Talk:Marie Sophie Hingst

Describing suicide
Per MOS:SUICIDE, we should try to avoid using "committed" when describing suicide: "" It's not banned, but its heavily discouragement is nevertheless instructive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The unilateral "not banned but discouraged" wording in MOS:SUICIDE is essentially a supervote-override of one of the most overwhelming consensuses I've ever seen in a MOS discussion, and the attached list of 'alternatives' by one editor emphatically does not agree with every other discussion had on the subject in every other fora, where all of those phrasings are regularly criticised and debated. There is no agreed-perfect-term to refer to suicides; all of them are disputed and stir strong feelings, as you would expect from the subject matter. I do not consider any of the alternatives usable in this article:
 * "Died by suicide" and equivalent constructs are terms about which I can write about twenty pages when I let myself, so I'll try not to. To summarize: the bone some people have to pick with "committed suicide" is that they find it insensitive. I find this term insensitive in all of the same aspects on top of being an English as She Is Spoke construct, and am as intensely and virulently offended by its use (on purely meritorious grounds, before getting into the latter issue) as I gather some people are by "committed suicide". The practice some people have of insisting preferrers of "committed suicide" disclose their whole mental health histories to be listened to is disgustingly inappropriate, but the people who have forced me to do so (of which there are a few onwiki) should hopefully at this point recognize that I have actual grounds to consider this "a deeply offensive pseudo-euphemism that minimalizes the impact of suicide and focuses on 'family groups' and 'allies' over the opinions of the actually directly relevant people"; it's person-first language for a new age.
 * "Killed oneself" and "took one's own life"/"died by one's own hand" are both appropriate ways to step around the subject in some articles, but neither of them work here, because both of them have encyclopedic-tone concerns in opposite directions. "Encyclopedic tone" is closer to a mirage than a ruleset, such that these are all perfectly acceptable bends of it in many contexts. However, tone for this article is a particularly important consideration. "Killed herself" would be obviously, immediately inappropriate, because in general use (rather than a few style guides) it's consistently considered a much blunter and more informal phrasing than "committed suicide". "Took own life"/"died by own hand" skews towards the opposite problem of being inappropriately evasive about an issue that really left no opportunity for evasion; they're useful terms in some articles, but a subject whose notability is inherently intertwined with their suicide isn't one it works for especially well.
 * Vaticidalprophet 22:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a strong personal preference against using this language, and I can understand that. However, that's the guideline and I'm not seeing any significant challenges on the guideline's talk page since the section was added. I would encourage you to start a RfC on the topic if you feel that strongly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline explicitly says that the term is usable and refers to an RfC with an overwhelming consensus in favour of allowing its use, that explicitly makes it clear that going through changing existing uses is inappropriate, which itself is backed up by other guidelines such as MOS:VAR. Vaticidalprophet 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * VAR refers to style, not a content dispute, and the guideline explicitly recommends not using your preferred formulation. I've sent out an invitation for additional comments from potentially interested editors. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I came here from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. I think its misleading to argue the RfC had "an overwhelming consensus in favour of allowing its use". This is not accurate. In the words of the, who was instrumental in formulating and developing the RFC: "There [was] a consensus not to prohibit the committed language, but there was not a consensus to preserve any existing instances. This means: It's okay to remove the committed language." Damien Linnane (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The actual close of the RfC cautions against "tendentiously removing" existing uses. (I have very definitely read the discussion that you linked before removing it.) "It's okay to remove the language" is a perfectly true statement in the same sense that it is to make any other change to an article; that does not mean all of those changes are ideal, uncontroversial, or improve that article. "We can't literally ban this thing that several times as many editors emphatically opposed the ban of as agreed should be, but we're going to de facto ban it anyway" is an extreme run-around of consensus. Vaticidalprophet 08:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It would help if editors had a shared understanding of what constituted a removal (or addition) that was tendentious, and what constituted one that was not tendentious, and how other editors could tell the difference. In our current state, all removals that anyone disagrees with get accused of being tendentious.
 * Short of that agreement, it would likely help if editors in these disputes would pay more attention to another part of MOS:SUICIDE: Language choices sometimes carry connotations that are not obvious to every editor. A term or phrase that sounds normal to you might sound stigmatising, offensive, or biased to someone else. Here are some common tips, but if someone suggests a change, try to learn about their viewpoint and see if a better approach can be found.
