Talk:Rosemary Tonks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Andrew Motioin

Comment from Andrew Motion, published in The Times, 30 October 2004

Disappeared! What happened? Because I admire her poems, I've been trying to find out for years ... according to some people she became a Sufi. Others say she entered a closed order.
Others imagine her footloose and anonymous, travelling the wide world. In any event, no trace of her seems to survive - apart from the writing she left behind.

Poetlister 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I note that debate on the question of disappearance (or otherwise) has ceased. Can anybody comment on the name of her husband? Did she have children? What was the name of the purportedly Christian, sometimes quoted "sect" that she joined?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.236.16 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Possible answer

I did the last Dictionary of Literary Biography entry on Rosemary Tonks, and I can tell you that there is no public record of her after 1984, which is the year that she stopped contributing information to Writer's Directories. I looked everywhere for a trace of her, but I didn't find anything. I don't think that she "disappeared" since there is no evidence of that either. I'd say that she simply stopped writing and stopped being a writer, given the evidence available. One article speculates that her spiritual journey caused her silence and so I made use of that, but there is no direct evidence that this is how Tonks felt, other than a passage about her growing disillusionment in her last novel, The Halt During the Chase. Tonks' precise reasons for withdrawing from the public world remain known only to herself.

Jrak 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the best way to proceed would be to state the facts exactly as we have them -- she stopped writing (or at least publishing), stopped contributing to directories, and various people in the literary world have tried to track her down but failed -- without jumping to conclusions about her fate or speculating about her motives. What does everyone else think? Perodicticus 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Googled and UK search engine shows no mention of Tonks after Novenber 1973. Is she really missing? Only found info that her conversion to fundamentalist Christianity stopped her writing career early. She may have just went in private life and her fan base lost track of her.-Dakota

Read my quote from the Poet Laureate. He surely has better connections in the literary world than most people, yet he says that he has found no trace of her after several years of asking. - Poetlister 08:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In the early 1970s, she became involved with a fundamentalist Christian sect and disappeared
This seems to suggest her disappearance (if that is indeed what it is) is connected to her membership of this sect. Is that the case? Where is the evidence for that connection? Has she ever been reported to police as a missing person? Have any official searches been made for her? JackofOz 08:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DakotaKahn and JackofOz. There is no evidence that Tonks "disappeared" in the way that most people would interpret that term. She simply seems to have chosen to stay out of the limelight. I've edited the article to reflect this. Anyone who wants to restore the claim that she "disappeared" should provide actual documentation of this, like a missing-persons report. (The fact that Andrew Motion was unable to track her down proves nothing except that she didn't want him contacting her -- I wouldn't either!) Perodicticus 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted a source that passes WP:RS, namely an article in The Times, that said she disappeared. I have quoted another source (the external link) that says "her conversion to fundamentalist Christianity stopped her writing career short in the early 1970s". Wikipedia proceeds by quoting reliable sources. Anything else, like speculating about her attitude to the Poet Laureate, violates WP:NOR.--Poetlister 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "reliable sources" do not say what you think they say. One of them states that she stopped writing, which is not the same as "disappearing." The other says that a particular person was unable to track her down. As I said, this could mean simply that she wished to avoid publicity or did not want to be contacted by this particular individual. I can find no evidence that she has ever been reported missing to police or that her family have expressed concern about her whereabouts, which are the criteria one would normally use for declaring a person "disappeared." I don't have time to get into a revert war with you; however, since three people have now expressed doubt about the "disappeared" claim, I'm tagging this article as disputed until consensus can be reached. Perodicticus 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't we say something like "nothing is publicly known about her life after that time"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a sensible option (though it did get reverted last time I tried it). Perodicticus 10:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree that it is a good idea, provided a reputable source says it. Otherwise, it would violate WP:NOR.--Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the sources say

