Talk:Jennifer Fairgate case

Name

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we are on solid ground just calling this article Jennifer Fairgate, as when other people have died under assumed names with their real names unknown, we have used their assumed identities, often even after their real names have been discovered and made public (like Lori Erica Ruff, for instance).

I suppose we could go with something like Death of Jennifer Fairgate, à la the closely similar Peter Bergmann case (person dies under assumed name with real name still unknown). But then we also have Lyle Stevik (we still use the assumed name because, when he was finally identified, the family asked that they, and by extension their relative, not be publicly identified).

Thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response, Daniel, but as one of the people helping clean up this article, I support as per WP:COMMONNAME.

RidgelantRL (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

AI generated?

Hi everyone. As someone working on this article, I've put several sections through an AI-generated text detector, and gotten a high probability (80-100%) each time, excluding sections that have been rewritten by other contributors. Checking through the page history, the first version not only seems like a response to a question someone asked ChatGPT (beginning with the line "The case of Jennifer Fergate is one of Norway’s most baffling unsolved mysteries",) but also the strange formatting, such as random unnecessary bullet points indicative of an AI that forgot it just made practically the same list a couple of sentences ago. Does this classify for a rewrite of the article? If so, how much of it? I'm not too familiar with WP guidelines about such things, so I'd appreciate someone reaching out.

RidgelantRL (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you have a good suspicion here. If you look at the article stats of the creator, and their edit history, it appears to be a continual pattern. Nayyn (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

if it's a continual pattern then this article should be deleted, rewritten by someone that isn't incompetent and the user posting lazy ai slop should be banned. the absolute state of this website. putting a disclaimer at the top of the page simply isn't good enough and is insulting to the reader. 59.102.44.206 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, much of the article has already been rewritten. Maybe we could check the article history, compare the original AI stuff to the stuff that has been rewritten by a human, and rewrite everything that hasn’t been rewritten yet? RidgelantRL (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Why would this matter ??? The quality of some "editors" falls below that of even a basic AI output. Additionally afer a lot of work can this "This article may incorporate text from a large language model. It may include hallucinated information or fictitious references. Copyright violations or claims lacking verification should be removed. Additional guidance is available on the associated project page. (March 2025)" now be removed ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:8DDF:F590:3FCB:FF12:D115:C8E (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for review: tone and sourcing

Hi all, I'm working on improving this article but would appreciate input on whether the tone is neutral and if the current sources adequately support the content. Please feel free to copyedit or flag specific concerns. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:8D5F:F64D:922D:B8D4:40A7:167E (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)