Talk:Disappearance of Peng Shuai

Discuss intro here

"Peng eventually found herself explaining the matter on several occasions ..." from previous version already preserved neutrality regarding volition. FobTown's change [1] on account of "no certainty that Peng found herself" would not be a valid reason. CurryCity (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Peng eventually found herself explaining the matter on several occasions, notably in an interview with the French L'Équipe, but some degree of skepticism persists. "Found herself" is unverified and disputed, plus this wasn't previously discussed in the main article Peng Shuai. The spin-off article on the incident allows you to include more details in the body, compared to the main article which is biographical overall, but both the spin-off and main article intros should be neutral. I've used the main article's intro paragraph on sexual assault for now, where we achieved a consensus on Talk:Peng_Shuai#Summary_vote_on_L'Équipe_interview_inclusion_in_the_lede/lead/introduction which was NOT to have any particular interview highlighted. FobTown (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to leave some parts as a courtesy during discussion. But for the record, there was no consensus about anything else. As this is a new stand-alone article not constrained by space like the source article was, wording can be different. We go from body of this article, to intro, then to the source article, not the other way around which is what you're doing. CurryCity (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Your version had too many citations already in the body as well as difficult-to-read constructions such as X and Y depicting Peng denying Z, which contains 1 hedge and 1 word to watch. Intro should already be supported by body and focused on facts. CurryCity (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Some language in your version is quite awkward, for instance "Chinese officials, initially reticent in response to foreign inquiries, relayed footages via the state media, but human rights groups and China watchers were wary of the official portrayals" while this is more concise "She showed up in state media two weeks later for appearances that observers believed to have been staged in response to foreign inquiries." FobTown (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

By concise you mean even wordier and self-repeating, like your other sentences. CurryCity (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Did she even dissappear? That is all speculation really. And speculations cannot be pushed as outright facts. I mean WTA seems to indicate that Peng has not dissappeared and that they stayed in contact with people close to Peng who assured that she is "safely living in Beijing".[2] Maybe they lie or maybe not but "observers" can't know this for certain as a fact as it is ultimately just unverified speculation. Yet the intro is claiming it as a hard fact. Wtarabbit (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2023 (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) 09:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WTA sincerity on suspension

Hi, I don't think WTA was being sincere. WTA had announced they are going to return to China after lifting a ban yesterday. However in 2022, China already had strict pandemic protocols so even without the WTA suspension, there would likely be no tours. As both NYT and The Guardian have rightfully written, the WTA seems superficial and only supported the suspension when they already known that WTA tours were likely to not happen, but now that China is open and ready to accept competition, WTA now decides to lift the suspension and continue in China. They also yesterday claimed that they have been assured that Peng is "safely living in Beijing". That seems to me that WTA is not genuine in their commitments and should be noted in the aftermath.[3] [4] Wtarabbit (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Title should be about the (perhaps Nonconsential) affair, not disappearance.

You simply can't call anyone who's not on camera for a week "disappeared". 31.205.18.96 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

They are simply reporting on what was reported in the media. She disappeared and it is in line with other similar disappearances in China. Many of those people also resurfaced. OnceAdream93 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

None of linked sources verify authenticity of the alleged Weibo post; they only have screenshots

We cannot collectively take screenshots alone as hard proof that a post existed, as they are extremely easy to falsify. Until a source that confirms the post actually existed is provided, it should not be stated as fact that “Shuai posted” but rather it should be said that “screenshots of a Weibo post from Shuai” circulated. VioletWriting (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There were different screenshots so something was posted presumably by Peng Shuai herself. CurryCity (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)