Talk:Debra Lafave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debra Lafave article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Probation termination schedule

I'm changing the date given for the duration of her probation due to the fact that the Florida Department of Corrections website lists the year as 2015, not 2016. Note that it could be subject to further change. --65.35.34.48 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: It appears the Florida DOC website is incapable of direct linking to offender flyers. You'll have to go here and search for her manually if you wish to see her probation flyer. --65.35.34.48 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a link farm

Please stop adding every possible link under the sun to this article. Please do read WP:NOT. Please do not tamper with the IMDb template. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 20:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the most authoritative link on the case. A non-profit site that offers pertinent news, photos, and the latest video associated with the Lafave saga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.249.219 (talk • contribs) 02:34, November 26, 2005 (UTC)
A Yahoo Group is for-profit, so that's out the window. Again, Wikipedia is not a link farm. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 11:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I found that [1] is broken ... I removed it Abountu 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight, a Yahoo Group is not for profit. While Yahoo sells ads, so does every other site you have listed. The owner of a particular group makes no money. Unlike the Free Debra site you have had listed many times that is only in business to sell T-shirts.

How about IMDB, they sell ads and they are definitely for-profit? However, I deleted it to make sure I followed your lead.

Btw, nobody give's a rat's butt about Owen Lafave. He is not the story. He's only cashing in on the notoriety that Debra has brought him. A worthless link. Maybe it would be appropriate on Owen's page. Btw, does anybody ever visit your Owen Lafave page? lmao Do you even have one? lol

Nor does anybody care about Debra Lafave's teacher rating at Greco Middle School, either. Why? Well, in case you hadn't heard, she's not a teacher anymore so that link is irrelevant. Don't worry I'll delete that too for you.

I would also say the Greco Middle school link you had posted is irrelevant, as well. Do you really think people are clamoring to see a picture of her former school? Okay maybe one or two... ha ha ha

No, the reason people look for Wikipedia is to find information, news and photos about a subject. That's what forums like Yahoo groups offer.

So why don't leave well enough alone and quit deleting useful links before I have to ask one of the impartial editor's above you to review the situation. You already look pretty ridiculous based on your demonstrated understanding of basic logic but I don't mind embarrassing you further, if you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.249.219 (talk • contribs) 13:37, November 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't added any links to this article, I've only been removing them because they seem like attempts at self-promotion (or are largely irrelevant to an encyclopedia). You are of course welcome to disagree, but your manner of disagreement needs work. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your diatribe. Good day. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

So you think this is about self promotion? If that's what it was, why would I ever bother to correct the inaccurate info posted in the article?

The truth is that you were ignorant about Yahoo groups before and thus you only thought the link was there for self promotion. Now that you've been enlightened to the truth, you should be flexible enough to alter your perception based on the facts and not your personal assumptions.

Btw, you never answered my questions about the relevancy of the links that remain? As someone who so clearly sees the difference between bad and good links, you ought to be able to show why any of the aforementioned links deserve a place on Debra Lafave's page.

Btw, sorry you don't like my manner of disagreement. I don't like your manner of ill-informed decision making, either. But as an editor here, you should at least answer direct questions instead of avoiding issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.249.219 (talk • contribs) 14:49, November 26, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you haven't corrected much info in the article, in fact I've ended up having to research and revert your "corrections" (like the tattoo bit).
I was not ignorant of Yahoo! groups before, I'm just fully aware that anyone can create a Yahoo! group, and that going by the number of postings in the group you were attempting to promote, it doesn't seem like a very active group to me.
In so far as the links that remain, I see one other I'll likely remove (the snapsoid.com link). The IMDb link is relevant because it links to the movie Owen Lafave is involved with. The teacher rating site already has a high Alexa rating, plus it seems halfway relevant. The Greco Middle School link is informative because it includes contact information for the school where she worked. That leaves the CourtTV link, a media outlet with a story on her recent guilty plea (which is necessary to fulfill WP:V).
As a tip for you in the future: making attacks on people is not the way to win over their agreement. Now, please go read WP:NOT, since I think you've ignored that during this entire ordeal. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 23:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Should've just said, "I BELIEVE I SAID 'GOOD DAY'!" -Dan 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


1. I'm not interested in winning you over. You've already demonstrated that isn't possible by your inability to value any constructive criticism directed toward you. Btw, I see from your talk page that a lot of other people have told you to go fuck yourself in your short stint as a Wikipedian editor. That should tell you something about your lack of ability to be flexible and unbiased.