 * For example, @Vaticidalprophet, I believe you are the only editor to express the view that "Killed herself" would be obviously, immediately inappropriate in any article, and I am very excited about this insight. I do wish you'd tell me more.  I fully agree with you about it being blunt (but I'm the sort of unsympathetic, inhumane editor who goes about squashing false hope all over medical articles, so blunt's in my comfort zone), and I think you are probably be right about it being less formal than the "committed" language.  If you don't think it's especially germane to this discussion, that's fine, but I'd still like to hear about it (perhaps on my talk page, if you think that's better). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted -- it's blunt and relatively less formal. This is not to say it's a categorically inappropriate phrasing on Wikipedia at all; article tone is complicated, and there are definitely contexts I'd use it, or use its opposites on that spectrum in the "took own life"/"died by own hand" corner. This would mostly be subjects who were primarily notable for things other than the circumstances around their death.
 * Consider the hypothetical phrasings he took his own life following the Alzheimer's diagnosis or she killed herself the day after her daughter's funeral. Both of these would work well in some articles, e.g. the conclusion of a general "later life and death" for an unrelatedly-notable subject for the former. The latter might appear in a similar context, or possibly others; arguably it could appear in an article about a murder. Notably, they don't work switched -- if you interchange the phrasing of either, the sentence sounds much worse.
 * If you have a subject who is notable essentially for something that culminated in her suicide, you run into problems regarding inappropriately-evasive on one end and inappropriately-blunt on the other. I've written a lot of medical articles too, I definitely get what you mean about the tone thing. A very complicated article at the intersection of sociological-biography and journalistic ethics is definitely not an article I want to apply the same tone to I do writing about genetics, though. As you note, the spirit of the "take influence from the sources" rather than the close-paraphrase-y letter of it is also markedly further from "killed herself" -- note that in the body I use a very different way of putting it, and the clear suicide-statement appears in the much-less-capacity-for-nuance lead. Vaticidalprophet 00:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also came from the MOS page, Oppose changing from "committed" per your reasoning. The edit should remain reverted until this discussion is complete. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Village_pump_(policy)
 * I went ahead and created an RFC per ed's suggestion. You're all more than welcome to comment. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For procedural reasons, I will no longer partake in this discussion. Hopefully this is adequate. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

What terms do the best of the references use? I expect they follow the standards to not use "committed". For us to do otherwise has always seemed a POV vio to me. --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources pre-date her death, or aren't in English. The later English-language ones usually say something like "...was found dead.  Foul play is not suspected".  I believe that the modern UK media guidelines are especially stringent, so that, in most cases, they essentially amount to a ban on indicating that suicide is even suspected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the meta case as opposed to the object case, I don't think the "use the exact wording of the sources" recommendation (for any formulation) works with how close paraphrasing (an essay without community consensus, but, much like the anti-consensus part of MOS:SUICIDE, still used to mass enforce its preferences) is currently interpreted by CCI. As it stands, "using wording too close to the source in too many articles" is considered justification for a dedicated page to be made going through all your edits and rewriting then revdelling any that are considered to do so. There is a substantial tension between "you should do this thing" and "doing this thing means every single one of your article contributions are at risk of being expunged"; the risk of the latter is an indication you should go out of your way to use different wording to the sources. (This is, again, true regardless of exactly what wording they use.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that editors should Use our own words, but when we're stuck, I think that finding out what the sources say is not completely unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What we don't use is use words not in the references that changes the pov. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In some cases, a neutral tone requires you not to use the exact words in a cited source.
 * In other cases, it's not clear to all editors whether using other words actually change the point of view. Reasonable people could disagree over whether a source that wrote "She died of suicide" represents a viewpoint, or just a stylistic word choice.  It can represent a POV, because some people, including some reliable sources, conceptualize suicide, particularly when it manifests in the form of years-long endless struggles, as a discrete disease (he died of cancer; she died of suicide; they died of heart disease) rather than an action, but it can also just represent someone's idea of what sounds good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm letting this sit so best as I can, but:
 * 1. Most of the references aren't in English, and the non-English references word it multiple ways.
 * 2. This edit also changed the wording in the body relating to "a person who was not Hingst and also didn't exist". There was no person to die in that case. It is possible, again, that the ideal wording for both the lead and the body might be a third option (but it would not be the same third option). There's no real arguable case, IMO, that "died by" could at all be used for the case in the body.
