Talk:Murder of Emily Sander

Body Location Source

There's a screencapped post on a certain internet imageboard that claims to be the original source of the location, posted previous to the actual discovery. The coordinates claimed on that message were 37.761962N, 96.210194W. About 38 miles east of Toronto, Kansas. News stories posted the day after the timestamp on the post did not specify the exact location of the body, but did say it was found about 50 miles east of Toronto. It's either an enormous coincidence or...

It's more likely that someone had connections with the police IMO, especially since they found the body on the 29th. And we can't really use a screencap as a reliable source. I don't know what to think of the whole thing. Maybe if some news report came out about it then it would pass the guidelines. 75.8.36.194 (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Emily Sander

I'm not sure about the notability of this just yet. Sure, it made local news... and I hope the girl's okay... but as of now, it's not really "encyclopedic" because people disappear worldwide every day. What's special about this one that makes it an entry into an encyclopedia? --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The two ABC links make it borderline notable IMO. I would be neutral in an AfD. I wouldn't oppose to one anyway. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest against an AFD now... it would be a lot of needless drama when we ultimately don't yet know if this story will be of long-term importance. It seems to be getting national media coverage now, [1] it will be a few months before there's really any point to assessing whether the story is of the long-term importance mandated by BLP. Any arguments for or against that right now is just conjecture. --W.marsh 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

You have an image, with three names in the caption, but you don't say who those people are in the article. This is BAD journalism folks. 4.240.201.122 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not journalism. 192.148.223.14 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about the image for another reason. The article used to say who those people were, but I removed that information to comply with WP:BLP policy. The reasons for my concern are related to this diff Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"news" is not "encyclopedia"

My only issue... at this time... is that the information is presently changing rapidly. That makes it more "news" than "encyclopedic" to me. I'm not going to make an official call for deletion (it CERTAINLY is not a speedy delete) but I'd like to get some other comments rolling.

We must be very, very careful when posting information that can rapidly change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true of a lot of articles though, really. We had articles on Abu Ghraib immediately after the story broke while information was still unclear; we have articles on presidential elections when results are still coming in, etc. The solution is just to put the "current" tag to warn readers, and make an effort to keep things up to date. --Delirium (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This story has definitely passed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and has been the headline in major newspapers and websites.EgraS (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We also need to be careful and verify facts about living persons in the article.--Paul McDonald 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a specific tag for current events, which I put at the top when I created this article. If Wikipedia didn't want news, that tag wouldn't be there. Thanks to all who worked on and improved this article! I put it up quickly, and it's now much better. Toyalla 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete article

Once America's interest in this story wanes and moves onto the next story, probably a few days, can this article please be deleted per notabilty? I'll check back then, thanks, --Tom 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC))ps, to the few editors(you know who you are) I see here who specialize in these type of current event news stories, nice work so far, anyways --Tom 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll likely get put of for AfD in a week or so. --Strothra 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the original question: no, this article cannot be deleted when media interest wanes, per notability. --Nehwyn 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And there's also the WP:NOT#NEWS issue in addition to NN. --Strothra 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Subject is notable. Why can't people leave things alone? Multiple reliable sources establish notability. Nobody of Consequence 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability" (WP:N#TEMP) WWGB 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially a description of a crime; not suitable for an encyclopedia article--81.101.253.108 12:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Modelling

• She is not notable for her nude modelling that only came to light after her death, it has no bearing on her death. Just because tabloid media articles choose to play up this aspect doesn't mean Wikipedia should. It's disgraceful. RMHED 00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you're edit warring and have made 4 reverts so far. Second, how do you know it didn't have to do with her death? As far as I know it hasn't been ruled out. Third, we don't mention only events relevent to someone's death in their biography. Most things people do in life aren't directly relevant to their deaths, yet we mention them in their biographies. --W.marsh 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with W.marsh. This article is supposed to be about her, not just her death. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made 3 reverts, the first wasn't a revert but an edit. I'll carry on reverting after 24 hours if I deem it right to do so. RMHED 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're confessing to textbook edit warring then? From WP:3RR: "In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day"... "Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks". --W.marsh 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not advised. WP:3RR is not an entitlement, it is an electric fence. Read it; attempting to game the system can get you blocked. See if you can use reason and logic to convince people instead, it works much better. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I confess to everything and nothing whichever pleases you, but as you W.marsh made a very bad premature close on this afd, perhaps you should step back and leave well alone. RMHED 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You're the one stating his intent to do something that policy says he could blocked for... why am I the one who needs to step back? I just intend to discuss the issue, which is hardly disruptive. --W.marsh 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• I said I would revert "If I deem it right to do so", that is not a statement of intent, but a statement of potential intent. If you want to get into legalese then please be accurate. RMHED 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• The general process on Wikipedia nowadays is to keep articles that have stayed in the headlines of many major newspapers for more than a few days. I, too, agree with W. Marsh and everything he's done. Anything with 2000+ news sources and has attracted the attention of an entire country is notable enough to be kept. EgraS 02:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a tabloid newspaper? RMHED 02:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This article has been reported by major newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle. You can't call that a tabloid. EgraS 02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Time for tea