I give the relevant texts below. Note that we have two sources that she disappeared - not just the Poet Laureate but also the popular poetry anthology "Being Alive". On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has been produced that she has not disappeared. I quite agree that the article should say no more than these reliable sources do. I shal ensure that it does, and remove the "disputed" tag.--Poetlister 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Times (London); Oct 30, 2004; Andrew Motion, A S Byatt, Shirley Mansion, David Baddiel, Saffron Burrows; p. 8
The Staying Alive anthology became one of Britain's most popular poetry books, selling more than 76,000 copies. Now a sequel, Being Alive, is about to hit the shelves. We asked some admirers to pick their favourites
ANDREW MOTION
The best thing we can say about the index to a poetry anthology is that it's reliable. But the index to Being Alive does more than that: it quietly advertises one of the mysteries of late 20th- century poetry -by putting, after the name of the contributor Rosemary Tonks, "b. London, 1932: disappeared 1970s".
Disappeared! What happened? Because I admire her poems, I've been tying to find out for years. She published some fiction and two collections of poems during the late-middle of the century, lived in Hampstead for a while, then...Well, according to some people she became a Sufi. Others say she entered a closed order.
Others imagine her footloose and anonymous, travelling the wide world. In any event, no trace of her seems to survive -apart from the writing she left behind.
It's a bewitching story, and seems all the more fascinating for the challenge it makes to our cult of celebrity. Not only that: the poems are seriously interesting, too -often Frenchified and/or fruity, hectic, and with a strangely irritable eroticism.
Story of a Hotel Room is a good example. If enough editors put her in their anthologies a publisher might re-issue her collected works. It would be worth it: she's a distinctive and authentic voice. They might even track her down -if she's still alive, and willing to be found again.
Andrew Motion is the Poet Laureate. His novel The Invention of Dr Cake is published by Faber

---
Rosemary Tonks was a poet of considerable innovation and originality, until her conversion to fundamentalist Christianity stopped her writing career short in the early 1970s.

I'm sorry, but dispute tags should not be removed until consensus has been reached. Please remember that this article is not your private property.
At any rate, now that I have read the pieces you quote above, I am more convinced than ever that they do NOT prove what you claim they prove (views from other editors on this point would be welcome). In fact, Motion's article actually seems to support what I have been saying -- that Tonks has simply chosen to live in obscurity. He certainly doesn't say anything to make me think she fits the criteria for Category:Disappeared people --"Category for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate is a mystery."
Using the term "disappeared" to describe Tonks' post-literary life seems highly misleading to me (do we say T.E. Lawrence "disappeared" when he changed his name and joined the RAF?), and there appear to be at least four other editors who agree with me. As for your statement that "no evidence whatsoever has been produced that she has not disappeared," that is because one cannot prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove that she has disappeared; otherwise, we are entitled to assume she hasn't. Perodicticus 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely we have to take what Motion says, not what we think he ought to have said. Motion says that she disappeared and this is "one of the mysteries of late 20th-century poetry". It is an utterly different case from T. E. Lawrence; plenty of people knew were he was and what he was doing. I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. It would be quite possible to prove that she has not disappeared - find some evidence of her whereabouts or activities after 1984. I have proved that she has disappeared; I have produced two reliable sources that say so. The onus is thus on others to prove that she hasn't, by showing where she has been since 1984.--Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible compromise?

Poetlister, as you seem very attached to the word "disappeared," I would like to suggest that the article be changed to read "disappeared from the public eye" or "from the literary scene." This would keep the notion of "disappearance" without misleading the reader as to the nature of the disappearance. Would this be acceptable to you? Perodicticus 11:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree that it is a good idea, provided a reputable source says it. Otherwise, it would violate WP:NOR. "Disappeared" isn't my word - it's what the sources say. --Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I presume we don't have any sources talking of unsolved police cases, or stating that she is officially a "missing person"? In this case, it is probably reasonably to interpret "disappeared" as "disappeared from the public eye" and it would also be reasonable to clarify the article text to reflect this. To my mind this would not constitute original research. To further clarify we could include in a footnote the exact text which simply uses the word "disappeared". Does this sound ok?? Stumps 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've had a closer look at the article and it seems we are close to this, with the detailed footnotes already there. My interpretation of the sources is that she became "untraceable". I think the word "disappeared" has too many interpretations. Am I right in thinking there is only one primary source for this information, i.e. the contributor's note in the anthology?? Has anybody tried to contact the editor of the anthology and ask what the original source for this information is?? Stumps 10:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there are two independent sources - the anthology and Andrew Motion's own enquiries. How about 'she disappeared so completely from the public view that even the Poet Laureate, Andrew Motion, has been unable to find any information about her whereabouts or activities and has described her disappearance as a mystery.' - Poetlister 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no earthly need to insist on police records to prove disappearance. Is anyone suggesting that Ambrose Bierce didn't disappear? I'd say Poetlister is bending over backwards to make everyone happy. Let's accept what she says and be done with it.--Brownlee 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've taken note of all the above and discussed with a few other people. As a resi#ult, I've been able to expand the article quite a bit. Is everyone happy now?--Poetlister 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's excellent. Good work! Perodicticus 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog reference