 * 3. Per WAID's statements about "died by" sometimes representing a POV and sometimes not, and in particular, I want to note that the POV being implied in the uses of died-by that do are not appropriate here. If "died by" represents that stance I can certainly expand on my views on that stance, disability rights, suicide prevention, etc, that's a reason we shouldn't use it -- we emphatically should not say things implying Hingst's suicide was "the consequence of a disease", and undercutting literally every part of the surrounding circumstances as a consequence. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * About the fictional character's fictional suicide, I'd be inclined to follow Hirtst's wording, if we knew what it was (and assuming it was in English). That's one approach that we would consider for a novel.
 * (For your #3, my comment above is specifically about dying "of" suicide, but otherwise I agree with you.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The German sources are not consistent: we have both "Selbstmord" (literally "self-murder"; this is used in the Lea Rosh source that is probably by the people closest to Hingst) and "Freitod" ("voluntary death"). The question of what verb to is less important than the noun in corresponding discussions about how to approach this subject in German. —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The choice is not binary ("committed suicide" or "died by suicide"). The lead now says: When it passed GA, the lead said: An alternate to both is: People can argue over suicide language forever ... or just re-cast the sentence. But if ya'll can't agree to simply do that and move on, there was no policy or guideline or RFC reason to remove the "committed" in favor of "died by". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hingst died by suicide on 17 July 2019 at the age of 31. Her fraud and death attracted attention across Europe.
 * Hingst committed suicide on 17 July 2019 at the age of 31. Her fraud and death attracted attention across Europe. G
 * Hingst's fraud attracted attention across Europe after her suicide on 17 July 2019 at the age of 31.


 * The tricky part about recasting the sentence is that her [fraud] and [death] attracted attention, not just her [fraud and death]. Scally wrote much of his article before her suicide; it was edited and published afterwards, but it's perfectly possible to imagine a counterfactual where she's alive, and international reporting happened nonetheless. It's also not the sole use of that wording in the article -- she also made up an imaginary real-mother who "committed suicide" (that is, as the reason why she wasn't alive to respond to comments). "Died by suicide" is even less appropriate for that one because there was no person to die, though "killed herself" is marginally-less-extremely-inappropriate than for Hingst herself. Even if we managed to find some way to recast the lead, the fake-real-mother remains much harder. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of re-casting the sentence, and I've wondered whether the lead could accept something like "Her suicide prompted the journalists who had investigated her fraud to reconsider their publications", or something like that.
 * Also, instead of focusing on the exact date of her death, I think "a few weeks after her fraud was exposed" might be more relevant. The exact date is already in the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Her suicide prompted the journalists who had investigated her fraud to reconsider their publications -- Doerry dug in. Scally published, which arguably is reconsidering because he was seemingly much less open to publication when she was alive (per text of his article), but I'm not sure that corresponds to how most people would intuitively read that sentence. Most of the non-Spiegel German publications that reacted to the original fraud I'm also not confident stating "reconsidered it". The "reconsidering" was mostly media that didn't report when she was alive, interpreting the media that did through the lens of hindsight (always an advantage, hey).
 * I'm equivocal on exact-date-of-death. I do think exact-age needs to be preserved, though, because this is an infoboxless article the fact the minutiae dispute is "article says 'committed suicide'" and not "article doesn't have an infobox" says something about Wikipedia in the past few years, but I'm not sure exactly what and the unbeatably-major upside/purpose of infoboxes is "doesn't force readers to calculate age". Trying to recast the sentence mentally in a way that 1. does not say she x-ed suicide 2. may or may not give a date 3. does give an age and 4. isn't factually wrong is proving tricky. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I am open to the possibility (emphasis) there's another way to put that sentence that might be a compromise. (I don't think there's any way at all to change the use in the body, but people seem to care less about that one, so I guess we'll be back here on TFA day.) I just genuinely cannot think of any, and I am not sure if this is purely a stress reaction to this, or what. I really don't mean to repeatedly go "sorry, all the proposals are wrong", but...I guess that's the reflection of how I feel about this whole mess in the first place. I emphatically Feel Like, to talk about it on that level, that when the wording was changed to 'died by' (as opposed to 'are there more ways to put it than that') I was descended upon by people who didn't want to work on the article when it was redlinked for four years, when there was a dewiki version they could translate from if they didn't want to write an enwiki version from scratch themselves, and could have used any wording they desire when doing so, to criticise the work they had every opportunity to do themselves. I'm not saying that's a completely objective description of the most universally agreed upon of all possible realities, I'm saying that's how I feel about it. I'm frustrated about this -- I'm extremely offended by 'died by suicide' (for reasons before the issue of "is it grammatically correct"; note person-first comparison) and don't personally think it should be used in any quality-assessed articles, but it is, because it's the wording some people use when they write those articles, and I respect their decision to do that as part of what it means to build a Patchwork Encyclopedia. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This is not a personal statement on any individuals. I'm trying to find a way to put the way I feel about this that reflects how I feel about this, so we can start from there and work out what different peoples' objections are to different things, without commenting on contributors rather than the-knock-on-effects-of-content. I am Going Through It™ for unrelated reasons and not currently a paragon of phrasing everything perfectly. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The phrase that originally occurred to me was that the journalists "engaged in criticism and self-criticism", but that's obviously not the right wording. Separating the pieces might help; you could add a separate sentence like "She was 31 years old".  As a worst-case scenario (I agree with you that including her age is highly desirable), it could be put into the (birth – death) bit of the first sentence.