I'm not getting involved in either side of this debate, but thought I'd issue a friendly invite for all parties concerned to relax, smell some roses and have a nice cup of tea. No need for words like trolling as far as I can see. It's just a difference of opinion. So be nice to each other :) Manning 02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the first person to mention "trolling", here or on the AFD, is you. --W.marsh 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The trolling reference was made in the edit summaries on a different page (but with regard to this dispute). Regards Manning 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Will you tell us specifically what this other page with the trolling-accusation edit summaries is? --W.marsh 02:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was User talk:Jimbo Wales, for the curious. I don't think that anyone's trolling here, but appeals to Jimbo are a bit dramatic. --W.marsh 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and am in the process of issuing a friendly reminder to the party concerned. However, what I see here is a heated disagreement, where one party is perhaps a bit upset that the consensus is going the other way. I'd just like to see it all calm down a bit.Manning 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't need a friendly reminder, so you can stop stalking my edits now. — Save_Us_229 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. So far you have accused one editor of trolling, and you have accused me of stalking and "encouraging trolling". I'm just giving you a friendly reminder to take a chill pill :) In your defence, I should not have reverted that comment on your talk page, so my apology for that :) Manning 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole mess has been made by only a few users. There's mention that this page is more harm than good, without mention of what harm. Also, Sander had 30,000 subscribers paying $39.95 a month to her website despite only opening it for a grand total of four or five months. She is clearly important enough to deserve mention on this site. In terms of pay, she was one of the top-paid porn stars in the entire industry. And i really dont think Jimbo Wales will even look at the discussion there. EgraS 03:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Earning a lot of money through pornography and dying are not sufficient reasons for a dedicated encyclopedia article, this site could become clogged with dubious articles under these criteria.--AssegaiAli 12:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A classic case of a (possibly) non-notable person in notable circumstances

Just some observations that may explain why this debate is a bit heated. RHMED - I can see your point that this she might be a non-notable girl and there is the element of her death being "exploited". Your sympathy to her cause is admirable and I applaud it.

However even if she is not notable, her death has (rightly or wrongly) raised wider societal issues in regards to something like "pornography and its corrupting influence on the young". This is why her disappearance and death (and associated circumstances) have been reported worldwide (I read about it here in Sydney). Much like Rodney King she could be a non-notable person caught up in something much bigger. (Although if the above facts about having 30,000 subscribers is true, that might give her grounds for notability in her own right).

This "non-notable in notable circumstances" has, and always will be, a murky grey area in the notability guidelines, and I don't think we'll ever hammer out an iron-clad policy to handle each and every circumstance like this. The traditional response has usually been to "keep" (and with 2000+ news articles, that's going to be REAL hard to argue against).

It is not our role to decide whether this debate *should* be had, or cast opinions about it. The debate IS going on, and it is our duty to report it, no matter how distasteful that is. The world sucks at times. If it were up to me (which it certainly isn't) I'd delete this article in a heartbeat on similar ethical grounds. But sadly it meets ALL criteria for being notable and if it went to AFD I would vote to keep it, despite my ethical objections. Manning 03:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is rapidly turning into a fight over right and wrong, good and evil, or whatever. And that's a good argument to have. Just not here... this is the place for encyclopedic information. Please, please, please keep it that way.--Paul McDonald 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didnt want it to turn into this, but the above poster's remarks cant go unanswered. EgraS 05:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Date of Death

When her body was found six days later, was it determined that was they day she died?Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's been determined with certainty yet. EgraS 03:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Redaction of "Person of Interest" Names