2. Why do you back track so much? Obviously you were ignorant of Yahoo Groups before because you thought that group owners somehow profit from their site. I guess it's easy when you can edit out what's been said here anytime you want.

3. Court TV is yet another highly commercial link. Had the trial gone forward they would have even sold pay per view coverage of the trial. You said commercial links don't belong in Wikipedia. I guess you don't even follow your own guidelines, huh?

4. Again, Lafave is not a teacher anymore. If you bothered to scan the teacher ratings site, you'd see that most of the comments there were written after her arrest was well publicized. Also, anyone can add info on that site. It has no screening to tell whether comments there were actually made by the children she taught. Thus, it has very dubious credibility and should not be linked on this page.

5. Sure, go ahead and list Greco's site. No one cares about it except Greco! ha ha ha. In fact, I'm sure the school is so happy that Wikipedia wants to further the misery and unwanted notoriety they've experienced because of Debra Lafave by continuing to associate their school w/her.

If you're not interested in winning me over, then why are you responding? I never said the Yahoo! group owner profited, I said Yahoo! groups is for-profit. CourtTV is a respected media outlet, just as CNN and the Associated Press are. I never said commercial links don't belong on Wikipedia, I said self-promotion (or even third party promotion) links don't belong. Please carefully read over WP:NOT, as this should clear up any misunderstandings you may have. Debra Lafave may not be a teacher now, however she was a teacher. If you bothered to check, former teachers are also included in this category (see Mary Kay Letourneau for example). I'm not certain if you're still objecting to including the link to her former school, so I'll leave that comment unanswered. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 01:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


1. As I said before, you are too inflexible to be won over. I feel sad for those that know you personally. I merely post here to further expose the foolish way your mind seems to work.

2. Of course, I'm objecting to the link to her former school. They do not wish to be associated w/her anymore than the real teacher's on the teacher rating site wish to be. Would you categorize her as a Mormon if the Church of Latter Day Saints had excommunicated her? I hope not but you a promoting the same type of fallacy if you label her a teacher. She's had her license revoked. If the same thing happened to a Dr. you wouldn't still call him Dr, would you?

3. You said "A Yahoo Group is for-profit, so that's out the window". So, if you follow your own stated link guidelines, then the IMDB, the teacher rating site, and Court TV should not be allowed because they are for-profit sites. I have already shown how suspect the info on rating site is but I guess your mind didn't fathom that concept.

4. Just a note about Court TV. To say they are neutral news source is almost idiotic. They exist and profit from sensationalizing true crime stories. The news they do bring is rather limited and does not include the exceptional local coverage of the case that is found in the Debra Lafave Yahoo group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.249.219 (talk • contribs) 17:50, November 26, 2005 (UTC)

I failed to mention it last time, but please stop making personal attacks. Insults are not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:NPA). In so far as you object to the link to her former school, your logic is flawed: the link is there for historical purposes, not to indicate that she is still teaching there. When I said A Yahoo Group is for-profit, so that's out the window I was responding to your assertion that Yahoo! groups were nonprofit. They aren't. I was not saying that links were only allowed if they were nonprofit. With that, the remainder of that argument is moot. As to CourtTV, I can always provide a CNN or Fox News link if you have some objection to the CourtTV article. Though the content will be nearly identical.. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


Oh don't be so gay, Locke. You know exactly what you meant before when you said for-profit links weren't allowed. What you really meant is that links that you don't like can be excluded by the justification (phony claim) that they are for-profit. Links you personally think are worthy are allowed even if they are grossly for profit. Your worse than Dubya when it comes to revisionist history. lmao

Btw, you said earlier that the group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Debra_Lafave doesn't have much discussion. I challenge you to find any other site on the web that has had more discussion on a regular basis about this case over the last year and a half. If you can find ONE, I'll stop posting the link here!

You also indicated that I had added nothing here of merit. Well, these words are mine so maybe you should delete them from the article you pretend to care about so much.

"A sensational highlight to this case came to light in September 2005 when it was revealed that the Temple Terrace, FL, police ordered explicit nude photos be taken of Lafave's genital area while her feet were bound up in stirrups. The officer who ordered the photos was later charged with soliciting a prostitute and downloading pornography at work. He resigned after also being caught trying to cover up his actions on police department computers."

