Someone else was being disruptive so I left that discussion alone for a bit. I just went back and saw you helped out. Thank you, I'm reading through the ban page now. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all! I like to pitch in on the rare occasions I believe I can actually be of some assistance. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings.
Why would it be necessary to achieve consensus? It is not the place of Wikipedians to decide the outcome of police cases when there was not a final report.
The assertion is supported by sources which are neither deprecated nor ambiguous. The media that gave the case as closed never mentioned any official source (i.e. a Thai officer identified by name and rank) but themselves relied on tabloid-kind sources, so, we don't have a case of impeccably reliable sources contradicting each other as to make of the subject a quaestio disputata.
I have many more sources, in English and Thai, that I could add to the paragraph to explain what the Thai authorities stated (chronologically, in excruciating detail), but that's the end of it. Neither the Thai police nor Dr. Baden gave a final report to the media. I did look for it. And a year later, the Associated Press confirmed there was none.
So, how come that a consensus is needed to simply include information that is supported by sources? Can you provide a source with the final forensic report to settle the matter? Should the article be left incomplete until - what should it happen to complete it, so many years later? The sources are clear.
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maykiwi, and thanks for stopping by. Wikipedia is not censored, but some of the more lurid details don't seem to add much to the article as a whole, at least according to myself and a few other editors. It's entirely possible that consensus has changed since the last time it was gauged, but the onus is on you to show that it has. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. You can either start an RfC or wait for more input on the talk page, however you'd like to move forward. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings.
I am a librarian and bibliographic researcher. I looked for the final report on that case for over a year, in English and Thai, unsuccessfully. Finally, in that report by AP, I got confirmation that the Thai police did not deliver any report. That's a fact, supported by remarkably clear sources. In my edition, I even toned down the original statement. If you dislike lurid details (which I also dislike), there are none in the full texts of the sources, just what was said by Thai police starting on June 4-5, 2009 (mind the time zones).
If Wikipedia isn't about censorship, why silencing the most important fact of the situation, that all the lurid conclusions (plus the disturbing photos you can *easily* find via Google) are unsupported by an official report? Is Wikipedia against the facts? Are we trying to ignore that this case was a media circus until Michael Jackson's death took the central ring?
A few Thai sources do include some lurid details, but most of them (the useful ones) simply reproduce the statements of the officers in charge, which are the point here. They can (they should) be included so what it's actually known about that investigation be recorded in order, but the end will not change. Interestingly, Thai sources are *way less* lurid than American ones. Even the Thairath was more moderate in its texts than the New York Post, the National Enquirer, NBC or ABC.
I see no reason to make such a problem of adding information supported by reliable sources. The quotes simply state what it was known then and is abundantly known today, plus the missing information: the final report was not released.
Have you checked the Thai version of this article? It also states that the case had not a conclusion, but it lacks sources to support it; nobody there spent over a year researching to find out what happened with the forensic report, but you bet people there remember the officers saying they were going to release a report and never doing it.
So, on what grounds would you argue against the inclusion of facts supported by sources which aren't lurid at all? Have you seen the article Death of Jeffrey Epstein? This section, after including all the relevant sources (the ones with the officers' statements) by no means will look like that article. It's unnecessary. Google results and mainstream media bring all the luridness anyone could want.
If you wish, I can drop here (or in another more convenient place) the whole body of links to the Thai sources so everybody can check this has been an exhaustive research. But the crucial ones are few, and from them you can see that the conclusion was never given. The Thai Wikipedians and the Associated Press know it. Are we trying to hide facts? How is that different from censorship?
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again Maykiwi, and I really am not *that* opposed to this material, I simply think the article is better without it. As stated at WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You're not likely to convince me on this count, so I would recommend convincing others. If you can find one other person who agrees with you, I would consider that a consensus in your favor (assuming no one chimes in on my side). Finally, I would remind you that each article is effectively a world unto itself; Wikipedia does not mandate or even suggest any sort of article-to-article conventions (other, of course, than those found in policies and the manual of style). I don't doubt your research or credentials at all, but we simply disagree on what the article should look like. That's okay, it happens quite a bit. So as I say, by all means, make your argument (probably on the article talk page) and see how things shake out. Consensus is the backbone of Wikipedia, and I think my ask here is pretty reasonable. Have a wonderful day (or night, depending on your time zone)! Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]