I redacted these names per WP:NPF, however, I feel that this issue is debatable so I encourage discussion on this first before reverting. The policy states, "When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Under no circumstances, however, does the pregnant girlfriend need to be named. --Strothra 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't see this before I made changes. But Mireles' and Martens' names are all over the Internet, and have both been reported by major media. The police are publicly seeking Mireles for questioning, and Martens may be 16, but she's a missing person. The names of missing persons of any age are reported, as hers has been. Toyalla 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

I would suggest renaming the article "Murder of Emily Sander". This has been done with Murder of Meredith Kercher, and moves the focus from the person to the event. --Nehwyn 07:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is an outcome we have adopted for Australian murder victims with limited notability, for example, Anita Cobby murder, Janine Balding murder and Death of Dean Shillingsworth. WWGB 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It hasnt been proven that she was murdered, i think it's not yet time (if it happens). EgraS 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Porn star

Was she really a porn star? I reverted this since the provide citation refers to her as that. Anyways, as always, is not about the "truth" but about what reliable sources say. Anyways, --Tom 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wiki, "Porn Star" redirects to Pornographic actor -- read it and I think eveveryone will agree she met that "requirement" ... it doesn't necessarily mean that she was "famous" but I would support "internet pornographic actor" or some similar comment.--Paul McDonald 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt that everyone would agree to anything on Wikipedia! *lol* But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that she did more than pose naked in non-sexually explicit shots with other females, and that while she posed naked, in a few shots she had her hand covering her genital area in a manner that could be considered sexual. Does that automatically classify it as porn by Wikipedia standards? Toyalla 07:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Better have someone else check that one... I'm at work right now!  :) --Paul McDonald 15:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The attempts to sanitize Sander's past seem like re-writing history. Videos on her website (now removed) show her dribbling lotion on her breasts, fondling her genitals and inserting a dildo (acknowledged here). Calling her simply a "nude model" is not a true description of her role in the porn industry. WWGB 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Does every murder victim get an article?

Here's my question: Does every murder victim get an article and qualify for notability on that alone? Is that "notability" enough? I do agree that there are other circumstances that may indeed make this particular incident noteworthy and I'm now convinced that this article should stay on Wikipedia at least in some form. I like the "the murder of..." concept--it's not really the person that is widely notable but what happened to her and the circumstances around that.--Paul McDonald 15:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If they get 1,700+ news articles written about them, as Sander has, then perhaps. Existence of sources is our main criteria for inclusion... we have been trying to get away from subjective "I think this person is important" stuff for a while. The existence of sufficient sources means we can write a decent article... so usually that means we do. --W.marsh 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point to you the interest the site has generated. On her site alone...

[[2]] EgraS 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Inquiring minds looking for hooters? WWGB 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic--so if there are 1,700+ articles written about something ... which in this day and age is quite easy to duplicate on the web -- does that automatically qualify for notability? I think we need to specifically declare why this event is notable.--Paul McDonald 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious math

"45% from 30,000 paying subscribers on her online site, each paying a monthly fee of $39.95"