I also added the fact that she was sexually assaulted as a teenager to her background but, apparently, in your world of logic, that's somehow not pertinent to the case. How is that not important? ...added at 06:46, 28 November 2005 by 71.243.249.219

Would that be pertinant in any other statutory rape case? "I was molested as a teenager, and now I have sex with them.." I mean, come on.
I'm not arguing that it should or shouldn't be listed on the page, I'm just commenting on how you seem to be justifying her insanity defense or even her crime for that matter- by essentially blaming someone else for her actions. "It's all because of what happened when I was a kid." LarchOye 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be re-added. This isn't a page about her court case per se. It's a page about her. Granted, only the court case makes her famous. But information about her childhood abuse would seem to be appropriate on a page about her in general. I'd imagine someone should write up a background/childhood section. Jonathan Roy (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese characters

Actually, it doesn't really matter if they were Chinese characters or Japanese characters as the sentence reads as this:

The county sheriff's office alleges the minor has identified a butterfly and Chinese characters tattooed on Lafave's body.

And the allegation does say Chinese. If someone has a problem with that, take it up with the county sheriff's office, not with Wikipedia. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be more concerned with facts than with the uninformed report of a police officer and a fourteen year old boy. added at 06:49, 28 November 2005 by 71.243.249.219

1. If an allegation says "Chinese", whether rightly or wrongly, then an account of that allegation should say "Chinese".
2. A huge number of Japanese characters are Chinese characters. I don't know what these particular characters are and have no interest in them, but it's very likely that they're both Chinese and Japanese.
3. In my perhaps minority opinion, a general-purpose encyclopedia (as opposed to, say, an encyclopedia of tabloid sleaze) shouldn't have an article on somebody whose only claimed noteworthiness is of having been charged with several counts of sex with a minor and having pleaded guilty to one of them. WP is not the National Enquirer. -- Hoary 07:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't you show some editing guts and just delete the whole article. Better yet, delete every article you find unworthy of Wikipedia, you Nazi. ... added at 11:57, 28 November 2005 by 71.243.249.219

  1. Deletion takes more effort than that; the article would have to go through AfD, whereupon I suppose the sleaze fans would be up in arms. As for deleting every article that I find unworthy of Wikipedia, even if such powers were available to me the task might take more than one lifetime.
  2. Do read NPA. I happen to find it amusing when termed a "Nazi" merely for questioning the noteworthiness of this person, but others take such language more seriously and it might get you into trouble.
  3. Do please sign your contributions -- all you need do is hit the twiddle key four times in a row, ~~~~. And add a comment when you make any edit.

Thank you for your consideration. -- Hoary 04:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo Group smut link

The opening page of the Yahoo Groups thing that our correspondent finds so worthy of linking reads:

For fans of Debra Lafave, the sexiest ex-middle-school teacher on earth!
Sure this young, newlywed hottie had sexual relations with one of her 14 year old middle-school students but that just makes her the greatest teacher ever in our book!
Join us as we follow the saga of Deb's life and continue reporting the news on all the latest Deb wannabees...

Good National Enquirer (or Neighbors' Wives) material. Not encyclopedic, however. Thus I'm about to delete it yet again. -- Hoary 04:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Looks like humor to me, reinstating the link. Smut is defined as obscenity or pornography.

The Bible mentions many instances of sexual relations, too. Perhaps you'd like to edit that as well?

I'd like to get rid of the bible all together. I know that sounds communist or fascist, but it would clear up a LOT of problems with the way things work. Here7ic 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you the same guy who wrote a discourse on "Expletives"? Now that's what I call obscenity! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagnaVox (talk • contribs) 22:22, November 28, 2005 (UTC)

(1) Whether or not this stuff is humorous, it does not appear to be informative. (2) You'd have to pay me a large sum of money before I'd read the Bible, though I'll concede that some bits are quite interesting. (As Ken Smith conveniently lists them in Ken's Guide to the Bible, I'm content with my copy of that.) (3) Yes, I did indeed contribute to Expletive, though mostly to the larger part that's irrelevant to "bad language". Still, if you wish to bring up bad-language expletives ("oaths", as they were quaintly called), they are indeed of some linguistic interest. They have nothing to do with the nudge-nudge wink-wink of the Yahoo Group. (4) Do please sign your contributions. Thank you for your trouble. -- Hoary 09:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Oh yeah, and the link (that Locke keeps posted) to Lafave's teacher ratings is informative, right?

