling journalists and the politicizing of sport." FobTown (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

On another aside, CurryCity didn't respect the previous consensus on "suspected forced disappearance" established by NickCT and reverted while raising a wall-of-text on Talk [41], so this was settled by a RfC [42], yet CurryCity went on to file a WP: No Original Research [43] This led to CurryCity being initially regarded "as an editor who joined a month ago and seems to be an WP:SPA for China related issues". FobTown (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDHT You're not getting the point. This is 2nd/3rd time you've come back to why the interview is significant (extensive body coverage, Western nature of media, announced retirement, already answered here [44]) and why important facts should still be stated (answered right above) even if your 1 concern isn't satisfied. You keep trying to inject this or that language into the intro despite unrelated or speculative quotes, while disallowing facts you don't like, silently rv stable version, casting unrelated, cherry-picked aspersions unproductively. The allegations/insinuations are not true. Ask for admin opinion if you disagree. CurryCity (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the L'Équipe interview being highlighted in the introduction, and it have been removed from the lead due to WP:UNDUE anyway, although it can remain as it is in the body. FobTown (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You're repeating same arguments that have been answered. See above numerous times why L'Équipe interview is important. Many editors added & contributed (here and here and in between). We didn't need consensus because we weren't rv anything, only adding updates as news came out. You are the only person removing an entire para, rv without consensus. CurryCity (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the only editor that placed L'Équipe in the lead was PRRfan here, all the other edits involving L'Équipe were in the body (which you have mistaken for "many editors" added and contributed to L'Equipe in the lead). Horse Eye's Back endorsed my version of the lead without L'Équipe. [45] FobTown (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The stumbling roadblock is that you are highlighting select interviews (Lianhe Zaobao, L'Équipe) in the lead, and furthermore in the lead you are omitting disclaimers that these interviews were stage-managed. Look at Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum for reference, where the lead doesn't mention the staged visit from Mary Robinson as it didn't change international perception that Latifa was still being held against her will. FobTown (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Again you're WP:IDHT and repeating false statements. L'Équipe interview was already indicated as "managed" in the stable version, which you rv and removed without consensus. By your logic, here are more editors edorsing stable version ([46] [47]) against your rv without consensus. Here are more editors to the L'Équipe para ([48] [49] [50]) in addition to PRRfan and myself. You keep cherry-picking and re-hashing straws that still end up as weaker arguments. Lianhe Zaobao was first non-China media interviewing Peng. As explained, and reminded, numerous times while you still refuse to get the point, L'Équipe was first Western media interviewing Peng with extensive write-up in article's body. Also its para was stable version after many different editors. Even if you want to improve, there's no reason to remove it entirely as you did without consensus. CurryCity (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't falsify support. This editor didn't make changes to the lead at all [51], while this editor out of the blue jumped into this dispute since I previously had a feud with him/her [52]. And furthermore its quite problematic that a lot of the lead is devoted to the L'Équipe interview but not other instances. Lastly there is nothing so special about the first non-China and first Western interview, in that they didn't change international perception about Peng being constrained in her ability to speak. FobTown (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

1st diff rv your changes to lead and restored the stable version. Editor of 2nd diff involved on-and-off and requested protect. This is not the 1st time I have to point out blatant inaccuracies in statements that you use to further your argument or to smear me or some other editor. Regarding L'Équipe interview, your personal opinion about international perception is not criterion to remove an entire para from intro without consensus, especially when it's more extensively discussed in body than other similar instances, been worked on by 4~5 editors, and stable from Feb 9 to Feb 21. CurryCity (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked to Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum as a good example of how disappeared/detained persons should be handled regarding the introduction section. FobTown (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not going to take any sides here, but you two are clearly at a stalemate. Might I suggest Dispute resolution or Request for comments? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Recall that CurryCity didn't respect the previous consensus on "suspected forced disappearance" established by NickCT and reverted while raising a wall-of-text on Talk [53], so this was settled by a Request for comments [54], yet CurryCity went on to file a WP: No Original Research [55] which no-one bothered responding to. FobTown (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears you've doubled-down on using distractions, misleading statements, and aspersions. Exactly because there was no consensus, a new RfC was started. Nothing wrong with using NOR for valid reasons. You seem to be quite good at following me around. Maybe you should spend some time reading your own Talk page as well. CurryCity (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