I know that internet porn is a lucrative business, but I find it hard to believe a random gal to make half a mil monthly by shaking her tits. Is there any other source with numbers? If there is none, this phrase must be deleted: there is no reason to believe a paparazzi. `'Míkka>t 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I read that she had been paid 5 percent of the amount she was to receive for her contract, the rest to be received when she finished it (which I don't know if she did). Unfortunately, I don't remember the source for that. Does anyone else? Toyalla 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is about.com a reliable source even? TIA--Tom 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say for this type of statement, no it isn't. --Nehwyn 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we/you/I remove that whole business then? Seems that type of material should be well sourced or left out. Anyways, --Tom 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I just removed that. If a reliable source can confirm that material then add back in? Thanks --Tom 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This 30,000 number prairy-fired over the 'net comes from a David Thomas denounced by zoeyzane.com (the page is linked in the wikipedia artcile). Hence the info is deleted until comes from immediate and verifiable sources. `'Míkka>t 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The 30,000 number comes from a much more reputable website than zoeyzane.com. And many other news sourced have listed it. EgraS 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The website was reputable enough for Bank of America allowing it to collect reward money. Surely, BofA would not allow to do this for a random person. Therefore I consider this website as primary source. Therefore the contested information is deleted. `'Míkka>t 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure anyone can set up such an account. Heck, it wasn't even her family who set it up and only the family is allowed to have greater legal rights over a deceased than ANY AND ALL other random persons (except in very special circumstances which I'm pretty sure this is not one of them). Nevertheless, I agree that it should be left out for now until the facts are revealed. EgraS 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial media reporting of the numbers came from articles that all referenced their sources as Thomas. Since then, media sources have dropped their attribution to Thomas. The company itself has stated no such individual works for them and that the information was false. This is also consistent with common sense. How was a website that was up for a matter of weeks going to attract 30,000 voyeurs willing to pay? Further, the website's ownership never changed hands. The website is still registered by the same company - Moreover, it be an extremely ostentatious federal crime to set up a fraudulent account for such purposes. Since the FBI is actively pursuing this case, I think they would have noticed the bank account if it were illegitimate. --Strothra 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The 30,000 subscribers quote I have now sourced with something that does not mention anything about a Thomas. It mentions the website developer, who is pretty clearly the same person who designed the zoeyzane.com website. The zoeyzane.com website takes the media to task for reporting that Sander was involved in porn, it doesn't say anything about incorrect traffic figures. The AP is a reliable source. Nobody of Consequence 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it does say the numbers are incorrect. To quote the website: "There was some incorrect information leaked to the press on Wednesday by an unknown individual named "David Thomas" claiming to have information about Emily's huge "Porn" career. He has nothing to do with our company nor do we know any individual by that name. "--Strothra 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, don't want to argue about this anymore. Nobody of Consequence 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan site and find a grave site

I removed both of those external sites. I recieve a comment about that on my talk page but thought it better to discuss it here. Thanks, --Tom 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Web site designer

WHO is the web site designer that is being quoted so freely? This material should be attributed or removed. --Tom 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been stated as fact on many reputable news sources, and that I think is enough. EgraS 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not enough. The sources are not independent. All of them refer to a single same source or no source at all. They all are copycats. `'Míkka>t 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not enough? Are Reliable third-party sources no longer acceptable to Wikipedia? Nobody of Consequence 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is a significant newspaper and is perfectly legitimate and reliable. Their quotes are from the Associated Press, you don't get more reliable than that. The info is not dubious in the least. Deleting sourced legitimate info is not kosher. Please stop. Nobody of Consequence 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, as was discussed before, the media was duped by an impersonator. The actual company that owned the website has stated they have no such employee and that the data was false. --Strothra 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What employee? The article says they interviewed the site designer. Nobody of Consequence 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ugh, the company's website has already stated that the information is incorrect and that there is no such website designer. The initial report was released over the AP a few days ago. When something is distributed over the AP it's automatically picked up by thousands of media outlets including print and television. Larger outlets such as the New York Times or LA Times do not rely on the AP. But smaller outlets do and either simply reprint AP stories or they rewrite them to make them their own. While this method is cheaper for most outlets, it is unfortunately a massive vehicle for misinformation.--Strothra 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay, nevermind. Nobody of Consequence 17:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Zoey Zane Website as of 9:00pm Central Time December 3 2007

The following is the word-for-word site of zoeyzane. I wonder if it can even be used as a source since it is so rife with different spellings of Mireles' name and even the most blatant grammar errors such as the misspelling of the word "deposit". EgraS 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was written in a haste by a non-professional, obviously by someone close to the victim. Bank of America would not allow to collect money for next best crook. `'Míkka>t 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of page