 * A least-characters-changed approach might look like changing:
 * Hingst something-ed suicide on 17 July 2019 at the age of 31. Her fraud and death attracted attention...
 * to
 * Hingst died on 17 July 2019 at the age of 31. Her fraud and suicide attracted attention...
 * or
 * Hingst died at the age of 31, a few weeks after the exposé . Her fraud and suicide attracted attention...
 * I don't love these alternatives, but perhaps they'll spark a better idea. None of this strikes me as an emergency, so I think we could probably sleep on it for a week (or a month) and see if we come up with any more ideas.
 * If you want a fight over adding an infobox, I'm sure we could find someone to accommodate you, but might I suggest postponing that until the 34th of Never? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I thanked this message earlier, but am better placed to reply to it now. Yes -- the discussion is lower-intensity than it was, and I'm very happy with that fact. I'm happy to work this out over a long timeframe and figure out if there's some way everyone can come away not-completely-miserable-in-all-circumstances with the lead. I am, given the circumstances, not rushing to FAC. (Even before this I wanted Dark Archives done first, in case it can make it under the wire for Halloween TFA, and it's still waiting at GAN.) I try quite hard not to write articles that end up mistakenly called flashpoints of noticeboard trainwrecks and am upset about what became of the earlier discussion. But it happens, and sometimes you just gotta get back to it.
 * The last one seems like a good starting point. I'll iterate on it backstage and see if something good comes up. I'm concerned about the possibility of more disputes occurring in the meantime -- the article went back and forth died by-committed a couple times before it landed here in the first place. I guess I'd have to refer them here to "no, really, we are trying to find something, and for better or worse even if we don't we've definitely discussed this".
 * On a not-individual-articles level, I have a lot to say about wording disputes on disability-related-broadly-construed subjects, about the problems with standards set by usually abled/neurotypical authorities for assumed-abled/neurotypical audiences when discussing disability/neurodivergence, etc., some of which has been alluded to throughout these discussions and some in prior discussions about multiple relevant style questions. But an individual article's talk isn't the right place. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Introducing clearly problematic wording that is not used in the references is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an answer to what I asked you to answer. Your preferred wording is 1. not in the sources and 2. has clearly problematic implications (IMO markedly moreso than the other wording being disputed). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (od) I wonder if we could discuss the made-up "mother" separately. The article presently says: "She claimed her mother was a French-Israeli Médecins Sans Frontières worker who died by suicide when Hingst was 16, and that her Gentile birth mother was her stepmother."
 * While the present dispute is about whether the fictional mother's fictional death should be described as "dying" or "committing", I'm also concerned that someone skimming through the article might not grasp the plotline here. Would this be improved by making it longer?  For example:
 * "Since her real mother is not Jewish, Hingst invented a story about having a deceased Jewish mother. She claimed that this non-existent woman was a French-Israeli Médecins Sans Frontières worker.  Hingst explained away the absence of this ficitional woman by claiming that her Jewish mother had killed herself when Hingst was 16, just as she explained away her living German birth mother by claiming that her real mother was her stepmother." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Did she take an ancestry DNA test?
Did she ever do an ancestry DNA test? 50.45.51.222 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)