All this time you still haven't addressed WP:UNDUE with your version of the intro. FobTown (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Again you refuse to get the point, as explained repeatedly above. L'Équipe interview was discussed extensively in body. Multiple editors worked on its inclusion in the intro, which was stable from Feb 9 to Feb 21. So-called "my version" of the intro is your invention. Because you removed and reverted established content, without consensus, the burden is on you, not me. If you don't understand, maybe you shouldn't be editing WP:CIR. CurryCity (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The original editor has not come back on the Talk page to defend L'Équipe's inclusion in the intro, perhaps after I pointed out this was WP:UNDUE as well as misleading for a WP:BLP, so stop arguing that this was ever established content. By contrast "suspected forced disappearance" in the lead is established content, since there was consensus on the Talk page led by NickCT, then it was reinforced by overwhelming support on Request for comments. FobTown (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

They haven't come back to defend your removal either. Seems you don't really have a valid argument, besides going on an unrelated tangent about NickCT's stuff in order to make it appear that's your position, even though that has nothing to do with this. CurryCity (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've been watching this discussion for the past month. It has become circuitous and it wouldn't surprise me if the edit war kicked back up in 6 days. So, I'm just gonna go ahead and start this RfC. The only issue is the inclusion or not of L'Équipe in the lede, as the previous RfC already settled the issue of the text "suspected forced disappearance." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Pending 3O

For 3O related to above discussion (link 1) that resulted from this edit (diff 1; not mine). Awaiting volunteer for next step. CurryCity (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Refusal of 3O. Good afternoon. I am Springnuts, a previously uninvolved editor. I am turning down the 3O request because it is out of scope for the less formal nature of the third opinion process: "for more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment". This is clearly a complex dispute and a number of editors have been involved; and any attempt to restrict a 3O to just the one diff would be futile. Springnuts (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Rewrite - without going through all the back and forth I have rewritten the entire over-bloated section on Peng Shuai's ordeal. It was really becoming book-like and overly detailed. That's what the refs are for... our readers who want more detail can find them if they want. My guess is this could be shortened even more, but with no trouble I came up with the following rewrite edit: Peng Shuai rewrite 13 April 2022. Too much was on other peoples feelings not directly related to the person in question. And we don't need what happened on every stroke of the clock. That's for a magazine article not a summary article in an encyclopedia. The lead looks ok to me. Maybe I'd word it differently but the length per topic weight is fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• • Am impressed at how you cut down on the prose...I don't think such gossip below had any place in the article. FobTown (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • About three years before, however, after his retirement, Zhang and his wife brought Peng to their home after a tennis game. He wanted to be intimate with Peng, who kept crying and disagreed at first.[UDN 2][49][53] After having supper with the couple and some more persuasion from Zhang, while scared and nervous but still carrying feelings for him from the past, Peng in the end agreed.[UDN 3][49] The incident apparently rekindled an extramarital affair and Peng wrote that they would at times talk for hours, play chess and tennis, and "getting along so well that everything just felt right".[UDN 4][54] Every time she visited Zhang, however, Peng suffered humiliation from his wife's verbal abuse.