Never heard of Rosemary Tonks before today, but the mystery is intriguing. A very quick look at Google brought up a June 16, 2006 blog entry by poetry editor Nate Dorward, which may or may not be reliable, depending on your tolerance for blog entries. The entry states:

"She (Tonks) was still alive circa 2000 when Keith Tuma & I were securing permissions for the selections in the Anthology of 20th-Century British and Irish Poetry. We didn’t correspond directly but were given to understand by the literary agent that she was indeed still kicking. I haven’t seen an obit since then, so think she’s still around."

Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry edited by Keith Tuma does exist according to Amazon, so somehow they got permission to use Tonks' poetry in the 2001 book. Or at least nobody objected when the poems were used. The collection claims the following about Tonks on page xxxiii:

"Reprinted by permission of the author. Rosemary Tonks: "The Sofas, Fogs and Cinemas", "The Little Cardboard Suitcase", and "The Ice-cream Boom Towns". (Available at the Amazon.com entry for Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry (Paperback), though registration is required to search inside the book)

I kinda like the mystery. I read the poems in the collection, and they were a little too breathless and high-flown for my taste, but not awful. Casey Abell 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can prove anything with blogs. I've found one [1] that says "Several people have been trying to contact her, or her estate, for permission to include her poems in their anthologies - but there is no trace of her. It seems that, following her religious conversion, she abruptly ceased writing poetry and withdrew from the world. It is not even known whether she is still alive." To be cynical, maybe they couldn't find anyone to ask permission from so went ahead and used them anyway, hoping it would be OK. And the Keith Tuma book is already quoted in the article.--Brownlee 13:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the blog entry I quoted mentions the efforts to get permission for a collected edition of Tonks' poetry. According to that blog entry by Nate Dorward, an editor named Michael Schmidt at Carcanet Press has been "trying for years to get permission to do a collected Tonks". I don't see any reason to doubt the good faith of Dorward's blog entry. He admits that he never corresponded directly with Tonks but had to go through an intermediary. He doesn't pretend that he sat down for tea with her and talked about the weather.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything with Dorward's blog entry, except to show that others have tried to contact Tonks over the years. By the way, the Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry is mentioned in the article but not quoted. Again, I see no reason to doubt the good faith of its assertion that the editors obtained — apparently through an intermediary — permission to use Tonks' poetry. Casey Abell 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the references: there is one that says 'Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry (ed. Keith Tuma) contains a biography cited as "Tuma"'. I quote Tuma extensively. It may well be that before Rosemary Tonks disappeared, she delegated her copyright authority to some agent, and that the agent has no reason to believe she has died.--Poetlister 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to get ridiculously technical, but the article paraphrases Tuma's work and doesn't quote it. Nothing wrong with that, as Seinfeld might say. The paraphrases are all carefully sourced. One thing the article definitely doesn't refer to in any way is the anthology's assertion that Tonks gave permission to use her poems. For the life of me, I can't imagine why the anthology would lie about this matter. Tonks' poems make up three pages in a nearly thousand-page anthology. If there had been the slightest doubt about Tonks' permission, the poems could have been dropped without anybody noticing, much less caring.

