Talk:Murder of Emily Sander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 This is not a forum for general discussion of Murder of Emily Sander.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Emily Sander article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 18, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Anyone seen this before?

http://darkmonkey.org.uk/4/1/1199053826696.jpg Very odd picture surrounding the circumstances of finding her body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.152.185 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


  • I just came to this page to post that picture! I have uploaded a copy I had to two mirrors:

http://i27.tinypic.com/14lk0mw.jpg
http://i17.ahpic.com/bigysg.jpg
I would love to add it into the article. Would anybody object to this?
Thank you.
Tegrofi (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I believe pretty much everyone will object to that. It is something that needs to have been reported on by an independent news source or third party publication. What you have are simply JPEGs which can be edited by anyone with any photoshop knowledge. will381796 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, what happened was this: On 4chan [presumably], a person posted the "guess your number" thread. Somebody got their number correctly and the original poster posted the coordinates. It turned out later that the coordinates were correct. Threads are deleted in around 30 minutes, usually. So there will only be screencaps of that thread - nobody expected it to be real. The most that could be done is emailing Moot, the administrator of 4chan, to ask for server logs or something, which just wouldn't happen without something like a subpoena. I know that thread was real - is there nothing I can do to put a screenshot of the thread up on the Wikipedia page? Any ideas? No agency would report about it now that so much time has gone by...

Tegrofi (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry. Its a corner stone of wikipedia. We're not here to post speculation. Everything needs to be verifiable and sourced. We can not verify what the post says and it wasn't reported on by anyone, so it is not able to be listed. If you can find something online we can verify, then great. Let us see the sources. But just what you've showed us on its own is not acceptable. will381796 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

I am currently involved in an RFC in regards to this article so I will not edit it. I did want to point out that a number of single purpose, low edit folks/folk have shown up here. Other editors might have noticed this but I wanted to point it out as well. Cheers, --Tom 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • How long do these RfCs last? Its been a few days since anyone's commented. will381796 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I not sure, but I think the page hasn't even been moved into the "review" area so others can comment on it. I have read a couple of the other RFCs on users and to be honest, it looks like a forgotten waste land where not much really happens. Anyways, --Tom 21:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
A comment was added very recently. And it's easy for Tom to say it's a forgotten waste land and not much happens as it's about him. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was commenting on the other RFCs there even though not much has really happened with mine. Also, I did apologize there. The Holiday season must be finally wearing me down :) Cheers, --Tom 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved this case to the approved list so it would get some exposure. Usually the editor opening the case also sees to administrivia and works on the honor system; there is no automation or administrator who moves these pages to the candidate or approved lists. As for how long these remain open, until agreement is reached, participants become bored, or so agitated as to escalate even further. See here. In case of boredom, from time to time editors come by and flush the list of inactive cases, perhaps when the case page has not been edited by anyone for a month or so. They remain accessible through a user conduct special page. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mireles' photograph

Is there any legal problem in maintaining the photograph of Mireles in the article? In Australia, it is illegal to publish a photograph of the accused in a murder case. [1] I would hate for Wikipedia to jeopardise any upcoming trial. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no such legal requirement in the US. will381796 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, in fact, the U.S. is infamous for its controversial so-called "perp-walks." --Strothra (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to subject's photos

Reprinted from my talk page:

