This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok
A fact from Boneghazi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 January 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: expecting a ghazillion wikicup points when the next competition starts, please and thank you
Moved to mainspace by Theleekycauldron (talk) and Tamzin (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 74 past nominations.
New enough, long enough. This is very well written and it is supported by source, interesting hook and article, QPQ done.
The only issue is I feel like this is on the edge of NEVENT (or NCRIME, I guess?) sourcing-wise and some may raise questions as to the notability of this. The main claim to notability here is the Vice piece, which has its own considerations, though I would accept it for this case. There is an academic mention cited here but from how it's cited here I can't tell how significant it is, but is probably sigcov. Otherwise all the coverage is questionable when it comes to WP:LASTING.
I would vote keep on this at AfD and wouldn't take issue with it personally, given the depth of coverage and the academic mention, but I do feel like this is going to get AfDed once it has left the main page (but will probably survive). Also, I am unsure how I feel, but I feel others may have issues with this hook as it relates to the DYK provision of not running unduly negative hooks about living people on the main page, since this involves crime and the bone thief in question is not a public figure. So I will ask for a second opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, PARAKANYAA! NEVENT was a big consideration when we were deciding whether to write this article, but a few factors tipped it over the edge for us. First, the incident led to the state of Louisiana passing a new law, so that's basically ripped out of WP:LASTING. In terms of persistence of coverage, the incident was brought up again when TikTok had a similar controversy six years later, there's some pretty decent retrospective analysis about what state Tumblr was in 2015 and how it compared to TikTok in 2021. As for the spread of coverage, I think the Vice, Washington Post, Intelligencer articles are pretty deep dives from nationwide publications, in addition to the local papers that cover more of the local aspect. Happy to let Tamzin or uninvolved people weigh in here, but I think a closer inspection makes a pretty good case for an NEVENT pass. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't think about the law, which I do agree makes this a better case, though I'm still not fully confident someone won't take issue with it. Even apart from that the BLP aspect of this hook does seem like the kind of thing that someone, rightly or wrongly, would bring up at WP:ERRORS. I think more thoughts on it would help, given how many discussions the "unduly focused on a negative aspect of a living person" bit has resulted in. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if we can do anything about the "wrongly" half there, but WP:DYKBLP is pretty clear about what it covers: "hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons". Mx. Darling is known exclusively for one thing, and that's their role in this controversy, so I think that's satisfied. We're also not naming them in the hook, nor mentioning the legal proceedings in it, nor is the name we use in the article their legal name. (That name shows up in a minority of sources, so we judged it better on privacy grounds to only use their other name.) I don't think you're wrong to speculate that this might get objected to or AfD'd, because some people are bad at assessing notability of pop-culture articles; I'm just not sure what else we can do to mitigate what's more a systemic problem in DYK and Wikipedia. Not really trying to disagree with you on anything here, PARAKANYAA; just explaining how I see it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's convincing. I do have the same interpretation of DYKBLP, but there seems to be a minority interpretation that applies more broadly that I see around. People may take issue with this one, but I believe it abides by our policies. So I will approve this (though if other people would chime in with their thoughts that is of course welcome). PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will be reviewing this shortly. I use the GA Table and make most of my comments below the table so it is easier for nominators to respond to my feedback. I usually start with assessing images, stability, and sources then move on from there. I am fine with nominators responding to my feedback as it is given or all at the end. If you have any questions feel free to either ask me here or leave a message on my talk page! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I checked the following sources and found no issues: [1][2][3][4][5]. No unreliable sources were used. I do have one question about the sources which I noted below. Love that the references also look nice which isn't apart of the criteria but always nice to see. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For criteria 1, 3, and 4 I usually read through the article carefully and provide feedback as I read. This often looks like me suggesting things be reworded, asking for further explanation etc. Oftentimes I will ask questions about the article that come from a place of not being educated on the topic. Sometimes these questions don't have answers or don't result in any changes needing to be made. I ask these questions so I can better understand the topic and thus better provide feedback. Throughout this process, I often make small changes to grammar or punctuation. I try to make these changes by section and if you disagree with any changes I make feel free to revert them! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to both you and leek, I have been busy with finals and some off-wiki stuff. I truly try not to keep nominators waiting this long. I will get on with my review in the next day. Thanks for checking in! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)23:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is technically optional but I'd argue this kind of falls under list incorperation and prose. I won't fail the article if you don't change this but it would read better if changed. I'm noticing in the history section, you have a bit of WP:PROSELINE going on (eg: In 2015, On December 8, 2015, On December 12. This doesn't seem to be an issue elsewhere but some variation in sentence structure would look nice! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Queer Witch Collective is one such group of neopagan witches, a Facebook group that had over 2,000 members at its peak. This sentence kind of requires me to jump back and forth a bit more than I would like. For clarity I would suggest maybe changing it to something along the lines of The Queer Witch Collective, a Facebook group that had over 2,000 members at its peak, is one such group of neopagan witches.
