Talk:Bob Morley

Removal of Non-notable Awards
I think the Alpha Male Madness awards should be removed from the awards table, Wikipedia likes to focus on notable awards, usually ones that have articles, so I don't think these would meet the criteria -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute over accusations
In this edit, removed a section detailing accusations that one of Morley's castmates made against him, claiming that these were a "legal matter." subsequently reverted that edit, with Boston again removing and Disco again restoring. First and foremost, to clarify, this does not appear to be a legal matter as no actual charges have been filed against Morley; the accusations have all been made only in social media posts that were then covered by the media. Further, the matter devolves into little more than gossip-sheet drivel. While Boston's original reason for removing the material was incorrect, I agree with its removal: this is salacious gossip at its best. Had any legal proceedings come forth from the fray, and had those legal proceedings had any effect on Morley's career, I'd say it was proper content, but since neither of those conditions exist, I'd argue to remove it.

please comment. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the proposed removal strongly. It has been covered in reliable sources and should remain. Legal proceedings should not be a defining figure on whether accusations remain or not, as not everyone goes through legal proceedings. Some do, but some do not. Historyday01 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. Section should absolutely stay. –DMartin  16:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that. I find this whole discussion somewhat weird, as no one (i.e. no one has tried to remove them to my knowledge) has an issue with accusations on the Justin Roiland page (most of which are NOT a legal matter), but because it is on this page it is "gossip-sheet drivel"? Strange. Additionally, the OP couldn't be more wrong on this agreeing with Boston202, who may have an ulterior motive to remove the content, as it seemed that LOT of newly created accounts/IP addresses have swarmed this page recently (2A02:C7C:8E44:8F00:A1E6:BF80:3590:BB30, 72.42.183.136, Elainsmith, 81.103.154.120, Kizo2703) which makes me very suspicious of their intentions. The only thing I agree with the OP on is that this isn't a legal matter. The OP's seemingly hardline approach is not helpful. Anyway, I hope the OP sees the error of their original viewpoint.Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" are Twitter people who hate Morley because of The 100 shipping wars. No one who has read Zack's post can take them seriously (most of the post is gossipy and not even about anything that could be called abuse), and none of the serious media did either. This shouldn't be here and I'm removing it . TimeTravellingBunny (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the reliable sources are the multiple industry publications cited in the article. –DMartin  20:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. These publications are simply reporting on Zech's accusations, plain and simple. They aren't sharing an opinion on it. To not cover it would be doing a disservice. Historyday01 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Any industry publication that reported something (and most of them did not) only reported on Zack's post, which anyone can read and see for themselves. TimeTravellingBunny (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it should be removed, the accusations were made publicly by another notable personality and covered in the media. If it were some anonymous rumour on social media then it would likely be irrelevant, but I don't think the section qualifies as "salacious gossip". ... disco spinster   talk  16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my thought as well. There are anonymous rumors all the time, often reported in TMZ, but this one was covered in other publications because of who Zech and Morley are. Both are notable personalities without a doubt. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: @User:TheManInTheBlackHat, @User:TriskySeskel, @User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, @User:Adakiko, @User:Tollens, @User:Dmartin969, and @User:WikiVirusC, your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel like this could use some actual reliable sources for contentious WP:BLP information, rather than just sources in general. I previously had removed Taylor's name from accusation section as Zech never even mentions her by name, she simply says "a girl" in her statement. It got added back in and I have just removed it again. I would argue pretty much all the current sources used are not considered reliable sources for contentions information for BLPs. They are reporting on something Zech has publicly stated, so it's not as if we can't include the information, I just feel it needs to be cleaned up and probably trimmed down for WP:WEIGHT, a sentence or two mentioning the accusations is probably all that is needed. Either way it probably should be discussed and a consensus reached on having it in article. WikiVirusC (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would say there are reliable sources for Zech's accusations, i.e. the ones currently used. The Daily Dot, Den of Geek, and Popculture.com are reliable sources, plain and simple. Its not like the Washington Post or NYT will ever report on this (and I don't even think they have ever reported on Zech). That being said, I'm fine with the Girlfriend mag source being removed, as that was only marginally reliable, and most of what was said was covered in other sources. I'd be fine with trimming down the section (especially trimming the last sentence of the section ("Zech also alleged that Morley had yelled at her, that she had tried to come forward with her experiences on Twitch, but it led to "a game of telephone...within The 100 fandom", and said that Morley was biphobic, stating that when he learned that she was bisexual, "he was furious", and accusing her of cheating on him after she was sexually assaulted during a convention")) and/or merging the entire "Accusations of abuse" section into the personal life section without a subheading. While saying all that, I do not agree with removing the section wholesale, and maintain that it is fine to have it included. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree those three sources are fine in general, but for contentious BLP information the standard is a little higher why I would prefer better ones. If all three of those sites made these accusations and Zech did not state them herself I would be for removing the information. But since they are reporting Zech's statement, I said it was fine using them. The same reasoning is also why I removed Taylors name completely as Zech never even mentioned her by name. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In agreement with Historyday on the matter of the sources being reliable, and generally concur that legal proceedings are not required to make accusations such as these notable. While I am ambivalent to where the content should be placed, I do believe it should be kept mostly as-is in both Morley and Zech's articles. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  17:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately a lot of the other sites reporting on it aren't really that reliable, from what I found when creating Zech's page recently. Historyday01 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed in the willingness to keep this scandalous material at Wikipedia. The accusations amount to a single person (a scorned ex-lover at that) making an accusation on a Twitch stream, and sensationalist media picking up on the accusations. There has been no corroboration that the accusations are true. Even the media reporting the matter don't bother to assess the truth of the matter, only the scandal of it. As I read the reports, Keeping it on this page gives the matter undue weight at best, and could amount to libel at worst. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We're NOTRIGHT on everything; our only obligation is to repeat what's verifiable, and as far as I can see, these sources are acceptable for a BLP. We don't remove content just because it's "sensationalist" (though we obviously shouldn't bias in favor of such things) or we disagree with the persons involved. If Morley feels wronged and as if the article should be corrected, it would be his responsibility to correct the record. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You can call them "scandalous" all you want, but they were covered in reliable sources, and considering they are made by a notable personality, they should stay. Your view on this matter is deeply disappointing to say the least. As I said earlier, I feel this entire discussion is completely unnecessary and your hardline stance on this is also disappointing. I was hoping you would have changed your opinion but, alas, you did not. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * " and could amount to libel at worst."
 * Tread carefully. This is could be interpreted as making a  legal threat towards Wikipedia, which could result in you being blocked from editing.  Regardless, this very clearly does not meet the definition of libel.  At no point does the article state the accusations as fact, just that they exist. If you sincerely beleive the section to be libelous, contact the stewards via email.  –DMartin  18:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The articles only report on the accusations, not stating they are fact, just that Zech made them. Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it best to err on the side of caution when presenting negative information at a WP:BLP, but clearly I am in the minority in this case. I'm not one to battle consensus, so let it be. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to warn everyone present, Lucinda Cotter, Taylor's mother, warned everyone in August 2020 that legal actions were underway against Zech and further legal actions would be taken if the same lies would be published again anywhere else.
 * Use your brains guys. This is not a place for shipwars. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of this claim? And who is engaging in ship wars? Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. I guess its no surprise, considering you removed the section from the Morley article, but didn't even say why, which makes me very suspicious about your intentions, and makes me question whether your edits are in good faith.Historyday01 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It still stands as fact that Zech made the accusations (which we are allowed to state in this article per WP:ASSERT, as the accusations themselves did happen even if the accused actions did not take place). August 2020 was nearly three years ago, so if a lawsuit took place in that time, or takes place in the future, then it would be our responsibility to note it, so long as it's in reliable secondary sources. If such a lawsuit did take place and the only source about it is public record court documents, we cannot report on it using such primary sources per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Regardless, as Dmartin969 said, comments like this may constitute legal threats, so please do not say things like this lightly. <small style="font-size:80%;">silvia  <small style="font-size:65%;">(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  <small style="font-size:75%;">(inquire within)  19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It almost sounds like a veiled legal threat to me. It just seems like a strange comment for that user to make, to be honest. Historyday01 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that a lot of the users(including this one) against inclusion of the accusations seem to be new or single-purpose accounts. Nothing wrong with that of course(chances are they were just anonymous users who created an account to participate in the discussion), just something I noticed.  –DMartin  19:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was patrolling recent changes when I happened to notice the most recent removal mentioned "unapproved accusations". Who would be approving these and why? Do these accounts have a conflict of interest?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It might not be anything, but I opened an SPI case about it (though not sure I did it correctly since I've never done this before) <small style="font-size:80%;">silvia  <small style="font-size:65%;">(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  <small style="font-size:75%;">(inquire within)  19:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful its COI and more likely just bias users from various fandoms. The page has been semi protected now at least. I think that user your are referring to meant to say unproven rather than unapproved as he did in his previous edit comment. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 19:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think opening a SPI case is a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're active on social media, you should find it on Cotter's Insta profile. Also, when you posted Zech's accusations (all of which have been proven to be false by now!!), you should've posted Taylor's answer to it right away to give people a both-sided picture.