I'm not convinced by the mystery-at-any-price explanation that a literary agent, completely unaware of Tonks' whereabouts or even whether she is still alive, is handing out permissions. The far more prosaic and likely explanantion is that, through the agent, Tonks gave Tuma and Dorward permission to use a very brief selection of her poems in the huge OUP anthology. And it's not incredible that she is currently reluctant to hand out permission for a separate, full collection of her poems, as Dorward comments, because of the unwanted publicity it might attract. I admit this explanation is desperately dull, much less entertaining than the poet-disappears-under-mysterious-circumstances-and-nobody-on-earth-knows-where-she-is story line. In a strange way, I hope your explanation is correct. As I said, I like the mystery. But my guess is that the explanation is, sadly, far more prosaic. Tonks just wants to avoid publicity. Casey Abell 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to correct one thing I wrote. I misquoted the OUP anthology on the permission for Tonks' poetry. The anthology states that the permission was obtained through Sheil Land Associates, Ltd. They're apparently the literary agent that Dorward referred to in his blog. I did a quick Google check, and this organization seems to be a legitimate agency. It strikes me as unlikely in the extreme that they would be handing out permissions without Tonks' consent or knowledge. Otherwise, we would probably have seen a full collected edition of her poetry by now. Literary agents hardly like to sit on publishable and potentially profitable material, and there have apparently been very real efforts to get permission from Tonks for a full collection.
Again, I think the most likely explanation is hopelessly humdrum: Tonks wants to avoid publicity and is resisting efforts to get her permission for a full collection, as opposed to use of a few poems buried in a massive anthology. Let's hope I'm wrong and there's some much more intriguing mystery involved (wink). Casey Abell 18:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I paraphrased Tuma rather than quoting him verbatim. I had to avoid a copyvio. But the fact that I referenced him more than once might have alerted people to the fact that I was aware of his work. As for the literary agent, it is plausible that Tonks gave instructions to him or others before she disappeared and the agent is doing no more than following his instructions.--Poetlister 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, if you have to have mystery at any cost. But is it plausible that Tonks would have disappeared while leaving detailed instructions on exactly which three poems should be authorized if a couple editors turned up decades later with an anthology project? Sorry, but after a while the mystery-making seems a little silly. As I said, I hope you're right, and there's some appealing mystery at work. But the far more logical (and sadly boring) explanation is that Tonks granted permission, through her agent, for those three poems in the anthology - and is now resisting requests for a complete collection because she doesn't want the publicity. Casey Abell 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

I've just read this page, and the issues are easily resolved by looking at policy. Key is WP:NOR:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say....
Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details....
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;...
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;...

"original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.

Also relevant is WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

And WP:TPG:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

If a reliable source says something, then that is what wiki then says, without including interpretation and speculation. If there are two conflicting reliable sources, then they are both included from a WP:NPOV, giving appropriate (not necessarily equal) weight to each. In this case there is only one source, which is Andrew Motion in The Times. That is the statement that should be made, and which finally has been:
As Andrew Motion wrote in 2004, she "Disappeared! What happened? Because I admire her poems, I've been trying to find out for years... no trace of her seems to survive - apart from the writing she left behind."
As far as an agent granting permission for use of her work, that is all that we know — that an agent granted permission. That can be stated, but nothing further, because nothing further can be (or at least has been) verified. If there were a universally necessary condition attached to giving such permission, i.e. that the poet must be alive in contact with the agent at that point in time, then it would be a different matter, but there is no such universal condition, and all number of explanations can be made. An agent acting on behalf of a writer would continue to do so in their absence, rather than turn away income, (unless receiving instructions to the contrary) so it proves nothing.
Happy editing!
Tyrenius 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll add the following statement to the article in the "Career" section:
Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry, which published three of Tonks' poems in 2001, states that permision to use her poems was obtained from a literary agency, Sheil Land Associates, Ltd.[1]
To comment further, I'm not sure why Nate Dorward shouldn't be accepted as a reliable source. As far as I can see, his statements about getting permission for the use of Tonks' poetry are supported by the permission notice in the 2001 anthology. He appears to be a legitimate poetry editor of a magazine called The Gig.[2] He has also published music criticism in a number of magazines.[3] I realize he published his comments about Tonks in a blog. But the article already cites another blog in the very first footnote. I won't press the issue, because for some reason Dorward's blog seems to be considered unreliable while the other blog is accepted. But in his blog Dorward states that the literary agent gave him to understand Tonks was still alive around 2000. Including this statement in the article might set off dispute, though, so I won't add it. Neither will I add Dorward's assertion that another poetry editor, Michael Schmidt, has been trying to get permission for a collected Tonks, with no success.
I'm also not sure I understand the statement: "An agent acting on behalf of a writer would continue to do so in their absence, rather than turn away income, (unless receiving instructions to the contrary) so it proves nothing." In fact, there seem to have been efforts to get permission for a collected edition of Tonks' poetry, which have been turned away - or at least have been unsuccessful so far. Does this mean the agent is receiving instructions to the contrary? All this is speculation, which I agree shouldn't be included in the article. But at least we can say that an agent granted permission for the use of three of her poems in 2001. Casey Abell 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first footnote doesn't cite a blog anymore. Blogs aren't considered a reliable source as general rule, but editorial judgement has to be made. A blog by a named staff journalist on the Guardian web site would be acceptable (but not a post made in response to the same blog by a member of the public). These things have to be arrived at by consensus, both in general and on a case by case basis. I don't object myself to the Nate Dorward reference, as it seems reliable, but maybe another editor would. The danger is illustrated by former "note 1" where a blog said she was born in Argentina, but Bloodaxe say it was London. They obviously both can't be right, so we go with the reliable source (that doesn't mean it's right!). Tyrenius 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including Dorward's comments in the article, even in ultra-careful "he stated" style, might cause some dispute. So why bother? The reference is on the talk page for anybody who's really interested. The whole issue of blog reliability is a difficult one. Frankly, some editors might object to a Guardian blog as biased by the paper's well-known political tendencies. And a response on a blog by a member of the public might well be more reliable than a comment by a named staff jounalist. Jayson Blair was a named staff journalist, after all. Leaving the reliability of blog entries to consensus is probably the only possible approach, but this means a few objectors can keep out material that really should be in an article to provide balance. I believe Dorward's comments on Tonks, for instance, would be a useful counterweight to Motion's uninformed (by his own admission) speculations. But again, it's not worth a fight. Casey Abell 13:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:NPOV. That only applies to editors, not to sources, which can be (and often are) POV. The editor must represent these fairly, according to their importance and significance. Re. Dorward, there is always WP:BRD. Discussion doesn't have to be a fight! Tyrenius 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on my understanding of WP:NPOV. After nearly nine thousand edits to the encyclopedia - admittedly, a couple thousand were anonymous - I think I have a good understanding of the policy. But I would say that, wouldn't I? (wink). Also, while I agree about being bold, you have to know when to pick your fights (or discussions). Adding Dorward's comments to the article would produce disagreement, and this frankly isn't an article where I care enough to start a disagreement. I've had my say on the talk page, and I'll leave it at that. Casey Abell 15:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to spend any more time on it, because this isn't the right place, but WP:POV is worth another look. Tyrenius 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Wikipedia:Guide to layout Mostly this seems to be followed, but it does allow for section order to be changed by poets and mathematicians. Tyrenius 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Disappeared" categorisation revisited