Request for comments:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the L'Équipe interview be covered in the lede, or would it's inclusion be undue? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Need more specifics. I have no idea what L'Équipe interview your are referring to and neither will others who happen upon this RfC. It's also MOS:LEAD... wikipedia does not use ledes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Semantics aside (either spelling is acceptable, I prefer Lede), the body text covering this is at Peng_Shuai#Update, and the section two above this contains the lengthy dispute over its inclusion in the lead. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the location. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do not include - this article already suffers from extreme trivia and bloat when it comes to Peng Shuai's ordeal. The lead looks about right to me and I have rewritten the prose section and cut it way down in an example edit right here. Perhaps if it could be one sentence while shortening a prior sentence it could be done but I'd like to see it first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Something like "In a carefully managed interview with French media L'Équipe, Peng subsequently clarified some of the circumstances and fallout surrounding her Weibo post and announced her retirement from competitive tennis"? CurryCity (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do not include - L'Équipe being included in the lead is WP:UNDUE as well as misleading for a WP:BLP. "believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries" adequately sums up several different observations in the prose (David Bandurski, director of the China Media Project, Maya Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), and OSINT journalist Tom Jarvis). FobTown (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  We already had BRD over your second point back in Dec 2021 (link). There should be a policy against sprinkling unrelated POVs across discussions. CurryCity (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Include - It has extensive body coverage (wlink 1) and should be summarized per MOS:LEAD but not omitted. It was the first non-Chinese language interview: elink 1 elink 2 elink 3 elink 4. It was in lead after multiple editors on it (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 excluding mine) until removal on Feb 21 by user FobTown. CurryCity (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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

  Likely some editors went overboard with details and length when mentioning the French magazine (L'Équipe) interview in the "Update" section, and based upon that another editor felt that L'Équipe needed a "spotlight" in the lead/introduction. Using Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum as an example, the update and accompanying lead spotlight was about the breakthrough that Latifa was verified to be free. FobTown (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Note 1: Some of the discussion from Talk:Peng_Shuai#Re-writing_of_lead and Talk:Peng_Shuai#Body_overbloat,_again may become relevant here, in which case this RfC should be updated. Note 2: Before the edit war, article still had "Update" section ver 1 and ver 2. With all the changes and moves during this RfC I don't even know whether people are looking at the same page. CurryCity (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC) updated 07:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do not include - L'Équipe being included in the lead is WP:UNDUE, and does not fit the guideline WP:LEAD. Just the one interview is not externally prominent in WEIGHT among all her other coverage, and it is not much about it in the article. Some general mention of the entire accusations and concerns beyond just that interview might suit, but not a specific mention of L’Equipe. Mention that in body, not lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Are there updates? I see one linked but later removed see two sections down. Senorangel (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Include due to the amount of coverage of the interview and how much it is addressed in the body. No opinion on what form that inclusion takes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Summarize and condense - No need to mention the interview itself, but the content of the interview is clearly notable enough for the lead, in conglomeration with everything else surrounding the issue. Again, no need to mention the SPECIFIC interview, which I suppose also makes this a !vote for Do not include, but I wanted to be explicit that I'm in no way suggesting that the information from the interview should be excluded, merely the mention of the interview itself. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Condense content - Like what the last comment said, the information can stay. I am ok with naming it if the mention is short, but also ok without naming it if it takes too much space. Senorangel (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I feel that this blurb adequately summarizes all of the info/content from the L’Equipe interview without mentioning L’Equipe itself: E-mails and publications have depicted her denying that she made the accusation of sexual assault. FobTown (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think interviews should be mentioned with or without naming them. Senorangel (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do not include - Per User:Fyunck(click) - Trivial. Gratuitous. Content may be appropriate for body, but not lead. NickCT (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion etc.