Here's a sample of the oh so informative material : [2]

Either you just don't read well or you are best buddies with Locke Cole. The two of you are merely WikiTrolls. When facts are demonstrated to you, you look the other way and pretend not to notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MagnaVox (talk • contribs) 02:31, November 29, 2005 (UTC)


I again direct your attention to ratemyteachers.com's very respectable Alexa score. Students and parents really do go to that site to find out about teachers. In any event, I wouldn't miss it if it was gone, I only restored it because you seemed to be removing it out of revenge over your Yahoo! group link being removed. Nevermind that you also vandalized the imdb template and the cleanup template. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 10:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Alexa scores don't impress me. I looked at the link, and sure enough it was crap so I removed it. (For now I shan't remove the link to the Yahoo Group.) -- Hoary 10:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
They come awfully close to the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB, but that's for actual articles on websites (in other words, if there were a ratemyteachers.com article, WP:WEB wouldn't be satisfied, but for a simple external link I think a ranking of 15,000 is pretty good). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 11:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Good decision, Hoary. There may be hope for a solution yet. I read where Locke was apprised that the link was awful days ago but he/she? wanted it up and would not back down. And no, I did not just call Locke a he-she. I simply don't know he or she's gender. ... added at 11:03, 29 November 2005 by MagnaVox

  1. Locke, what sex are you?
    1. Let's not be mealy-mouthed with this silly word "gender".
    2. I'm male, if anyone cares.
  2. Please sign your contributions -- all you need do is hit the twiddle key four times in a row, ~~~~. Hoary 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm male, but I wasn't aware that mattered; the word "they" works just as fine when gender is in doubt. As for my previous "apprisal" that was by MagnaVox's old IP address (see the long drawn out convo above). He's since made an account, MagnaVox, which he attempts to pass off as "someone else". The site is not "awful", it has a very respectable Alexa ranking (I'd like to think WP:WEB's 10,000 requirement for an article about a site should be doubled or triples for a link to a site). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 11:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Locke, you're right, sex doesn't matter -- it's just that MagnaVox was in such a tizzy about it. And I didn't mean to say that the site is awful (I haven't looked and don't know); but that linked page of it is. As for Alexa rankings, they don't impress me for various reasons, among them being the fact that they can only rank visits by people who are so docile that they use M$IE without even removing the Alexa spyware. -- Hoary 14:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Not only are Alexa ratings horribly unrepresentative, but they overrepresent people who purposefully try to raise their rankings there for promotional purposes. It's like if you handed the Neilsen ratings over to FOX TV marketers and tried to call the results useful. DreamGuy 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Our choice of links should be to add extra sources of information to the article. A site like this does not aid in understanding in any sense, and thus isn't linkworthy on Wikipedia. I have removed it again. If need be we can take this to RfC -- I suspect that, when it comes down to it, the consensus of the community will be to keep this link out. What purpose does this link serve? How does it help the article be better? --Improv 04:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, placing it there is just self-promotional spam. There is no good reason for it to be there. DreamGuy 09:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

To Improv: There is no other site on the web with more news articles on the Debra Lafave case. So, in that respect, it provides much more info than the WP article and info is the key to understanding.MagnaVox 15:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To DreamGuy: You can only assume that my placing the link there is self-promotion. Do you have any proof that the site is mine? If so, let's hear it. MagnaVox 15:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that you are either owner or involved there, either way would make it self-promotion. But it doesn't matter which, as the site is horribly unencyclopedic and does not deserve to be listed here. DreamGuy 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Her name

Her name, according to the State of Florida, is Debra Jean Beasley (post-divorce). It's very likely then that her married name was Debra Jean Beasley Lafave. —Locke Cole 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Nope, not at all. Locke, this just proves your ignorance of American customs.

It's either Debra Beasley Lafave (married name) or Debra Jean Beasley (maiden name). In America, original last names are traditionally dropped and replaced by the middle name of a maiden name.