Since the only "users" supporting Tonks' description as a "disappeared person" in the earlier discussion were apparently all sockpuppets of a single user who has since been banned, would anyone object if Tonks were removed from the "Disappeared people" category? For reasons discussed at length above, she really does not seem to fit the criteria. Perodicticus 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The "disappeared" category may be a little melodramatic. Still, Tonks has disappeared from general public view, though there's some evidence that she may have maintained contact with her literary agency. If and when she resurfaces in public, we could remove the category. For now, though, the category still seems somewhat appropriate. Casey Abell 16:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories should be based on article content. The only observation on her whereabouts in the article is by Andrew Motion, who says she "disappeared", so that would seem to justify the category. Tyrenius 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Motion admits his complete ignorance of the situation, so it seems pretty far-fetched to hang even a Wikipedia category on his comments. But Tonks does seem to have dropped from public sight, though a poetry editor says her literary agency assured him in 2000 that she was still alive. As long as she stays out of public view, I'd keep the category, but not because of what Motion says. Casey Abell 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you don't accept that, then there is no justification for the category. Otherwise she is simply keeping a very low profile. The lack of presence doesn't justify the assertion of disappearance, unless there is a source to say so. So category goes then. Tyrenius 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we're only hanging the category on Motion's comments, then maybe it should go. By his own admission, Motion has no knowledge of the supposed "disappearance." We could change the category to "Possibly living people." Casey Abell 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories should be totally justified by the article per WP:BLP#Categories. I've looked at some people in Category:Possibly living people. It includes some people whose birth date is unknown, some who have been declared legally dead, some who are believed to be dead. I'm not sure Tonks can be presumed to be anything other than alive by sources available. Tyrenius 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone seems agreed on the facts relating to Rosemary Tonks; the problem is the meaning of Category:Disappeared people. This discussion should be moved to Category talk:Disappeared people. There are too many poorly-specified categories in Wikipedia; editors should not take a Category as a tablet of stone handed down from on high. If a category is vague, it should be clarified; if it is unworkable, it should be deleted (not just removed from articles, but WP:CFDed). jnestorius(talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)