As per Talk:Peng_Shuai#Request_for_comments: a consensus is emerging for not including L'Équipe interview in the lead/lede/introduction. FobTown (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's still early to declare a horse (no pun intended to one of the editors here :) ) Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Previously we were working to shorten the introduction paragraph, so this is too much added detail particularly on the love life and list of sports celebrities. Also take issue with the selective inclusion of the interviews/appearances (Fyunck(click), PraiseVivec, Markbassett, Fieari, and myself have all opposed mention of a specific interview in the lead).FobTown (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

outdated; see latest linked here

This may be too short. The other editor wanted 30%. That would be about 2 paragraphs. If it is this short, there would be no reason to name one of the interview in the introduction paragraph either. Senorangel (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Summary vote on L'Équipe interview inclusion in the lede/lead/introduction Just bringing forward the results of the vote so far. The details have been spun off into a separate article, Disappearance of Peng Shuai, and L'Équipe interview no longer has an Update sub-header. FobTown (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Should the L'Équipe interview be covered in the lede, or would it's inclusion be undue? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Do not include - this article already suffers from extreme trivia and bloat when it comes to Peng Shuai's ordeal. The lead looks about right to me and I have rewritten the prose section and cut it way down in an example edit right here. Perhaps if it could be one sentence while shortening a prior sentence it could be done but I'd like to see it first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Do not include - L'Équipe being included in the lead is WP:UNDUE as well as misleading for a WP:BLP. "believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries" adequately sums up several different observations in the prose (David Bandurski, director of the China Media Project, Maya Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), and OSINT journalist Tom Jarvis). FobTown (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Include - It has extensive body coverage (wlink 1) and should be summarized per MOS:LEAD but not omitted. It was the first non-Chinese language interview: elink 1 elink 2 elink 3 elink 4. It was in lead after multiple editors on it (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 excluding mine) until removal on Feb 21 by user FobTown. CurryCity (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Do not include - I know that this isn't the subject of the RfC, but at the moment, the "Update" section (which surely cannot remain named like that much longer) is too long and does a poor job of summarizing the information. A one or two sentence version of the whole thing would be more than adequate. She doesn't actually provide any new information or claims in this interview than in others she gave to the Chinese media so I believe this is now given overdue attention in the article body. Its representation in the lede would be even more baffling, since it would give a "prime time slot" to the incredible revelation that she had an interview with a French magazine in which she said the same thing she says since her disappearance. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Do not include - L'Équipe being included in the lead is WP:UNDUE, and does not fit the guideline WP:LEAD. Just the one interview is not externally prominent in WEIGHT among all her other coverage, and it is not much about it in the article. Some general mention of the entire accusations and concerns beyond just that interview might suit, but not a specific mention of L’Equipe. Mention that in body, not lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Include due to the amount of coverage of the interview and how much it is addressed in the body. No opinion on what form that inclusion takes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-writing of lead

If I was writing the lead I would try to make it more compact and to the point. Further reading can be found in prose and further reading still can be found in the sources to that prose. My lead section (if including the L'Équipe interview) would be more like:

On November 2, 2021, Peng posted and accused Zhang Gaoli, a retired Vice Premier of China, of sexual assault three years earlier. Peng and Zhang had purportedly been involved in an extramarital affair. Afterwards, Peng disappeared from public view in what was suspected to be a forced disappearance, and heavy censoring of her story by the Chinese government has not helped alleviate those apprehensions. State media appearances have led many to believe they were staged in fear of government reprisals. E-mails and publications, including a carefully managed interview from L'Équipe, have depicted her denying that she made the accusation of sexual assault. The incident has elicited international concern over Peng's safety, to the point the WTA suspended all events in China.

That simple addition to the lead seems like all we need to get the point across to our readers. It does add the L'Équipe interview but lumps it together with others. A bit of a compromise on my part to try to calm the situation. It also seems the mention of the WTA suspending tournaments is worth mentioning in the lead. I have now submitted a rewrite for the main body prose and the lead. Just trying to help so this article can get some stability. It's not a true 3rd Opinion since I work with WikiProject Tennis to help with many types of tennis articles. It's just an honest assessment, with some compromise thrown in, of what I feel should happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should bring 'assault' back in first sentence against previous changes. It can also be even shorter.
In November 2021, Peng accused Zhang Gaoli, a retired Vice Premier of China, of forcing himself on her three years earlier. They had purportedly been involved in an extramarital affair. Afterwards, Peng disappeared from public view for two weeks in what was suspected to be a forced disappearance. Censorship by the Chinese government and her participation in potentially staged state-media appearances amplified international concern for Peng's safety, with the WTA suspending all events in China. Peng has reportedly denied accusing Zhao of sexual assault, including in a carefully managed interview with L'Équipe, where she also announced her retirement. CurryCity (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Mostly concur with Fyunck(click) on the rewritten lead paragraph, although I don't think that mention of L'Équipe interview is necessary and removing it would make the lead paragraph more compact. Also "sexual assault" is more compact than "forcing himself on her".