Most of the married women I know simply exchanged their father's surname for their husband's. For example Mary Ann Jones marries John Johnson and becomes Mary Ann Johnson. I've only known a few who moved their maiden name to the middle name slot. I would never call any of the variations modern American ladies adopt, involving maiden names, married names, hyphenations, wrong, but the two options described above are not the only possibiliites, or even the most traditional. Also, many married women retain their ex-husband's name following divorce, for a variety of reasons. It would be best to use whatever name she is documented as using, and not assume.24.131.12.228 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What you want to keep there is totally redundant. Btw, the FDLE does not list "Debra Jean Beasley Lafave" as her name as you claimed it did. MagnaVox 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You desperately need to read WP:NPA. Attacking people is not the way to convince them you're right. In America people sometimes put their maiden name into their married name, my wife did this when we were married for example. I did not claim that the FDLE listed her as "Debra Jean Beasley Lafave", I claimed it listed her as Debra Jean Beasley. In the police reports for her arrest she's listed as Debra Beasley Lafave. While it's possible I'm wrong, I believe it's likely the police report chose to omit her other middle name, Jean. If I get the chance, I'll try to find a source for the extended name Debra Jean Beasley Lafave. —Locke Cole 00:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this article uses the name she had at the time of arrest. KyuuA4 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consent

Didn't the young guy gave consent,She did not rape him. There is a minimum age of consent and she cannot be technically called a statutory rapist but thats what the charges are for. I feel sorry for her actually. Many murderurs havent got so much exposure as her. 220.247.253.46 11:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed an uncalled for remark left by 128.239.178.106 at the end of the preceding comment. And in responce, yes there is a minimum age of consent, and that boy was below it. Therefore, she commited statutory rape of a minor. --72.140.12.15 08:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Many, many 18 year old males have gone to jail for having sex with 17 year old girls. That is called statutory rape. It absolutely disgusts me that this happens, (usually because the girl's parents press the charges) - but then when a woman actually should be charged for statutory rape and isn't, I just want to yell. LarchOye 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'd advise you to avoid watching any news clips regarding her statements after the trial. Seriously, the only thing more ridiculous than attributing this behaviour to bi-polar dissorder, is listening to her congratulate herself for 'proving to the public that bi-polar exists.' --72.140.12.15 18:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"18 year old males have gone to jail for having sex with 17 year old girls." First of all this is foolish, and I am sure other people would agree with this. The laws should be changed, people used to get married at 17 and younger. A great deal of the parents are nothing more than hypocrites. (After a doing everything and anything they wanted). --Margrave1206 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks should read the statutes before you make such pronouncements. Consent is not a defense or relevant to the crimes charged. She was not charged with rape, but rather lewd and lascivious conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 16.[1] One count of "engaging" in such acts and another alleging "exhibition," or performing sexual acts in the presence of the victim. Both are felonies under Florida law.[2] pointlessforest 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

Would be helpful to know what happened when, dates for all sex encounters, and then how she was caught. Did the minor support turning her in, how did this happen.

Also agree taht her previously being sexually assaulted is indeed pertinent to this story. Thank you. 71.245.179.34 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chill out, everybody

This case generates a lot of acrimony...

I was about to recategorize this article under "Statutory rapists", but after reading the discussion I'm not sure that's wise. --Chris 22:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you do what you did ? What went threw your head when you were doing this terrible, terrible this

                                   - questions with no awnsers

[edit] Debbie LaFave

Police took inappropriate pictures of Debra, as of September 14, 2005.Debra Lafave's Attorney John Fitzgibbons stated that Temple Terrace police took inappropriate photographs. The detective John Gillespie who investigated the case was arrested due to solicitation. He also the one who signed the search warrant that granted them to take sexual nude picutres of LaFave in stirrups while in a cell.

Question, why does the article not have more of this info? Also why is there no picture of Lafave?

On another note, why was the american public all in arms over this, he was 14 and she was 23. Last I recall in the states only 45 years prior 15 years olds married much older people. Atleast the relationship was normal.

--Margrave1206 17:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP Violations

I have removed the gratuitous sexual details that are in violation of official Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. - Wikiwag 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lafave/LaFave

I believe the surname is actually LaFave, not Lafave. This should be checked and, if this turns out to be correct, the article should be redirected to Debra LaFave. Gamer Junkie 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove deletion note?

Hi, discussion about a possible deletion was closed about half a year ago. Why is the note still present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.145.142 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)