Talk:Murder of Emily Sander/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

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)

Continued vandalism to external links

Will (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) : I have removed the link to http://zoeyzane.com/ at the bottom of the article. It now redirects to http://www.xxxblackbook.com/?s=register&r=lc119946 (I don't know what it used to go to, presumably a site of her nude photos). Whatever this link used to do is beside the point, if people want to meet someone from the internet to have wild passionate semi-anonymous sex with, a link from a wikipedia article on a murdered 18 year old kid is not the place to find it. I implore people not to re-ad this link; and the article may have to be rechecked for references to "Zoey Zane's website" or whatnot. Kthxbye 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


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)
If you'll read WP:OR I believe you'll find that primary sources are acceptable. What it is says is to be careful in using primary/original sources. This article is about someone who posed, and the site is where that person's images appeared. If this were an article about a new stamp put out by the U. S. Postal Service, would it be inappropriate to put a link to the government site about that stamp? Adam Newton (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
And these restrictions are? Adam Newton (talk) 15:52, 14 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)
Listen, the discordia site or whatever the hell it is, is junk, period and does NOT improve this project. You have some interest in discordia or whatever the heck that is, right? I tried to read up about it and my head almost exploded. I have no idea what it is and I don't want to know what it is. WHAT is the hidden agenda here for including that link?? Vandalism is repeated distruption to the project after a few editors have already chimmed in. My stated agenda is clearly given on my user page. Maybe its time to do the same? I assume good faith for a few reverts and then I start to ask WHY and assume bad faith. Again ,I will defer to the community. If 10 editors say I am wrong and that link belongs, fine, add it and I won't revert it--Tom 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
--Tom is calling something junk and insulting those who wrote it, especially someone who's grieving the loss of a friend, considered civil? You might want to read Wikipedia:BEHAVE#Behavioral Adam Newton (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes.--Tom 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Tom: Wikipedia:Civility says an example of an offense against civility is "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")." In this case, you are saying that a tribute to a recently deceased friend, and in fact the entire site it is on, "whatever the hell it is, is junk, period." The article suggests giving the editor who has been uncivil a chance to apologize, which has been done above and which you did not accept. It is then recommended that two editors make comments on the person's member page. If that does not resolve the conflict, then "Request comment on users" may be filed. On my member page, I specifically state "This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks." If anyone believes that I have been uncivil in this or any other matter on Wikipedia, please let me know. In your case, I will be posting a comment on your member page. I would hope that we can resolve this issue peacefully without going to the next step. Toyalla (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to go to the next step. Tom actually cut out the justified complaint you posted on his member page! How on earth could he do that? I'm reporting him. Here's the proof [3] Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Tom for calling our site, "junk, period." As this is an experienced editor, I'm assuming this means that Tom took the time and trouble to examine our whole site before making this determination. Such dedication is to be admired. (If you want to torture yourself, you can see more of my pithy comments related to this controversy at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Threeafterthree#My_biased_opinion ) Reverend Loveshade (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed all mention of the tribute (see my above reasoning) and as a result removed the cited "p2P' website (which is hardly seems to be a good source in and of itself) and therefore there is no reason to include the "tribute" website as an external link. will381796 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, as it appears you have received warnings before for insults, you might want to consider wording your future posts differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Newton (talk • contribs)
I am not sure who wrote the comment above, I really don't feel like looking through the history but yes, I have butted heads, but I usually resolve things and apologize if I cross any lines. I am really sick of always walking around this place on egg shells. I have said my peace and I am done reverted. Cheers, --Tom 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Tom, Please see my comment about Wikipedia behavior above. Personally, I don't think refraining from insulting someone's effort to make a tribute to her recently dead friend is "walking on eggshells." I've been known for being crass rude, but I wouldn't go so far as to tear into a grieving friend. As to the tribute itself, I think a link to it is justified. It adds to the article, and this article only has one external link, as someone else pointed out. I think the tribute should be added to the external links. Adam Newton (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"Tear into a greiving friend"? Please spare me the drama. Listen I don't care if folks have a parade for this person at this point. It is still not approriate for THIS project to have a tribute from an external link that is questionable at best. You can spin this anyway you want and attack/question me. WHY is so important that it be included? Why are folks with like 30 edits comming in here all of the sudden and quoting wiki policy at me? --Tom 18:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Zoey Zane site wasn't the primary site for info on an aspect of the case, it would still be valid as it's her site. As for the tribute, this obviously isn't just some fan site--it is listed at the funeral home's site and would have been approved by the family. That makes it valid.207.195.244.52 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Being approved by the family doesn't mean anything when it comes to source acceptability. will381796 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's mentioned in third party writings or if it's used as a source for them - it's still not permitted per WP:EL an not considered to be a reliable source per Wiki's standards, WP:RS.--Strothra (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:EL "Links to be considered....Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