 * It's also still on Taylor's Insta profile. Go ahead, take it, and post it.
 * Since you're still accusing Taylor of abuse and cheating.
 * I only know that after Ms. Cotter's post on Insta, Zech logged off from Twitter and Instagram for several months.
 * Which was very weird cause she practically lived on the internet.
 * Yes, I'm single-purpose account, so what? Should I just watch how you make whatever the hell you want? Kizo2703 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Zech's accusations (all of which have been proven to be false by now!!),": Then please add that to the article, with citations for the fact that they were disproved.
 * "Since you're still accusing Taylor of abuse and cheating." We are not accusing anyone of anything, merely reporting that we they were accused.
 * "I only know that after Ms. Cotter's post on Insta, Zech logged off from Twitter and Instagram for several months." I don't think this is relevant, but if it was reported upon feel free to add it to the article with citations.
 * "Yes, I'm single-purpose account, so what?" Welcome to Wikipedia! Despite any disagreements, we're genuinely happy you're here. Feel free to check out the introduction  if you want some more information how things work around here.
 * –DMartin 20:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I would add that the page of Zech was only JUST created, and the accusations by Zech WERE added to the main article back in July 2020, but then removed less than a month later, with not even a discussion on here, but an IP address saying the info was "misleading". As such, @User:Radiotsixty (the person who added them back then), would you like to weigh in on this discussion? Historyday01 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the Geekspin should be reliable as it's directly citing Taylor. It should be expanded to include both sides of the story rather than just Zech, especially given Zech's accusations involve Taylor and her husband, and that Zech accusations involve some mind reading, evidently.
 * If gossip sites like Den of Geek, The Daily Dot, and Popculture.com are reliable, so is the Geekspin. Another reason to expand this section. Kizo2703 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't convincing to say that because one set of sources is reliable, it makes another set source reliable. Reliability of sources is NOT inherited. Geekspin clearly falls under WP:NOTRELIABLE. This is proved by the article itself which cites itself (five times), Twitter (tweet by Taylor), Instagram (three posts by Taylor, two posts by Morley), and The Daily Dot (only reliable source cited). Considering that no other sources are cited, and the person who writes the article primarily only writes for that publication, I am inclined to still say it is unreliable. Historyday01 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, The Daily Dot is citing Zech's Twitter posts but it's reliable now?! Or is it just WP:DAILYDOT as it always been?
 * Or just because it's tone in this case is obviously biased and that (obviously!) suits you now? Unlike Geekspin? Kizo2703 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Suits me? You don't have to be combative about this. It really isn't helping anyone. The fact is that most of the sources about Zech's accusations are total trash, but I only added the best ones I could find. Historyday01 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Taylor
I've brought it up before, but I don't think Taylor's name should be mentioned in Zech's allegation, as Zech never said Taylor was the "girl". WP:DAILYDOT infers it as does PopCulture, but this article isn't about Taylor and stating a girl is enough. I have removed her name and the "response" that people want to add back in for WP:WEIGHT. The versions I have added in now reads: In June 2020, Arryn Zech accused Morley, who had been her boyfriend for three-and-half years, of emotional and verbal abuse, and stated that a "girl" had been complicit in the abuse against her. The relationship ended on Valentine's Day 2019, with Zech saying that Morley cheated on her six months before their break-up, and alleging that Morley had been biphobic toward her. I feel this, states the allegations and the main points satisfactory. Could probably consider changing break up occurred on Valentine's Day and say Feb 2019. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. That is a fair point. I would be fine with changing the words "Valentine's Day 2019" to "February 2019". That would be fine with me. It may even be too speculative to be added to the Eliza Taylor in that case. I would also say that Zech's page should be updated with similar text as well. Historyday01 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to adjust Zech's page, go ahead, otherwise I'll adjust later. I figured I would discuss it here a bit first before making the change there too. Her page is going to obviously have more details about her claims, but still should focus on what she said rather than what people inferred. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, that makes sense. I never really expected there would be this much discussion about the accusations, because there has been less discussion on the Justin Roiland page about the "Accusations of violence and abuse" section than the addition of this section to Morley's page. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Roiland was arrested and charged with crimes, it was widely covered after it all came out. This wasn't widely covered and is a WP:BLP topic. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is understandable that there is controversy in relation to this issue since it did not transcend social networks. Zech and Taylor's post on which the gossip sites are based were made on social media. We are not talking about accusations made before any authority as in the case of Justin Roiland (according to The Guardian and the BBC in that case there were charges of domestic violence). Editngwiki (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Following this line of thought, I suggest that it be specified in the article that the allegations were made on Zech's social media since in a first reading someone could interpret that there were police reports or judicial conflict involved (none of the gossip sites linked say that - they share the link of Zech's selfpost on twitter, twitter account that doesn't exist now). Editngwiki (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Taylor shouldn't be named at all if her name was brought up by mere speculation by the author. In those terms it is also not appropriate to make those changes on her site.