"She provides the bones if I only take what the earth gives, and I leave offerings" of drink, honey, and flowers. I'm curious if Ender explicitly stated they leave offerings of drink, honey, and flowers or if this detail was later added? This is more of a personal curiosity than feedback but there may be feedback depending on your answer. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in Tourjée, just not the same bit that's quoted: 'Are you making any sort of offering or payment at the graveyard, to the dead or the spirits of the land?' one user questioned. 'I bring drink and honey and flowers,' Darling responded. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first, other members reacted positively, although with some concern about the legality of Darling's actions. -> At first, members reacted positively, although some had concerns about the legality of Darling's actions.? IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that when recomending prose changes like this they are usually just things that jump out at me and it is up to you if you choose to change it. I will explicitly note if I believe the prose is somehow against the criteria. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)02:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moderators defended Darling—who, while white-passing, is described by Vice as a "witch of color"—under their anti-shaming rule. Optional nitpick here, it might improve clarity to say "moderators of the Facebook group" as many, younger, readers may not be familiar with Facebook. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The moderators attempted to foster discussion of the racial aspects of the dispute, but some users still left in disgust Similiar to above, and optional, but consider writing as "left the group in disgust". IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with The New Orleans Advocate three months later, Darling called the search a "waste of time" and defended themself as "car[ing] more than you [New Orleanians] care about your dead", in reference to the state of the cemetery. They said of the bones that were seized: Something about this bit, whether it's the number of quotes or just how they are strung together, makes it a little hard to read. I'm going to classify this as an optional piece of feedback as it is not badly written or written in a way that prevents me from understanding the content, however, I'll try to explain what's making it a bit hard to read while also suggesting some changes. The first sentence, In an interview with The New Orleans Advocate three months later, Darling called the search a "waste of time" and defended themself as "car[ing] more than you [New Orleanians] care about your dead", in reference to the state of the cemetery. I would suggest maybe splitting in half just because the quotes really make this sentence a little bit too lengthy. Maybe something along the lines of In an interview with The New Orleans Advocate three months later, Darling called the search a "waste of time". In the same interview they defended themselves as "car[ing] more than you [New Orleanians] care about your dead", referring to the state of the cemetary. Additionally, They said of the bones that were seized: just doesn't sound quite right to me. Maybe something along the lines of In regards to the bones that were seized they said:. Overall these changes are mostly preference and there is nothing wrong with the prose here I just wanted to throw this all out there for you guys to think about! IntentionallyDense(Contribs)00:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a whack at fixing this one a bit differently; I put their reaction next to others' reactions after the blockquote, which I think makes both sentences flow a bit more cleanly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.png){kind=small}
New enough, long enough. This is very well written and it is supported by source, interesting hook and article, QPQ done.
That's convincing. I do have the same interpretation of DYKBLP, but there seems to be a minority interpretation that applies more broadly that I see around. People may take issue with this one, but I believe it abides by our policies. So I will approve this (though if other people would chime in with their thoughts that is of course welcome). PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done, with some modifications :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)