On November 2, 2021, Peng posted and accused Zhang Gaoli, a retired Vice Premier of China, of sexual assault three years earlier. Peng and Zhang had purportedly been involved in an extramarital affair. Afterwards, Peng disappeared from public view in what was suspected to be a forced disappearance, and heavy censoring of her story by the Chinese government has not helped alleviate those apprehensions. State media appearances have led many to believe they were staged in fear of government reprisals. E-mails and publications have depicted her denying that she made the accusation of sexual assault. The incident has elicited international concern over Peng's safety, to the point the WTA suspended all events in China. FobTown (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Necessary isn't the point though. We try to reach consensus by looking at all points of view. Where there are differences we compromise. Someone wants a huge sentence, someone wants none, we use a short sentence or blend it in with other items. We really don't want anyone alienated because you are the folks that will help Tennis Project maintain this article. But we need stability and the ability to move on towards other needed edits. Other articles also have controversies that need ironing out and we need the ability to work as a team within Wikipedia's rules. But one important aspect of these articles is that they are summaries. Short, sweet, and to the point. Wikipedia is not a book or magazine article and the section on Peng Shuai's incident is much too long. Our audience will stop reading after a couple paragraphs because of the trivial detail. And the lead is a super tiny summary of the prose. Enough to get a reader to scroll down and read the entire section if it is something that interests them. Bottom line is compromise so everyone has something to feel good about when the writing is done. Even if there are more people who agree with your viewpoint, still try and include some manner of the minority viewpoint if possible. It's a team effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), in the spirit of compromise, I'll accept your rewrite of the lead without further modification. FobTown (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, RfC shouldn't be tasked(repurposed) to determine how to re-write entire lead paragraphs. Now, shortening the L'Équipe intervew down to 1 or less of a sentence was already a compromise to FobTown. But Fyunck(click)'s re-write also changes "forcing ..." into "sexual assault" and "denied accusing" into "depicted her denying", which are also FobTown's PoVs. It would be even less neutral than before. CurryCity (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine... it was simply an attempt on my part. However, right now there is no consensus to change the lead at all so no mention of L'Équipe would be allowed if it ended today. This could run at least a week so things could change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

An RfC is simply an invitation for uninvolved editors to offer their opinion. I find this a rather odd comment, given that you've made reference to requesting comments from uninvolved editors (diff) and administrators (diff). I'm regretting my earlier predisposition. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against RfC you made but against its creeping scope, that we're somehow discussing how to re-write whole paragraphs. As for your diff about FobTown's old allegation against me, I told them to check THAT with an admin. Nothing to do with this. CurryCity (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click)'s suggested rewrite of the lead paragraph did a good job of summarizing the body while allowing mention of L'Équipe interview to accomodate a minority viewpoint. I may not agree with the exact wording nor mention of L'Équipe, but this rewrite was done with the aim of compromise rather than pushing a PoV, from an uninvolved editor. FobTown (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

FobTown you are an involved editor... So involved in fact that you've been banned from the article itself... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Both involved parties have been blocked from the article for one month, expiring in four days. What would be nice is to have some stable version so neither editor really needs to keep editing here on a regular basis. Maybe someone else could read the facts of the case and come up with a reasonable summary for the lead? I tried but maybe someone else could do better? What I fear could happen is that they will be permanently cut out of the loop with the offending sections being written by an editor whose passion is the creation process of popsicle sticks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

