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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
We need to describe the allegations as allegationsedit
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The WP:BLP is a very key foundation of Wikipedia policy. In particular, while I believe her story, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says we must use wording like “Allegedly” until reliable sources say the allegations are true. Samboy (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Here's the point: They're not allegations. If she had named someone, or there were criminal charges, then it would be allegations against the other person. Allegations are targeted. So the word use here is wrong.--Jorm (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Point taken. I have reworded it to “claim” (add added a third party reference for the claim) Samboy (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dykstra's Medium post update, and source relevance & qualityedit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dykstra lightly edited her original Medium post, appending an explanation to the post dated July 7. She had apparently made the change in the body of the text before July 7, though I don't know when; one of her numerous online critics pointed out the change in a tweet dated July 3, though the edit could have predated that (Dykstra doesn't provide that kind of detail in her July 7 note). Her original June 14 Medium post is archived here; her slightly updated newer version is here. I see no substantial difference between the two, though Dykstra apparently felt otherwise. My edit of the main article to reflect this was reverted, which is fine by me (I was going for full transparency).
Update - July 9, 2018 tweet by Dykstra: "Look, I’ll be honest, I have no idea how Medium works. I had used it once before. All I know is I changed it last second, and it didn’t save, which I’m grateful for. Regardless of my incompetence with Medium, I stand by every word of my essay."
On June 19, 2018 TMZ posted a piece with what they claimed to be text messages between Hardwick and Dykstra. From that article:
"According to the text thread, Chloe reached out to Chris 7 months later in an apparent attempt to make up. Sources close to Chris say it's hard to believe Chloe would try for months to get back with him if she was being emotionally and sexually abused, as she claimed last week."
As far as I can tell, Dykstra has not responded to this report, and neither has Hardwick publicly, only (as TMZ claims) via anonymous sources close to him. Regarding the assertion made by "sources close to Chris" in the second sentence of that block quote, that is strongly disputed by survivors of partner abuse as well as mental health professionals who counsel abuse victims. Victims seeking to return to their abusers - even if the need for food and shelter are not a factor - is an often encountered manifestation of a phenomenon known as trauma bonding. So it is entirely possible that the abuse alleged by Dykstra did take place, and that she sent texts to Hardwick seeking to return to the relationship. At least one edit I reverted tried to introduce this into the main article, but based on what's been presented by TMZ and other media to date, in my opinion both the thin sourcing and (more importantly) lack of relevance render it unsuitable for inclusion in the main article. Others are welcome to make the contrary case.
[Section updated 9JUL2018] Sharl928 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
UPDATE (August 11, 2018)
A recent tweet from Dykstra clarified the issue of why she didn't participate in the investigation undertaken by the employer of her alleged abuser:
Hey dudes. Just a reminder: I 100% stand by every single word of my essay. I made sure it was unembellished, factual, and that I had evidence to back it up in order to protect myself in case of ACTUAL litigation (not a network investigation, where I’m not protected). That is all.
I'm leaning toward incorporating this into the main article, perhaps as follows (potential new content is bolded below):
..., and that she had declined to participate in the investigation being undertaken by the organization that had employed her alleged abuser, a decision she explained in a later tweet as being made in order to avoid associated risk(s).{tweet-cite}
It isn't explicitly clear (to me) what the nature of the risk of participation in the investigation would have been for Dykstra, so my proposed edit is worded carefully (though ambiguously) to avoid presumptions on that score. Sharl928 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
