Talk:Danielle Van Dam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] clean Up

What's there to clean up? The article explains the case, what more do you want? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TripleH1976 (talk • contribs) .

The article needs to be cleaned up because it does not read like an encyclopeidc article, most of the wording sounds like someone verbally retelling the story, there are many incomplete thoughts and sentences, incorrect grammar, and inconsistencies. The information in the article seems fine, but it could use a touch up for an easier read. That is why it requires a cleanup tag. -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 22:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of this article. Isn't every article concerning a crime like retelling the case? How ridiculous! This is the second time a clean up tag was put on here. In my opinion, the article is perfectly fine. If you think you can do a better job then clean it yourself. TripleH1976 24, January 2006 (UTC) 04:31

I tried to clean it up some, since it read like a kid with ADD wrote it, but it still isn't encyclopedic. Spattie 01:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in defense of this ADD child, as you put it, at least he spelled things out correctly. But thanks for cleaning it up a beat.<sp?> Check out your spelling in the article's history section. Before you criticize another editor again learn to spell first. Fighting for Justice 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I can spell, it was a case of my fingers working faster than my brain. Spattie 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship/Vandalism of External Links

Reply to TripleH1976:

The websites I added were created by people who independently studied the evidence and reached their own conclusions - which you don’t like simply because they don’t agree with you. Based on the number of errors in your two articles on this case (e.g. the date Danielle’s body was found), and your contributions to the discussion on the Westerfield article (e.g. stating Danielle’s body was burned), their knowledge of the case is clearly greater than yours, so their views deserve serious consideration: you could learn a lot from them, but the speed of your reaction indicates you aren’t interested in learning, and that your mind is closed.

Their websites are not filled with angry, mindless ranting and personal insults. They have carefully explained WHY they reached their conclusions, so the proper response is to DEBATE the issues, NOT simply blindly remove them - which seems to be your standard response.

Where do you get the idea that only neutral sites should be included? Wikipedia ARTICLES must be neutral, but that inevitably means quoting opposing points of view and therefore also giving opposing sources, in other words, sources that are NOT neutral. Have a look at the article on child sex abuse that I have previously referred you to. I get the impression that you have never done academic work.

I would also point out that I have given examples (on the David Westerfield talk page) of inaccurate and biased reporting, by both Court TV and the Union-Tribune - most recently regarding the prosecution’s “spying with binoculars” fantasy - yet you didn’t remove those links. Clearly, therefore, your complaint is not with any lack of neutrality in the links, but merely with the fact that they don’t agree with your opinion.

You didn’t answer my question: where does Wikipedia support censorship? Because that is what you are doing - and always have done. You simply cannot tolerate alternative opinions, no matter how solidly grounded in fact and logic.

And where does Wikipedia exclude PERSONAL websites as sources?

I have ENRICHED these two articles (mainly the Westerfield article), not just by correcting the many errors, but also by adding more information, making them more neutral, and broadening their perspective. By no stretch of the imagination can this be construed as vandalism. In stark contrast, you just blindly delete anything and everything you don’t like, simply because, in your ignorance, you disagree with it. If ever there was a definition of vandalism, that is it.

I don’t normally speak as severely as this, but this has been going on for 8 weeks now, so I have been extremely patient, but my patience is running out.

I inserted a heading indicating the orientation of those links; and I inserted another heading where you or anyone else could add links to sites with an orientation more to your liking. I suggest you take advantage of that instead of your normal unimaginative and sterile response.

Why don’t you study and try to respond to the arguments in those websites instead of just suppressing them? 196.15.168.40 04:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ha ha ha ha ha you enriching the articles - that's a good one. You sound so arrogant. Wikipedia does exclude personal websites. Since people are allowed to edit articles, I realize, it's hard to prevent people from placing them. However, I do go around removing them whenever I can. I know they are not allowed, because administrators are constantly removing them from actor pages and crime articles. Your links fall under "personal" because they are not done by some organization. It's an advocacy for a child-killer and wikipedia isn't an advocate for anything or anybody. For example, memorial sites to victims are not allowed either. I removed two of them from the Samantha Runnion article. Your so-called "carefully explained" sites are all about smearing the victims' family. Suggesting that her parents, because they lied about marijuana, led to Danielle's death. Putting down law enforcement(oh they didn't let poor David sleep; suggesting they framed him) and making Westerfield the victim. As if their sex life had something to do with the murder; only in the minds of Westerfield's lawyers who wanted jurors to forget his unusual drive around the county. Thank goodness they didn't. There is nothing enriching about those sites. They think: "well, since there isn't a pool of blood in his house, SUV, RV, no murder happened. Westerfield is innocent". Same kind of junk Mark Geragos said makes Scott Peterson innocent of murdering Laci. That is insulting to put links defending the killer in an article about the victim. Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. If you think COURTTV and the San Diego Union are biased, you, are free to feel that way. What you are not free to do is using wikipedia as a tool for persuading the public. You are doing that with those links. I bet they are your sites too. A wikipedia reader has no way of knowing how researched and knowledgeable a personal site is. Why should they be believed? What credentials does the site creator have? We will NEVER know that's why wikipedia tries it's best to remove them from articles.

You are on some personal crusade to defend Westerfield on wikipedia. The links to a crime article are to be neutral. Wikipedia is about facts and verifying it. If people wanna go on a crusade for justice and truth they can do so; that's fine and dandy, however, Wikipedia isn't obligated to make them think on way or the other. What wikipedia can do is give them the facts and evidence, in a neutral way, and let them figure it out if truth and justice was served. You talk about those sites dealing only with facts and evidence. Tell me, where is the evidence that says Damon and Brenda, with friends and smoking marijuana, led to Danielle's death? What evidence is there that Brenda and Damon lying about the marijuana smoking, because they didn't want to get arrested for smoking it, led to Danielle's death? Where are the facts that a parent lying must then mean, they'll know why their child goes missing in the future. But why do those links mention sex and drugs? Because it's a smear tactic that's why. By the way Danielle's body was burnt due to sun exposure. It was exposed to the elements for a long time. That's not erroneous. TripleH1976 10:57p.m., 14 June 2006 (UTC)