At last count 3 editors (myself, Fyunck(click), PraiseVivec) have opposed the inclusion of L'Équipe interview as a separate paragraph in the lead, so this RfC is making progress. So far I've decided to endorse Fyunck(click)'s rewrite of the lead, which is shorter than my preferred version. FobTown (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that this section is mostly separate from RfC above, so I've re-organized. At this point, we're rushing ahead for no good reasons with 3 things going on simultaneously: an RfC about 1 element of lead, attempts to re-write the body which I had no idea was under discussion, as well as proposals about other parts of the lead. If the rationale for rushing is FobTown's and my block expiration, I'd rather take time to discuss all these drastic changes properly on Talk first, as opposed to getting back to editing the article. CurryCity (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Body overbloat, again

The main prose covering the sexual assault allegation, as mentioned several times, is pretty much ridiculous in it's content. This was mentioned multiple times (with links to the change) in several conversations which I saw no complaints. It could sure be different (like much shorter) but it certainly warranted a bold try by me before being tagged as trivial overload. It could probably be cut at least in half but it's about 64% of what it was. It wasn't so much a rewrite but more a dumping of trivial info. I'm still not sure it would pass muster by administration of undue weight and trivia, but at least it's manageable now. If you would like it trimmed more I can try another go at it to get it to 33% to 50% of what it was. Or someone else can give it try. But it really couldn't stay the way it was. I'm shocked some of that stuff even made it in the article to begin with. If you don't like my wording here's what I suggest. Take what was there a couple days ago and plop it in one of your sandboxes. I would suggest CurryCity's sandbox. Work together in that sandbox on making the content at 40% shorter or more, and more encyclopedic. Short and to the point. Remove anything that is not 100% about Peng. Use your passion for the topic and summarize summarize summarize. Then replace what I did. I really don't care the exact wording, and I don't care if my version gets replaced since this is just one out of countless thousands of tennis articles I watch, fix, stop vandalism, etc. And hey, mine was a bold edit here. It can be reverted. While I would be disappointed I would not be mad and I would not re-add without more discussion. That's the way Wikipedia works. Someone else might re-add it though, even if temporary, because what was there was so darned bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the way this works that we create a stand alone page for the sexual assault allegation and only cover the basics on the main page? See Wikipedia:Splitting, got a name in mind? We can make it right now. The topic passes WP:GNG as a stand alone so the split doesn't need consensus, it can just be done as a fait accompli. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: If you feel it dictates a stand alone, sure go ahead and create it. It sure can't stay the way it is on this article. It's trivial with off-topic tangents, and undue weight. I'm not sure why you would delete the change except to make it much smaller here. What would usually happen is you would have left it, created a new article, and then shortened my edit even more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"It's trivial with off-topic tangents, and undue weight." no it is not. It is coverage of the most notable thing to ever happen involving this subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In this article it is... as a stand-alone that might be different. It's ridiculous as it stands here right now and it is not the most notable thing about Peng. It wouldn't even be a blip if she weren't a past No. 1, 17-year professional tennis player to make her notable to begin with. Create the stand-alone as "Peng Shuai sexual assault allegation". That can always be changed later. The amount of detail here is like a novel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not ridiculous or trivial, sexual assault and political violence are very serious issues. Please refrain from making such disrespectful comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't serious charges. I said the amount of trivia, writing style, bloat, undue weight, and tangents unrelated to Peng Shuai and this article are ridiculous. And I stand by that. We'll have to just massively disagree if you feel differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please try to stay level, you appear to be letting your emotions get the best of you. There is a way to go about this without resorting to hyperbole like "ridiculous" or "massively disagree" and if you can not edit a subject dispassionately you are not to edit it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually quite fine. We just have to agree to disagree on what is on the page. It is really bad. I said you can create a new article and then we could chop this by 75%. If you feel that what we have now in this article is about right, then I feel we'd be at a total impasse. I took an initiative to fix an issue that no one else was doing. I saw or see nothing from you except to criticize. Please put the section in your sandbox and streamline it for use in an encyclopedia. This article was an absolute battleground when I noticed it. I got that, at least temporarily, stopped. There was an issue with the lead. I rewrote a suggestion trying to take into account everyone's wishlist. It may not happen but I tried to be a peacemaker. The prose section on the topic is a mess in my eyes and I have said it multiple times. That was also contentious. I took the time to trim it 36% to make it more encyclopedia and more to the point. I was open to discuss it. You reverted it. That's cool. But what did you put in it's place? Nothing. If you want to help, then please help. I put my money where my mouth is and rolled up my sleeves on an article where I have better things to do with my time. Would I split the article? Maybe not since most readers would look for it right here and I feel my edit gave good detail and links to where readers could find more "if" they really want those details of daily happenings. But if it got split I'd be cool with that also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have split the article and restored your version of the main article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This one might be able to be thinned down more now, but I won't complain about things unless the bloat creeps back. Thanks for taking the time to create the new article also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