 * In general I think that this section should not exist, since the main source that has been used is dailydot's article, which in regards to Taylor resorts to counterfactual fallacies (aka speculation - specifically speculative gossip - the author appeals to words like "seemingly"). It is clear that the source of the speculation is not Zech's text (she never names her), which is why it sounds like an opinion or at least a statement not supported by facts, much less evidence (it also does not provide links to sources of the people who are supposed to be speculating about it). Editngwiki (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you are saying that mentioning Taylor's name shouldn't exist, and I can agree with that. Sources seem to imply this is the case, but since Zech will undoubtedly not write on this topic again in any other post, there's no way to confirm that she is really talking about Taylor. And since it is speculation, it is fine with not mentioning it. Historyday01 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it should be specified that the breakup date was February 14th (Valentine's Day) because Zech was very specific about that. Editngwiki (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They were specific on date yeah, but what does it matter from a readers perspective what day it was? Whether we put It was February or February 14th, we aren't even covering the break up, the break up is just mentioned. She wrote a long Instagram post, the date is just one minor detail pulled from it but it really has nothing to do with the allegations. Either way it was just a minor detail that I felt wasn't needed. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 20:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, that's true. I do think that at least we should mention the breakup happened in February. Historyday01 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Whilst Zech never brought up names it's worth mentioning that Taylor's statement definitely belongs in the accusations as in her statement which was linked earlier, Zech mentioned the house saying "Now I know they made me move in my things for their future together." Taylor's name being added shouldn't happen because she wasn't directly named, however since news site that you have cited (dailydot) has named Eliza, and since Eliza's statements came in response to those claims by stating they weren't together and giving a clear timeline, it is a clear indicator that her statement belongs in the same category, however there could be a category added for Eliza's statement following Arryn's to present both sides, otherwise dailydot needs to be removed from the citation since it clearly names her. Adam4R4O (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That sort of logic makes no sense. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of sources
Looking at the sources in the article I see
 * Den of Geek article
 * Daily Dot article
 * Popculture dot com

Of these, Den of geek and popculture are not reliable enough sources. Daily Dot is a questionable source per WP:DAILYDOT, so it should be added only as long as we have other more reliable sources backing it up.

Keeping this in mind, I'd say this is a case of WP:UNDUE combined with WP:BLP. If there is more reliable sources backing up these claims, we should add them. Until such sources are found, the article needs to be removed of that entire section, regardless of how many new readers wish otherwise. Soni (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keeping this in mind, I'm boldly removing the paragraph. We can re-add if discussion implies consensus on more reliable sources. Soni (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That said, I did now realise that we probably could add a line saying the two were in a relationship. That would be WP:DUE and be also more well documented in WP:RS. Soni (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is no sources even confirmed their relationship while they were together, was always rumored. Neither of them publically said they were bf/gf until she made the accusations. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 10:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to thoroughly disagree. I would hope you change your view on this so we can reach some consensus. Historyday01 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What did I say that you have to thoroughly disagree with what exactly? The other day you literally said "You are right that the relationship was only rumored or alleged before the abuse allegations.". <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 13:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was disagreeing with your view that appeared to say that the content should be removed. Historyday01 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment you replied to did not say that, nor does it any way appear to say that. Soni said their relationship would be well documented in RS and I explained how it wouldn't really be. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. In any case, my compromise text (Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. [Daily dot article, popculture.com, Den of Geek] Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored.[The Music]") should address many of the issues people have with previous text, and would ensure we aren't wading into talking about any accusations, as they wouldn't be mentioned at all! As I said elsewhere in this discussion, in recent comments, I don't have the energy to fight for the previous version of the text anymore, since there probably will never be a consensus to keep anything about the accusations whatsoever. All we can say is that they were in a relationship and that it ended. That's it. We don't need to say anything else.Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to thoroughly disagree with this decision, and feel it was done WITHOUT consensus, which makes it that much worse. Doing bold removals is overrated. There should be a consensus before removal. The same goes for Zech's page. To just boldly remove this stuff while a discussion is going just rubs me the wrong way in more ways than one.Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was erring on the side of careful because this comes to a very contentious BLP claim. But I do not object to your revert, so let's discuss.