During the AfD discussion, there was pretty much consensus that while the story of her death (possible murder) is notable, Emily Sander herself is/was not. As such, several people suggested that the article be renamed "Death of Emily Sander" with a redirect from "Emily Sander". What do other people think of this? There is previous precedent for this type of naming when there is a non-notable person caught up in a notable event. I had moved the page but it was reverted back with no good explanation. So I'll put it up here for discussion... will381796 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be renamed according to notability. --Strothra (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep. That's keep, not rename. As much as I am unhappy with the outcome, that's the verdict and it has to be accepted for now. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "Rename" was a possible outcome for an AfD discussion. Quoting the closing admin: "Other notabilty concerns revolve around the notability of the target versus the event. As W.Marsh mentions, this can be solved by renaming." Thus, I interpret this as the admin agreeing that renaming is a plausible and probably good idea. will381796 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is very little precedent for renaming articles whose subjects are only notable for an unfortunate death and the subsequent news coverage. Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis is one exception, and there are probably more, but it appears to be far more common to simply use the person's name. A person's death is part of who they are, and I'm not entirely sure of the wisdom of trying to turn it into an "event"; along somewhat similar lines, we could argue that Peyton Manning is only notable because he's a football player, so his article should be moved to Football career of Peyton Manning. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find there to be a subtle difference between a person being notable for what they do in their life and someone being notable for nothing more than their death. Using the example you poised, Peyton Manning is notable because he, himself, has gone out and excelled at a sport and as a result of his conscious effort has become famous. Emily was nothing more (and I don't say this out of disrespect for her, but its the truth) than a young college student who posed nude on the side and wound up dead (currently speculated as being murdered). This was the result of no action of her own (as far as we currently know). I point to the articles Virginia_tech_massacre and Seung-Hui_Cho to clarify my point. The massacre was a terrible tragedy and no doubt notable, hence its own article. Seung-Hui has his own article because of his conscious involvement with the massacre. HE decided to go out on a rampage. HE created his notability through his own actions. His notability was not created as a result of someone else's influence. Most of the victims of the tragedy do not have individual articles. Just my thought process. will381796 (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are lots of precedents for a rename. The most recent is Murder of Meredith Kercher‎ and Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is another. I think we should move this quickly to Death of Emily Sander. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One other reason supporting the re-name is that the bulk of the content on the article centers around the last few days of her life and the aftermath of her death. There's no section on her childhood or anything like that. The article is really nothing more than the events that surround her death. Therefore, the article should be renamed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it currently doesn't exist doesn't mean it should be renamed. Anyway, I don't like this renaming (what's next - renaming Lee Harvey Oswald to John Kennedy's Assasin? afterall, he wasn't notable until he killed him.) --Philip Laurence (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sander was not notable for any reason other than her own death. It was the occurrence that caused her to gain notability - ie, not by anything she did, but by what was done to her by someone else. Thus the title better reflects notability. --Strothra (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you attempt to refute my point with Oswald, but actually support my argument. When Oswald (allegedly) did his deed, he was known only as "John Kennedy's Assassin" -- it wasn't until much later when books, movies, etc. were written and his life was explored in more detail and made public. Thus, at the time, the news and articles centered around the assassination... whereas in later years, more in-depth stories developed and became notable about his life in general. Should that happen with Emily Sander, then I'd be all for an article about her named "Emily Sander" -- but if/until the bulk of the information changes from the information around her death to further information about her life, then I agree with changing the name and I thank you for proving my point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a really interesting point. I would like to add as a general comment to this discussion that my closure did not come down one way or the other on the rename issue. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism to external links

I have removed the continued vandalism to the external links section. Thanks, --Tom 14:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The continued inclusion of this link is vandalism. You keep refering to sources mentioning this site. Can you provide links for the community to review? TIA--Tom 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I included this link: *NSFW. But not a "porn queen" either. I think it's a powerful citation for the argument that "porn queen" is nonsense. Why take it down? David in DC (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"powerful citation"?? It appears to be a commercial porn dating service site with naked photos of the deceased. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia but I am just one itsie bitsie editors. What do others think? TIA --Tom 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's not a reliable source to back up any claim at all. --Nehwyn (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It IS a commercial site with naked photos of the deceased. But the overall effect of the pictures is to show a young, exuberant girl trying out something outre on a lark. Not the hardened plasticized image of porn, let alone a "porn queen", at all.

The photos aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia but the link is, as long as it's well-named. I thought "NSFW. But not a `porn queen' either" did the trick, but I too am just one itsie bitsie editor. I, too, would like to hear what others think.