How does sandbox work cooperatively? Isn't Draft space for that? CurryCity (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Either way. I've started items in my sandbox before and invited people to help edit the info. When we were satisfied I copied it over to the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm using subpages of Talk here if that's okay, broken into smaller chunks like this CurryCity (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Trimmed down body. General discussion here. Details go to these pages: part 1, 2, 3, and 4.

In November 2021, Peng accused Zhang Gaoli, a retired Chinese vice-premier and high-ranking CCP member, reportedly of sexual assault in 2018. Her Weibo post also revealed an even earlier encounter between them. During her 2018 visit with Zhang and his wife, he made another advance. Despite mixed feelings and refusing at first, Peng was talked into agreeing. They renewed their semi-private relationship until a dispute on 30 October. Peng's post drew attention to the MeToo movement in China, where activist Zhou Xiaoxuan expressed her sympathies, but it was removed within 20 minutes of being uploaded, and related discussions became widely censored within China. Peng did not communicate on social media afterwards and was not reachable by the WTA. Chinese officials gave vague responses to inquiries, while the Chinese Tennis Association said Peng was safe. WTA chief executive Steve Simon called on Chinese authorities to investigate her allegations and stop censoring the subject, while multiple tennis personalities expressed their concerns: ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi, Novak Djokovic, Naomi Osaka, Serena Williams, Andy Murray, Billie Jean King, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Various footages of Peng surfaced in Chinese state media, which was met with skepticism. The International Tennis Federation, Amnesty International, the EU, and the UNHCHR called for proof of Peng's safety, while the WTA decided to suspend all tournaments in China. The IOC said it held two video calls with Peng. In a video from Lianhe Zaobao and an interview with the French L'Équipe, Peng said she had not accused anyone of sexual assault, although some doubts about the circumstances were raised. She attended a meeting with IOC officials and several events at the 2022 Winter Olympics. Her appearance and references to her "accusation" remained censored within China. CurryCity (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) did a decent job of trimming down the body already, as Horse Eye's Back created a spin-off for the original content. FobTown (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This article about Peng should prioritize contents about her over indirect ones. CurryCity (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Previously we were working to shorten the introduction paragraph, so this is too much added detail particularly on the love life and list of sports celebrities. Also take issue with the selective inclusion of the interviews/appearances (Fyunck(click), PraiseVivec, Markbassett, Fieari, and myself have all opposed mention of a specific interview in the lead).FobTown (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity: I'm also a bit confused. Is what you wrote about supposed to replace the entire "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section, or is what you wrote supposed to be placed in the lead? It is way too long and detailed for the lead. What is in the lead now is about right with extreme highlights only. If it's for replacing the entire "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" it seems too short with too many names. We don't want bloat but we need a summary. Some of her yearly sections also need a vast trimming. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This is for the whole section in the body. I done some thinking as you mentioned about how much article space it is taking up compared to the entire career of Peng and decided to boldly cut much of what was not directly about her, especially since we have split off the disappearance part. CurryCity (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a different kettle of fish then. It seems too short but then again we have an entire separate article on the subject. I'll have to look a bit more at it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance" section in the body, Fyunck(click)'s truncated version is fine, as Horse Eye's Back created a spin-off article for the original detailed content. There are several flaws with CurryCity's proposed paragraph in that details are cherry-picked, with considerable emphasis on the love life, a long list of sports celebrities, and the selective inclusion of certain interviews/appearances. FobTown (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with mentioning sports celebrities? CurryCity (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the long list of names of sports celebrities isn't particularly pertinent. However the material that was cut from Fyunck(click)'s truncated version is pertinent and such material is conspicuous by its absence; (e.g. purported email was "not meant to convince people but to intimidate", "familiar tactic of bypassing critiques or questions by underscoring western hypocrisy", analysis of Twitter accounts identified 97 fake accounts promoting messaging about Peng from the Global Times editor and other Chinese state media, Marc Ventouillac, one of the two interviewers, voiced his doubts about Peng Shuai's freedom and said that the interview had been part of "propaganda" efforts to downplay the issue). I suggest leaving Fyunck(click)'s truncated version as it is. FobTown (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of your ideas are two- or three-steps removed from Peng, the pertinent essense of which has already been summarized by me without going too much into details. There's no need to add them to a growing pile of commentaries about CCP where everybody takes a stab at formulating what it might have been up to. CurryCity (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The love life might be directly about Peng but its actually bordering on tabloid speculation, so why devote a quarter of the section to the Sexual Assault Section on it? Indeed as Peng can't be verified to freely speak for herself and has likely been silenced, the numerous reactions of the state media including e-mails, proof-of-life videos and photos, Twitter bot accounts, Global Times foreign publication with a domestic blanking, are very pertinent to the topic. FobTown (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Love life is literally <16% or less than one-sixth of the section and <1% of the whole article. It's under-represented if anything. 04:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The less about love life the better, as this is not a tabloid. FobTown (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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