 * Can you explain why these sources pass the reliability test enough to not be WP:UNDUE? Best I can read, your claims are mostly related to other articles which have similar claims, which points to me as a reason for fixing those articles than adding these to the current article. Soni (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that these sources are simply reporting on what Zech said, not confirming/denying the accusations. And in that sense, I would say they are fine. The only other source for this would be Zech's original Instagram post. I believe that removing this from the pages of Morley and Zech would be doing a disservice, to say the least. Alternatively, we could just add a line noting they were in a relationship, as you suggested, and just leave it at that, something like: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse. [Daily dot article, popculture.com, Den of Geek] Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored. [The Music] More specifics could be added to Zech's article, as this article is about Morley, not Zech. I'd be fine with that compromise. I welcome you to look this up and see if you can find any more reliable sources about the accusations. In any case, I would love to have this discussion come to an end soon, as it really is getting tiresome and unnecessarily drawn out, allowing for some (including some of those involved in this talk page discussion, and others which are not) to remove/add content while editing in bad faith, which is not good. In the end, if it comes down to the accusations are seen too contentious in a discussion which has clearly included some bad faith actors, then I believe we could keep two sources (the Daily Dot article and Popculture dot com), on Zech's page as further proof that she is bisexual, and then readers can reach their own conclusions, although that seems like we wouldn't be doing our duty as good editors on here.Historyday01 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be happier with your proposed wording. That's a lot more fair than the wording currently (which I felt were UNDUE enough to warrant removal). So I support this version.
 * I do think the wording should remain similar for Zech's article too, simply because BLP doesnt shift based on the article they're on. I believe the claims could fall under #2 of WP:ECREE (Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest) and would require stronger sourcing before devoting a full paragraph of in depth explanations. Soni (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Furthermore, if the sources were kept, then they can also be used on Zech's page as further evidence of her bisexuality. Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah bisexuality is a much less contentious claim that all of these sources would feel reliable enough for that. (I cant find the exact guidelines for sexuality and primary sources, so maybe even her tweets might be sufficient)
 * I just would prefer something similar to your proposed wording for the Zech page as well. Soni (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. I would cite Zech's tweets, but she deleted/deactivated her Twitter sometime last year. She has posted about on Instagram, I think. Historyday01 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have since proposed a new bland wording (Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. [Daily dot article, popculture.com, Den of Geek] Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored.[The Music]"), which doesn't even mention the "Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse" section (which appears to be the primary reason people are objecting), in order to hopefully achieve a consensus and end this discussion once and for all, so that it hopefully never comes up ever again on this site. Historyday01 (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Saw this discussion/article at BLP:N. Unfounded allegations of this nature with very weak sourcing and/or unreliable sourcing, do not belong in a WP:BLP article. Leave it out. It's tabloid garbage.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">(talk)</b> 20:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. In hopes of achieving a consensus and permanently ending this discussion (which has already dragged on too long), my new bland compromise language I believe addresses many of the complaints in this discussion so far: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. [Daily dot article, popculture.com, Den of Geek] Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored.[The Music]". This new language would ensure that the page (and Wikipedia) isn't wading into any mention of accusations whatsoever. If readers are that interested, they can look it up on their own, read it in gossip magazines, or whatever other news sources they use. I really don't have any more energy to try and defend the previous text, and this seems like the only thing left I can do. Then, hidden text could be added telling anyone who edits the page about the consensus of this discussion and warning them to not add anything about the accusations.Historyday01 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)