Jump to content

Talk:Death of Nicola Bulley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this March 2023 article in Psychology Today reliable or notable here: "What We Find Inside Us When Searching for Missing People"? It looks a bit bloggy. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be good to have a source specifically draw a link between this subject and MWWS. We must question if this is a WP:RS though – Psychology Today#Content and standards says the publication is not peer-reviewed, and does Raj Persaud's history of plagiarism (and the fact he appears to be a media commentator rather than a practicing medical professional or academic nowadays) mean we should be looking for an article with a more credible author? MIDI (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, Psychology Today is a bit of a coffee-table/ doctor's waiting room magazine. That article does reference some good journal papers, but it is essentially an opinion piece. Better sources will probably emerge before long. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Nicola Bulley's partner?

[edit]

For context the partner should be named as it was reported he initially doubted she had drowned or had fallen in the river. Quoted sources, almost without exception name him. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BBC tells us he was Paul Ansell, so don't see a problem. But does it add very much? Just shows he had a different name to Bulley? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were in a long term relationship with children but not married but even married people can have different surnames. Prior to recovery of her body, he was subject to unfounded, defamatory social media accusations. He gave a sit down interview with Dan Walker for channel 5 TV. So naming him is in context to the loss he has suffered. Jaymailsays (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced. But no real objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What value would his name add to the understanding of the topic of the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Peter Lawson

[edit]

@DeFacto and Jaymailsays: I have removed the content about Lawson's death from the article as I don't see its relevance. Given that two different editors have objected to its inclusion, we must seek WP:CONSENSUS here before it is re-added. My thoughts are in the summary of my edit. MIDI (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MIDI, thanks for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary

[edit]

I'm not sure the documentary from a couple of days ago warrants its own section (either because of the lack of anything to say about it, or for its place in the events of this article). We mention the documentary twice, unnecessarily, and I propose combining the two mentions – I had made the change before realising that multiple editors had edited these bits, so have reverted pending anyone else's thoughts... MIDI (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I added a single sentence under "Criticism of the media and of Lancashire Police", although I wasn't sure that was the best location. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC) (p.s. I found the contributions of the psychics quite interesting/ disturbing and am surprised they don't get a separate mention somewhere. But the documentary does give a good overall impression of the social media storm and its effects)[reply]
Any addition needs some secondary source(s)/ reviews, e.g. The Independent, Standard, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]