Talk:Kristian Digby/Archive 1

Death
Its on Sky News

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Kristian-Digby-Television-Presenter-Found-Dead-At-His-London-Flat/Article/201003115564074?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15564074_Kristian_Digby%3A_Television_Presenter_Found_Dead_At_His_London_Flat ShedMediaUK (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sad and surprising news. I had this pegged as certain vandalism until you came up with this source. Ash (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the 'police are treating the incident as suspicious?' There is nothing as yet to suggest that is the case, it is being reported as 'unexplained.' At least put a source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.218.156 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I removed this-- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Digby's date of death is given as 1 March 2010, but from the sources I've read, this was the date of finding KD's body. The cause and time of his death have yet to be verified. Just my 2¢. 86.172.93.18 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality statement
Perhaps someone can find a source that more clearly quotes a statement about his sexuality? Considering how active he was promoting gay causes (even speaking on the stage at Gay Pride), there should be enough reliable sources to confirm this. Ash (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jim Michael (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth name
For what it's worth, his birth name is listed as Scott Kristian E. Digby on ancestry.co.uk Ravenscroft32 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: also found on other websites as Scott Kristian Edwin Digby. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto asphyxiation
(copied from Ash's talk page)

I'm not totally comfortable with sources that second guess coroner's reports, and 'sources close to the enquiry'; it feels a little too gossipy to be considered a RS, and sometimes their entertainment section is more like the Sun's. Ged  UK  08:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I might have agreed if the particular source was a "gossip" source (and I happen to feel bad for Digby's relative reading this stuff). As this is as stated by BBC news it is obviously mainstream and we can rely on the fact that these items have gone for forensic investigation. The deduction that they were likely to have been used for sexual purposes is logical and reasonable unless the evidence has been manipulated (there are no sources that speculate as to that unlikely scenario). Ash (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not in the BBC reports (or it wasn't last time I looked), but the ents section of the Telegraph. It's not been officially announced that the items have gone for forensic examination, that's just what the 'source close to the inquiry' said. It's probably true (that they've gone for examination), but I'm uncomfortable relying on unsourced leaks, even if they're reported in a reliable source. We might be better wording it something like: 'Some sources assert that a belt and plastic bag (or whatever it was) have been taken for forensic examination, but this has not been officially confirmed'. I'll copy this to the article talk page. Ged  UK  12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your more cautious wording, although I question the necessity of speculating when an official announcement will be delivered in due course. I think the line between an encyclopedic article and a current event news story is sometimes blurred, and this may be one of those occasions.   There's no urgency to get these details into the article.  Better that we get it right, than get it fast.  We should also avoid deductions even if they do seem to be obvious.   The Times Online article is not exactly compelling.   Phrases like "but a post-mortem examination being conducted today is expected to show..." is empty.   The only person confirmed to have any expectation of what the autopsy will reveal is the journalist writing the article.  Nobody else is attributed.  ".. is believed to have died after a solo sex game game went wrong"  Again, believed by whom?   "His body is said to have been discovered by his ex-partner".   Who said this?    It's hasty journalism, but we need not be as hasty.  If there is a more reliable source to support this, that would be a better choice, and if there is not a more reliable source, I think we should wait for one.  Rossrs (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, we don't need it until it is widely reported and a better comment than sources close to the event, better not to report the initial speculation and wait for a decent widely reported comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What? It's in the Times, the Mirror and the Telegraph. How much wider do you need it to be before you think it qualifies as a "decently widely reported comment"? Ash (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Decent reporting is waiting for a substanciated report, there will be one soon enough. We are not in a hurry to report sensationalist unconfirmed stories. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is widely reported and a substantial component of the story (even being the basis of the newspaper headlines in some cases - e.g. "Kristian Digby, the BBC presenter, may have died in sex game gone wrong"). The information meets the BLP guidelines, particularly as sourced to at least 3 of the most widely circulated newspapers in the UK. Ash (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ash, but it is weakly claim controversial content about a person that has just died, there are plenty of sensationalist publications willing to speculate and gossip about these titillating claims but we don't have to report like that and have the chance to rise above such reporting. As I said, there will be an official report soon enough. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, your edits are pointed. The Times and Telegraph are not described as "sensationalist publications". Ash (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, whats the big hurry at least let him go cold, I am here and feel the unnamed claim are a bit weak and as yet unworthy of reporting and ther are two other experianced editors here Rossrs and Ged that have said the same thing, better to wait for a named comment. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are second judging multiple independent national newspaper sources. Rather than edit-war over your apparently biased interpretation of BLP, I have raised the matter at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. In my view, not reporting this significant aspect of the story when it is so widely reported in the general press amounts to a violation of NPOV. The rationale that the source is not named is a poor argument as this strays into the territory of anonymous sources for which numerous precedence and Wikipedia consensus has been established. Ash (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to side with User:Off2riorob in calling for a slight slowing of pace. This is an online encyclopaedia rather than a news-site and so there isn't a need to cover stories "as they break". Contaldo80 (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we try to get consensus on my compromise proposal I suggested earlier on then, as we seem to have reached an impasse? As I see it, we're trying to decide whether to put in a well sourced piece of unsourced information, versus not putting it in. My proposal would acknowledge that there are several reliable sources, but that officially it hasn't been announced. Ged UK  09:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. We don't "compromise" on BLPs. We are not a newspaper, we can leave out this week's rumours. If they are confirmed, or become notable rumours in a few week's time, we can look again. There is no rush here. We're writing an encyclopedia for the long-term.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So? This is not a BLP. Scope creep much? Ash (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ged UK, slight correction, the information about objects removed from the scene of death is anonymously sourced rather than unsourced. Ash (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Ged  UK  10:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity
I'm surprised to see this as an infobox parameter. MOS:BIO says that it shouldn't be part of the opening paragraph unless it's relevant to the person's notability, and although it doesn't mention the infobox, I think the same rationale would (or should) apply. I can't find anywhere that the issue has been discussed except Template talk:Infobox person. That discussion did not come up with a clear resolution, but one of the points raised is that the parameter was introduced for use in particular articles where the ethnicity of the person was relevant. I don't think it applies to this article, so I'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion about it. Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mother
I added her name, along with the fact she is alive, to the article, along with a supporting ref, The Daily Mail, which is considered a reliable source. This has been removed on the grounds that she and / or the info is not notable. Whilst it is true that Digby's mother is not notable, close family members (notable or not), are usually stated in biographies (on Wikipedia as well as elsewhere) in the form of one or more of the following: a) in the infobox, b) early in the article in the form of eg. 'he was born in Manchester to John Smith (1930-2005) and Margaret (nee Jones, born 1935)' c) eg. 'he was survived by his wife Mary, son David and daughter Sarah'. I can't see any justification for omitting relevant info. I don't know the name of any other family members, but if the names of his father and siblings are stated in reliable sources, I believe their names should be stated. This is a biography; a biography should cover its subject's life as a whole, not merely their career. At the moment, all that is mentioned is that his family were property developers. Not only is a person's mother usually a major part of his life, his career was very similar to that of his family, which means they had a major influence on him and his career choice. Obviously, living family members addresses and dates of birth should not be in the article. Gordon Brown's article gives the names of both his parents, both his brothers, his wife and all three of his children; of those, only his wife has an article. I don't believe anyone has removed any names of family members from Brown's article (or claimed they should be removed) due to them being non-notable. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could explain Off2riorob's objection here and how it relates to BLP? I would have thought that mentions of family members (such as parents or wife/husband) are not dependent on those individuals being separately notable. This seems to be a misinterpretation of the notability requirements. Ash (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone is going to explain Off2riorob's objection, it should be Off2riorob, but WP:BLP contains a section WP:BLPNAME that deals with giving the names of non-notable family members. Although only Off2riorob can confirm it, it may be reason for his objection. Rossrs (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * , that's a carefully worded response that may indicate that Off2riorob did not adequately explain their actions in repeatedly removing the material. An inference from the policy you highlight (possibly mis-applied as that is a BLP policy and this is not a BLP) is that if other people are directly involved in the subject of a BLP article they may be candidates for inclusion. A quote or response from Digby's mother seems entirely relevant, in particular the family's response to claims about the manner of his death would appear germane and directly relevant to any controversy surrounding how this happened. The rationale for multiple deletions of this sourced content without proper talk page discussion seems flawed. Again this is not a BLP and so an aggressive "delete on sight" approach is not appropriate. Ash (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by a "carefully worded response".  I'm just not going to assume to speak on behalf of another editor, but the issue can be discussed in his absence.  I see no reason why his mother should not be mentioned if there is a purpose.   Giving her name, and nothing more.... I don't see that as particularly enlightening.   Of course this is not a BLP, but Digby's death is very recent, and his family members are living. In the absence of a policy that specifically addresses them, I think we need to use common sense, and there's a lot of good, common sense information in BLP.  Rossrs (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The mother is covered by BLP and deserves as a not notable person a degree of privacy, the reader is given no added value by knowing the name of his non notable mother, I made myself pretty clear, and left a talkpage message, if you think there is a value to knowing the name please let me know what it is. In Gordon Browns article there is a fair bit of content about his fathers life and his brothers life, what is the value of naming her(without any explanatory detail at all, why is her name different to his? is his father alive, no none of this, just the desire to name her, at this time?(especially at this time when she is in grief and which I imagine considering the circumstances surrounding her sons death must be a very upsetting time for her) Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only policies you have quoted are for BLP articles. You may have an argument but your repeated deletion rather than reaching a consensus is confrontational. If your rationale applies to all articles I see few reasons for including any family names on any article unless the subject of the article were them or specifically the family. However I know of no such policy and as the mother is named in so many reliable sources, then, the rationale of privacy (or grief) does not hold water. Wikipedia is not a more "public" medium than being named in print in so many national newspapers. Ash (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Print is tomorrows chip paper, comments added to wikipedia get advertised and prolonged exposure, but that is not the big issue, so she is named in multiple sources, so what does she do? why is she not called the same name as him? what value do you see in adding her name? There is no added value to the reader at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Print is on paper, is that a serious argument? What proportion of the newspapers quoted so far on this page have an online archive or are available on LexisNexis, could it be 100%? As for "value", do you expect to call into question every word on this non-BLP and revert every fact another editor adds even when in multiple sources because we have not gone through a lengthy rationale of value? This fact is in multiple sources and there have been attempts to add the information multiple times. It is your problem to provide a clear rationale to exclude information which has been reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal judgements of value. Ash (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an argument, what is the value of the addition? none at all, simply saying, oh! I have a citation with the mothers name so I can add it is not what the wikipedia is about, what value is there in adding it? How is the content of value to the reader? As it was added it was of no value at all and I have removed it, if you can explain to me of what value it is to the reader I will be happy to see it added. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear not to be hearing me about deleting reliably sourced information, so I'll take your obvious bait and explain why the information has value even though you have not really explained why the information has been repeatedly deleted by you without advance discussion. Here it is for you to pick at:
 * Value statement: At the moment there is no mention of any family for Digby. His ex-partner who found his body is not mentioned or his relatives. As the article stands there is no mention of the impact of his death on the family or any reaction from them. Including information about his family, ex-partner and friends would give context to his death, more information on his personal life than we would normally add to a BLP and a sense of the impact on his family of the circumstances of his death rather than just having an article than repeats statements from media celebrities. Ash (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your comment doesn't say what added value to the addition of this private and unknown living person and as such, she is entitled to some wikipedia privacy. Has she made a statement? All of this discussion and typing in a desire to add the name of his unknown mother at this time is incredulous, with no added value to the reader at all, you could put any name in the blank for what value it is to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course she did make a statement - I can't be bothered to track through your deletions. Here is an example extract from a newspaper, doubtless there are several others if you get your finger out and look for them:

