Talk:Fu Xiaotian

"Forced"
Currently the article has two instances of the word "forced" disappearance - a wikilink to Enforced disappearance and a category "enforced disappearances of China." This is not close to supported by the cited sources, and is a form of OR and SYNTH. It also violates the principles of Biographies of living persons, which include "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article"

No cited source claims Fu's disappearance was forced.

One source in the article states that she has "allegedly also gone missing" (Quartz)

The source says she is "missing" (using scare quotes).

Nothing about forced.

May I suggest that any proponent of the "forced" claim cite the quotation from an RS that best supports the contention? JArthur1984 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating this. What you did was uambiguous hounding. Let's avoid ANI please. NickCT (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not hounding you. And I also do not want to debate. And I am speculating also that you might be misattributing some of the reversion of your unsourced edits by other editors to me, and this might be why you are reacting strongly (See the 27 July editor: "I think it's too early too call this an enforced disappearance; let's see how the situation develops").
 * It is OK if you do not want to engage on talk. But adding to the policies I have cited above, the ONUS is on you. You have neither added an RS to support the claim of a "forced" disappearance on the page itself, nor cited one here. Unsourced contentious information cannot remain on a BLP, it has to be removed immediately.
 * It's your prerogative to ask for any remedy you think is necessary. But probably the most straightforward approach is to bring forward an RS for "forced" disappearance. Or failing that, maybe an RfC as you did on Talk:Qin Gang. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. You don't stalk editors to other pages. That's a red line rule. NickCT (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources cited do not support any assertion of 'forced disappearance'. WP:BLP is a red-line rule. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't stalk editors you're trying to edit war to other articles in order to continue edit wars. Even when you mistakenly think you have a good point. NickCT (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When I see clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy, I 'stalk' people anywhere I damn well like. If I was you I'd drop the attitude before it backfires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Andy - I love you bro, but you were obviously forum shopped. It's OK. It's happened to me too before. Usually, I try to avoid being sold. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no 'forum shopping' involved in reporting blatant violations of WP:BLP policy to the WP:BLP noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard template: Repeat unsourced edits of "forced" disappearance on BLP Fu Xiaotian
BLP noticeboard