As a site by a friend (which is verified by it's deliberate inclusion in Sander's memory page at the funeral home) that qualifies as a knowledgeable source. There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Also from EL: "Is it accessible to the reader?" Answer: Yes "Is it relevant to the content of the article (useful, helpful, informative, factual, etc.)?" Answer: Yes "Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?" Answer: Yes Note also that the article says that more stringent requirements are needed when an article has a multitude of external links--this article has two. Toyalla (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Please tell me, what does this link add to the article? What additional information can you glean from a tribute website other than the picture that the person who made the tribute wants you to see? I see nothing of value added from the tribute website and instead I see its inclusion as turning this article into a memorial. The only reason I am not removing it again is to avoid a violation of WP:RRR. If any other editor agrees with my thinking, feel free to remove the links again. will381796 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Links to "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" are not permitted per WP:EL and WP:RS regardless of whether or not they are cited by a third party. Have some standards. This is completely a non-encyclopedic source and contributes absolutely nothing to the article. --Strothra (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for including that quote. It says "except those written by a recognized authority." The author of the tribute has been recognized by an American and a Canadian news service, which were in the article until editors deleted them. The author is also recognized by the site of the funeral home that held Sander's funeral. How is this person recognized as an authority? As a friend and as giving a friend's perspective. Note that several of the articles that are still included here use friends of Sanders as sources. It is entirely legitimate to use a friend as a source for what friends feel about a person an article is discussing, as news sources do on a daily basis. And it is certainly valid to use information from recognized news services as sources even if they did talk to someone's friend. Toyalla (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors who disputed the link to the tribute to Emily Sander accepted the news sources that were included with the article. Now that they have discovered that two or three of them mention the tribute, they have deleted links to those articles and thus to all the rest of the information they contain which was used as source material for the article. To me, this is inappropriate. Disagreeing with an external link to a tribute is one thing; but deleting news articles that refer to it seems to go beyond NPOV. Toyalla (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

<yawn>--Tom 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to a small number of stubborn editors buggerizing around and constantly adding/deleting that "memorial" site, we now have the entire article locked from editing. Thanks, guys! How about a simple keep/remove vote to resolve the matter and move on from this lame issue? WWGB (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
At least they locked the "right" version :) Also, don't look at me. I stopped removing that site awhile ago. Also, the vote thingy might not work since some low edit, single purpose, knowledgeable beyond their edits have shown up and seem prepared to wikilaywer this to the max. Anyways, <yawn>, good luck.--Tom 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Threeafterthree. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree, where you may want to participate.Toyalla (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going there. This editor has gone beyond rude. How can he delete someone's attempt to keep things civil? Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Because it was on HIS user talk page. HE can delete whatever he wants from his user talk page whenever he wants. will381796 (talk) 18:30, 15 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 [4] Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. I changed it to the one that the family released. It's under the same license as the old one. MRN (talk) 07:00, 20 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)
  • Is there a way for it to get longer in some way other than length? Sorry, couldn't resist. Archiving sounds good. Something tells me there will be continuing discussions. David in DC (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mireles Arrested

{{editprotected}} The block from editing should be lifted due to recent events of vital importance to the subject. I dont know how to contact the admin. EgraS (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC) [[5]]

Agreed, I added an editprotected tag to the talk. You should probably be a bit more specific though on just what to add. --Strothra (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The page was unprotected earlier. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