It's is a reliable source. That should only come into play if there's some reason to think these aren't pictures of Emily. David in DC (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis above is WP:OR and I still believe the link is not appropriate. --Tom 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A link to a secondary source is the opposite of original research. It's a tertiary source, exactly what WP is supposed to be.David in DC (talk)

The link is not a secondary source - it simply includes images which you are using to create a judgment. Even if it were a secondary source, it would not be a reliable one per WP:RS. Such links are against WP:EL. --Strothra (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, WHY is it SO important that we link to this site?? A few folks have already chimmed in against its inclusion. It really adds nothing except nude photos. Anything else is OR it seems. Anyways, can we move on? --Tom 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, it is a very subjective call between "porn" and being involved in "nude modeling." You're providing these links doesn't provide any more information proving that the media's claims were overblown. Secondly, her "porn" career is completely secondary to the topic of this article. Nobody needs to see the photographs to know what she was involved with and if they do, then they can do a simple google search. Wikipedia is not the place for a link to a commercial website hosting nude photographs of a dead woman. Come on. will381796 (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good lord man, learn to take yes for an answer. Fully half an hour before you decided to pile on, I'd conceded the point below (Under the "Just to Clarify" topic). David in DC (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I replied to the section that had most recently be edited per the page history. Didn't see your message below. will381796 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Threeafterthree aka Tom, before you start calling something vandalism on Wikipedia, you might want to see what Wikipedia itself says about vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." (The italics are Wikipedia's, not mine.) Unless you know this is a conscious effort to compromise Wikipedia, it is not vandalism. Futhermore, I believe the link to both Emily's site as Zoey Zane and the tribute page are justified. The Zoey Zane site is the primary source for information on the reward for finding a suspect, and is currently mentioned more than once in the article itself. As to the tribute page, Emily Sander/Zoey Zane laid to rest which is currently quoted twice in the article, mentions the tribute page--in fact a statement by Perlie the Pony Girl, who created the page, is the lead of the article, and the image at the top of the article is taken from that page. In addition, the address of the tribute page and a statement by Perlie is mentioned at Carlson Colonial Funeral Home Memories page for Emily Sander. This is the funeral home that handled Sander's service, the official source for information on Emily's services, as is discussed in the article. Toyalla (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree! How can we quote sources in the article and then say what they talk about is spam? The link is in the Canadian news service and on the funeral home site. And if you check you'll see that no message goes on the funeral home site that they don't first approve. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The links should stay. The Zoey Zane site is mentioned in our news sources as being an important site. Without Emily being Zoey, the article wouldn't be here at all. So why cut the link here? The Tribute is the primary focus of the news service article and it uses a screen shot from the Tribute as their main image. And the Tribute wouldn't be on the funeral home that covered Emily's death without the family's approval--check the site. MRN (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at top--it says assume good faith. Calling someone a vandal whose actions aren't even close to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is not good faith. Or should we assume calling someone a vandal was done in good faith? MRN (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of restrictions to be found on WP:EL and WP:RS that restrict these types of links. --Strothra (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am hesitant to even keep the mention of the tribute in the article itself. Lots of people die and get online tributes made by their friends or family. Her having an online tribute is nothing unique. Remove the mention of the tribute then you can remove the source citing the tribute and the link to the tribute site. Kill three birds with one delete. will381796 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Strothra (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Better image?

Is there ANY better photo of this person? It looks fuzzy and she is wearing a bathrob? Anyways, just a suggestion, thanks, --Tom 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)ps, also her hair style is not really becoming in this shot, anyways,--Tom 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a sweater rather than a bathrobe. There's this photo but I don't think it will pass copyright requirements. WWGB (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That pic looks like she is 10 years old? I still think its a bathrobe but whatever. Anyways, --Tom 14:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Other than that it probably should be cropped, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I see no reason why that picture would have a different copyright situation than the current one. Both are copyrighted, and the other could be given the same fairuse rationale as the current one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a better picture of Emily on the Emily Sander: Over the Rainbow tribute at [3] Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of boyfriend

As the name of her ex boyfriend is of no real importance, I believe that it should be deleted. As I'm assuming her ex is still alive, unless he was the main focus of the article, his name should be omitted. Also, the source cited does not provide the name of her ex boyfriend, so I'm confused as to where this information was found. I will remove the name. Feel free to comment here. will381796 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. --Nehwyn (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify

There are TWO external links that keep getting added. 1) Is a discordia fan site or something. 2) Is a nude photo site. BOTH should remain nuked per above. Cheers! --Tom 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I defer to the wisdom of the majority.David in DC (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See discussion in Continued vandalism to external links above. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

biometrics

As the biometric specifics in the infobox aren't cited, are there any WP:RS for them? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving Talk Page

• May I suggest that we archive some of the old sections of this talk page? Its getting rather long in length and I get tired easily by scrolling too much. lol. Let me know if this is okay and I'll direct the archive bots over to this page. will381796 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)