Add that then, if you feel it adds value to the reader. At least the addition of her name is given some context.

His grieving Mother (add name here) was being comforted at the family home and didn't want to talk about it 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)


 * You appear to be giving permission for a particular form of words as if you represent consensus. Have you set yourself up as the official owner or master-editor of this article or was this not the impression you were intending? Ash (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't add it at all but you are engaging in heated debate here and appear to strongly desire to add this mothers name, if you want to add other content regarding the mother to give value to the addition of her name I am also happy with that.Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All I have done is persist in questioning your multiple deletions of reliably sourced information supported by a false logic of BLP deletionism. I cannot stop you speculating as to my desires, but please do not do so in writing on Wikipedia or it may look like an inappropriate fishing expedition. Ash (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed his mothers name from the infobox, where it is a bit unusual and it was replaced and I removed it with the question Why is it notable and opened discussion on the editors talkpage, please stay on topic, this is not about you, your attempts to assert that aspect into the discussion has no factual clarification in the discussion and does nothing but muddy the waters concerning your extended discussion here in a desire to add the mothers name. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ash, you've said a couple of times that WP:BLP does not apply because the subject of this article is not living, however if you read through BLP there is additional information such as "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages."   When Digby's mother is named in this article it takes the form of "information about living persons on other pages".   I agree that contexual information would be helpful, but I don't understand what value is added in giving the names of people.   "Digby is survived by his mother" is much the same as "Digby is survived by his mother, (name)".   Even more could be said about his mother, and it would be equally effective with or without her name, in my opinion.  You seem to be getting frustrated that Off2riorob has not satisfied you with his reason for removing the name, but you have not explained why you feel the name adds value to the article.  I do think it's a fairly harmless addition, and that this is a mountain being made from a molehill, but when you say that  BLP does not apply, or is mis-applied, that's not the case.  It applies to any living person who may be mentioned or discussed in Digby's article for any reason.  Rossrs (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result of the deletions has been to ensure there is no mention of his family or "8-year relationship". I do not have any particular problem with names being excluded if this is is supported by consensus/guidance. Ash (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) After being accused by Off2riorob of having "strong desire" to add personal information to this article, I have made no further edits. After some thought on the matter, I would like to make it clear that this article is no particular hobby-horse of mine and I have no intention of damaging the memory of Kristian Digby. Obviously as a member of the LGBT Project I keep an eye on such articles and that was my intent here. I leave it to the experienced editors already keeping a watch on the article to collaborate on its further improvement. I have no wish to be in a position of having to repeatedly defend my contributions, or for there to be any implications of doubtful motivation. Ash (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)