External Links Debate

Before someone goes and re-adds any external links that may be controversial (for examples, links that led to this page being protected), please begin a new discussion here explaining why. I don't want to see this article get locked again. will381796 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with will381796. Starting an edit war about the same things that led to the lock could get keep this going on forever. MRN (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a compromise is to leave the news source reference to there being a memorial and tribute as it is, but not linking to the tribute itself--at least until the conflict is resolved. I think we can agree that a major news report which is not an original source belongs here; whether an external link to the tribute itself adds to this article needs discussion. MRN (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Another compromise would be to leave the Aftermath section as it is and continue the discussions here, as proposed by Will381796. WWGB (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not intend to edit this article now. I never intended to get into an edit war, but see that I did. But you might want to consider, is it a compromise to change the article to the way you want it and then say leave it as it is? Toyalla (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was locked, by an administrator, to avoid a further edit war. I am just saying leave it that way until the matter is discussed and resolved. Is it a compromise to change the article to the way you want it and then say leave it as it is? Well, that's what MRN seems to want to do. WWGB (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I still think the links should be here! I don't see any reason to compromise because they're valid links. If somebody comes up with a reason why it shouldn't be here then we can discuss it. This has gotten to be nothing but an edit war! But I understand MRN is trying to work something out so I'll agree for NOW. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Binky, the compromised version did not include any mention of the tribute website in the article. This is obviously a point of contention and dispute, so before adding it again, discuss it here. If we need to put this down to a vote, then let's get it started. My vote is for the exclusion of any mention of a tribute website and subsequent inclusion of related external links. will381796 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Strothra (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I vote we keep the links. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Check your sources. The tribute was mentioned in three of the sources. Nobody thought it was a problem until people wanted to justify cutting the external link. It's a petty dispute. If you want to discuss the importance of the external link, then let's do it. But let's not keep this petty. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Binky, allow me to copy my thinking from the Tom's RfC: First, I [...] the inclusion of a link to a tribute website would be turning this article into a memorial for Emily Sanders, which is what it should NOT become. I also believed that the link violates WP:EL as its inclusion would cause "undue weight on particular points of view" regarding the deceased. A tribute only shows the point of view of the individual that created it. Secondly, I believe the mention of a tribute being created by a "friend" of Emily is not a detail worthy of inclusion in the article and thus removed the point from the article and the one source that cited it. I believe that the tribute site qualifies as a "self-published source" and therefore fails WP:SOURCES policy on acceptable sources as the tribute website appeared to be hosted on a website "whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight". Anyone can go and make a tribute website for anybody and many dead people have memorial websites created for them. Its inclusion added nothing of value to the article." I must, however, question your motives Binky as your contribution history clearly shows that you're an active proponent of all things related to "discordia." I see now why you are fighting so much to have a tribute that is being hosted by the discordia website included. will381796 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact MRN [6], Binky The WonderSkull [7], Reverend Loveshade [8] and "Perlie the Pony Girl" are all into Discordianism, so they all have a vested interest in maintaining any listing or reference to http://discordia.loveshade.org/xtra/emily.html. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and let's not forget the blatant attempt at impersonating me by someone using the username "Will381976". will381796 (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Reverend Loveshade and Perlie the Pony Girl didn't make any edits to this article. I checked. And Threeaftertree said he thinks Discordianism is junk, so he cut out links to it. So what's your point? Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that any arguments put forward by you, MRN or Loveshade concerning the discordia website, or references or links to the discordia website, do not represent a neutral point of view. You are all singing from the same hymn sheet. WWGB (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this debate. But so far The Parsnip!, Toyalla, MRN, Adam Newton, Binky The WonderSkull have all added the link. I didn't find the one who put it in originally because I got tired of looking. Will381796, Strothra, and Threeafterthree cut it out. Looks like the Keep vote is higher than the Delete vote. Mad Mary (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote Delete and Toyalla has left Wikipedia, so that pretty much ties up the vote! WWGB (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Gee Mary, I see that you ripped into the Emily Sander article two minutes after joining Wikipedia. V e r y interesting ... WWGB (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to have more edits to edit this article? If you check I never added or deleted a link. I don't care about this debate I was just counting. I had another user name but it was too close to somebody else's. Mad Mary (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not add the link to discordia. The link I keep adding is to a news story. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the "news" in this article? It is a thinly-veiled promotion of discordia and an online memorial to Emily; its inclusion is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. 220.253.75.195 (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not what the accusation above says. The "discussion" above is regarding a link in the "external links" section. I couldn't care less if the link to the tribute site is in the article or not. The news article I keep adding is intended to prove that the story was covered in the international news media. 1) Which guideline is the p2pnet article in violation of? 2) Would you please sign in? 3) I'm not a fan of your assumptions of bad faith. Please see WP:AGF. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Check the list above. "The Parsnip!, Toyalla, MRN, Adam Newton, Binky The WonderSkull have all added the link." A couple disgrunted editors got pissed at a link to Emily's Tribute page being included because it's on a Discordian site and they think Discordianism is junk. Fine but it's Emily's friend. When somebody said that the tribute was valid and was mentioned in three of the article's sources, they cut out those sources. This has nothing to do with good editing; it has to do with a couple editors who are pissed that international news services recognize the tribute. So if any article mentions it? It's cut from Wikipedia. MRN (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In case anybody thinks I'm taking one side, I deleted the link to the tribute.[9]. I like Discordia and I think the tribute's valid. But I removed it to avoid having this article blocked again. But I STILL think the links to the news services that mention the tribute are valid. Anybody else care to add them back? MRN (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
By my counting, there's Adam Newton; Binky The WonderSkull and MRN who are both into Discordia (to which the disputed website links, Toyalla has left Wikipedia and The Parsnip! has left Wikipedia. That's only one disinterested supporter of the p2pnet reference. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Murder or Death

This article was changed from Death of Emily Sander to Murder of Emily Sander. I don't know enough about Wikipedia policy to know if this was premature or not. All we have right now is a suspicious death and a suspect who hasn't even been transported into the U.S.--and might not ever be. Should this be called a murder or should this be listed as a death until more conclusions are made? MRN (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The suspect has been charged, so it passes the definition to murder. EgraS (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
All right makes sense. MRN (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)