This looks too short for the body. One of the other editors also said something, like 35%, of the original. That would be about 2 paragraphs, not 1. Senorangel (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a school assignment; we don't need to rigidly follow any number unless of course Fyunck(click) has some especially good reasons for it. CurryCity (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

We can have ten paragraphs or more as Peng's sexual assault claim and dissapearance is a significant ongoing issue that has yet to be resolved, similar to Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum#2018_disappearance. One paragraph is appropriate only if the issue died down quickly, such as Tom Brokaw and Peyton_Manning#Sexual_misconduct_allegations (some tried to spin-off Peyton Manning's sexual assault into a new article but this did not stand, see [56]). FobTown (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

10 is too many. 2 paragraphs are about right. That would focus on Peng, without leaving out too many facts. Senorangel (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Now two short paragraphs plus one average-sized one. CurryCity (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The length is good. Not saying this is perfect, but I have added or replaced some words, after reading the CNN article by Gan and Xiong. Senorangel (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The yearly sections are mostly about Peng's wins and losses and can probably be summarized. CurryCity (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) Went through years up until 2010. What do you think, too short, still too long? CurryCity (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For the body truncation [57] I've endorsed the version by User:Fyunck(click) who had the agreement of User:Horse Eye's Back. FobTown (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Peng Shuai Weibo (2 Nov 2021).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I want to add that for the section we have been discussing, 10 paragraphs is probably too greedy. The final note says the discussion was closed, and to make comments on an appropriate page. I am confused, because talk page is the only place I know for discussing an article. Senorangel (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The closure template was messed up by the hidden discussion. It has been fixed, the Body overbloat discussion should not have been closed as it was tangential to the RfC - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Senorangel (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)