You have been warned once before, in December, to not add the inappropriate link to the article Death of Emily Sander, yet you have re-added the link. If you attempt to add this link again, it will result in an admin being notified with the possibility of a ban. Please stop making nonconstructive edits to this article. will381796 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We have a content disagreement. With the perspective of a month's thought, I concluded that a different formulation of text and footnote might be appropriate. So I was bold and tried this new formulation. It is different from what we all discussed a month ago.
One editor, you, disagreed, pretty darn fast. And was bold, and reverted. A little quick on the trigger, for my taste, but so be it. If anyone else who has this on their watch list sees our activity, they may have thoughts.
That's how articles are built. It's an ongoing process. Please do not "warn" me or invoke calling a hall monitor. Disagree with me here, or on the article's talk page. And if you're as certain as you seem, revert. But please stop pointing red flags, like "inappropriate," or "unconstructive" or talk of bans in my direction. Thanks.David in DC (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In your previous warning you were told to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. If I remember correctly, the previous time this was debated, the consensus was to keep that link OUT of the article. After the two months had passed, if you were interested in re-adding the link then you should have gone to the talk page and re-opened the discussion. Did you do that? No. You didn't.
Being bold in your edits is great, but with an article that has been so controversial its difficult to tell who's trying to improve and who's trying to push their point of view. I agree that I should have been a bit more courteous in my message, so for that I apologize. But, this article and the addition of controversial links has been a continuing point of contention with one RfC having being opened against an editor by another editor with a grudge. Controversial links will be immediately removed unless proper reasons can be provided as to why they should remain simply to avoid more conflicts in the future.
If you have an independent study citing an "objective review" of her nude photos showing that she was not a "porn queen" then please, cite that independent study. But because your personal "objective review" shows that she's not a porn queen doesn't mean that anyone else's "objective review" would come to the same conclusion and Wikipedia is not a site to link to her photos to allow people to make their objective "review". That borders on POV pushing. Second, Wikipedia is not a place to be posting links with pornographic photographs.
On a separate point, I also question the copyright status of those photos as I doubt that the copyright holder released them into the public domain. If we're not allowed to include photos in wikipedia that violate copyright laws, why should we allow websites that are obviously violating copyright laws to be linked? will381796 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia is not censored. So, the link to the photos is not in violation of any guidelines, provided it adds something to the article. As for her status as a "porn queen", that is up to interpretation, apparently. Since she never performed in pornography, it seems silly to me to call her a porn queen, but whatever. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is NOT censored, but additions do need to be encyclopedic. If someone can explain to me how a link to these photos is encyclopedic, then I'd be interested in listening. But the link is obviously of no encyclopedic value and adds nothing of any importance to the article other than a link to a website displaying photos (of questionable copyright) of the nude body of a deceased woman. I'd love to go more in depth and reasearch the copyright status of those images, but I'm at work and sadly, viewing such photographs at work tends to get people fired. will381796 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are they unencyclopedic? Virtually every news article about her mentions her nude modeling, some to a large extent. Like it or not, this is part of the reason the news media ran with the story. The nude modeling was a part of her life that, apparently, she was comfortable with. The copyright issue is irrelevant. The copyright concerns of external websites have nothing to do with Wikipedia. The images are not on Wikipedia's servers and any other hand wringing is copyright paranoia. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So do you then endorse we provide a link to each porn star's pay-to-view website? We have many many porn stars on Wikipedia. Perhaps including "snapshots" of their favorite positions will bring to us a greater understanding of their careers. We KNOW that she was a nude model. We do not have to include photographs of her nudity to know she was a nude model and the excuse to include it so people can see she wasn't a "porn queen" don't hold water. will381796 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No, just this one. WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't care whether the photos prove the status of her employment or not. What I do care about is including pertinent information, or at least links to pertinent information, regarding the subject in question. She was a nude model, so why not provide a link? The only argument I can think of against this is that of people who are offended by nudity. Once again, WP is not censored. Maybe the link would be better in the "External Links" section though. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF has nothing to do with this as I am not saying that we should delete or keep this article based upon the presence of a similar article. We're discussing content. will381796 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFF does not just apply to entire articles, but to content as well. Saying "other articles don't have this" isn't grounds for removing it from this article. God save us from Wikilawyers and copyright paranoiacs. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not wikilawyering. I'm providing policy, guidelines and precedent to support my position. All you have provided is "wikipedia is not censored." This link controversy was discussed in December. The only people who supported its inclusion were User:David in DC, User:Toyalla (who subsqeuently left WP)" and the sockpuppets User:Binky The WonderSkull, User:MRN, User:will381976 and User:Adam Newton (all of which have been banned indefinitely because they were attempting to give a false impression of consensus on debates such as this, and because one of them was trying to impersonate me). As the link has not been re-added since my last revert, there's really nothing left for us to discuss or debate unless someone else plans on re-adding the link. will381796 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ugh. Toyalla hasn't announced retirement, he/she just hasn't edited since December. Perhaps on a break. The link was re-added, then it was deleted with threats of banning. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Read what he said in his RfC against Tom: "I will be leaving Wikipedia for a time to consider all this, and to give myself some distance." Sure, it might be temporary. But as of right now he has not returned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Threeafterthree) will381796 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If he wasn't on Wikibreak/had not quit, would it make any difference to this debate? :-) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really except that he might have a fresh perspective on the situation. lol. will381796 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have followed this discussion with some interest. Leaving aside the aggressive language of warnings and bans, it is interesting to reflect on the opinions expressed here. I am surprised at NoC's notion that these images are not pornographic. I'm not sure how he/she defines pornography, but try entering any Asian country with these images and see how far you get. They may not be hardcore porn, but they are at least "soft porn". I agree with Will's comment that the photos can't prove that Emily/Zoey was not a "porn queen". They confirm that she was a nude model, but that is not being contested in the article. The existence of these images do not prove that she never did anything "worse", as they cannot represent the entirety of her work. (In fact, I have seen her videos that make these photos look quite tame.) So, I don't think this link proves anything, therefore has no real place in the article. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless unless the photos are shown. Show the photos here if they are up for discussion (show the photos on the talk page). JerryVanF (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • lol...don't reopen this debate. will381796 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a link to the pics in the archived talk pages. I posted it under the heading: "Continued vandalism to external links". There was a pretty strong consensus to exclude this link from the article. I agree with Will that this debate need not be re-opened, but I thought you should know where the pics can be found to make your own determination. My view is pretty clear, but definitely in the minority. I called my link "NSFW, but not a porn queen either". David in DC (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nude vs. Porn

Let's call a spade a spade. She was not a "nude model" which implies something far more artistic. The site was a for-profit soft-core porn site. It's a high stretch to call her a "nude model."--Veritas (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because I thought there had been a consensus to refer to her as a "nude model." I was mistaken. Upon reading the archives of the talk page, I can see that no consensus was made and actually WWGB who just reverted the IP users changes before I reverted your changes was actually arguing for her work to be referred to as pornography. There is a difference between pornography and nude modeling is actually pretty distinct. Pornography has the purpose of exciting the viewer sexually while modeling (including nude modeling) is not supposed to do this. Sander's work was obviously created with the desire to excite the viewers sexually. She wasn't posing in order to promote clothing or some other product. As such, it clearly falls into the parameters of pornography. To refer to her as a nude model is something of an injustice to those that actually take part in the profession. She may not be a "porn queen" but her work obviously falls into the category of pornography. will381796 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)