This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It remains problematic that almost all of the biographical material, in addition to its excessive detail, is unsourced. If the source is Kosilek's autobiography, that needs to be made clear.
That said, her autobiography is not a proper third party source in any case, nor is her self-authored promotional material on Smashwords. I'd suggest facing this squarely and removing the lengthy biography. Instead, note that in 2011 she wrote her autobiography and then summarize it in 2 paragraphs. Do that with language like "she wrote" and "she detailed" and "she recounted" rather than "she claimed" or "she contended". But make clear teh source and maintain a sense of proportion.
I suspect that a better WP entry than Michelle Kosilek would have been, and still might be, Kosilek lawsuits. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There some material under "findings of fact" in the court record HERE, but it's slight by comparison with what we have now. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That's much better. I'll look it over closely soon. There's much to be done with the rest of this entry, too. For one thing, there are citations to an op-ed in Newsday by John M. Crisp that are used to document biographical details. But the author has no knowledge of Kosilek's bio other than what he's reading in the papers and court decisions, just as we do. He's identified as "John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas". Really not a good bio source. And a lot of the night-of-the-crime detail is superfluous, more CSI than WP. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice that there is some inconsistent use of pronouns in the article (both "he" and "she," sometimes in the same sentence). Perhaps someone can clean that up? I have to admit I don't know the protocol, i.e. if there's a point in time before which "he" would be the proper one. 170.164.249.17 ( talk) 23:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor recently blanked several passages from this article, citing them as "unencyclopediac" among other things. Removing over 2000 characters calls for more of an explanation. Just Tidying Up ( talk) 22:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I gave an explanation, but I'll give another one.
The only source that says Kosilek ever married anyone named 'Jessica' (in quotations because we have no idea if this human being exists)is Kosilek's self-published internet biography. This falls under WP:SELFPUB and it's criteria:
I believe the high-lighted is what is in question. We don't know if Jessica exists, but saying that Jessica did, then this claim involves a 3rd party and thus it is a claim that involve a 3rd party and needs additional support; Secondly, there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, as the only source I have found making this claim is Kosilek, and there is no reason to believe that Kosilek had a legally, religiously, culturally, or civically-recognised marriage with anyone named Jessica at any time. Finally--too much reliance is put on Kosilek's word alone for such a broad claim, regardless of the criteria above.
Hope that clarified why I removed it. Solntsa90 ( talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not needlessly strict, Wikipedia designed it that way so that potentially libelous lawsuits could be avoided--If there is such a Jessica in existence, she must not be mentioned unless independently verified as it can be potentially libelous to be linked to a homicidal murderer/justice warrior who may/may not want to be represented as supporting such a person.
As for inclusion of non-pertinent details...No, only details which can be considered key to understanding Kosilek's life would be included. If Kosilek thinking that Kosilek was the Queen of England was important to understanding the story, that'd be one thing. But it makes no difference.
As for the marriage...this has nothing to do with gay marriage, as not even any legally-entitled LGBT civic organisations have recognised a marriage between Kosilek and 'Jessica'.
Finally, as for the information I am removing...all to make it read more like a biography of someone who was notable for a crime, and less like a Lifetime Afternoon Special. Solntsa90 ( talk) 18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide me with substantiated, 3rd party evidence beyond-a-doubt that Jessica is a real person? Only then can such a Jessica be included in this article.
Solntsa90 (
talk) 18:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Kosilek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It remains problematic that almost all of the biographical material, in addition to its excessive detail, is unsourced. If the source is Kosilek's autobiography, that needs to be made clear.
That said, her autobiography is not a proper third party source in any case, nor is her self-authored promotional material on Smashwords. I'd suggest facing this squarely and removing the lengthy biography. Instead, note that in 2011 she wrote her autobiography and then summarize it in 2 paragraphs. Do that with language like "she wrote" and "she detailed" and "she recounted" rather than "she claimed" or "she contended". But make clear teh source and maintain a sense of proportion.
I suspect that a better WP entry than Michelle Kosilek would have been, and still might be, Kosilek lawsuits. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There some material under "findings of fact" in the court record HERE, but it's slight by comparison with what we have now. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That's much better. I'll look it over closely soon. There's much to be done with the rest of this entry, too. For one thing, there are citations to an op-ed in Newsday by John M. Crisp that are used to document biographical details. But the author has no knowledge of Kosilek's bio other than what he's reading in the papers and court decisions, just as we do. He's identified as "John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas". Really not a good bio source. And a lot of the night-of-the-crime detail is superfluous, more CSI than WP. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I notice that there is some inconsistent use of pronouns in the article (both "he" and "she," sometimes in the same sentence). Perhaps someone can clean that up? I have to admit I don't know the protocol, i.e. if there's a point in time before which "he" would be the proper one. 170.164.249.17 ( talk) 23:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor recently blanked several passages from this article, citing them as "unencyclopediac" among other things. Removing over 2000 characters calls for more of an explanation. Just Tidying Up ( talk) 22:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I gave an explanation, but I'll give another one.
The only source that says Kosilek ever married anyone named 'Jessica' (in quotations because we have no idea if this human being exists)is Kosilek's self-published internet biography. This falls under WP:SELFPUB and it's criteria:
I believe the high-lighted is what is in question. We don't know if Jessica exists, but saying that Jessica did, then this claim involves a 3rd party and thus it is a claim that involve a 3rd party and needs additional support; Secondly, there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, as the only source I have found making this claim is Kosilek, and there is no reason to believe that Kosilek had a legally, religiously, culturally, or civically-recognised marriage with anyone named Jessica at any time. Finally--too much reliance is put on Kosilek's word alone for such a broad claim, regardless of the criteria above.
Hope that clarified why I removed it. Solntsa90 ( talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not needlessly strict, Wikipedia designed it that way so that potentially libelous lawsuits could be avoided--If there is such a Jessica in existence, she must not be mentioned unless independently verified as it can be potentially libelous to be linked to a homicidal murderer/justice warrior who may/may not want to be represented as supporting such a person.
As for inclusion of non-pertinent details...No, only details which can be considered key to understanding Kosilek's life would be included. If Kosilek thinking that Kosilek was the Queen of England was important to understanding the story, that'd be one thing. But it makes no difference.
As for the marriage...this has nothing to do with gay marriage, as not even any legally-entitled LGBT civic organisations have recognised a marriage between Kosilek and 'Jessica'.
Finally, as for the information I am removing...all to make it read more like a biography of someone who was notable for a crime, and less like a Lifetime Afternoon Special. Solntsa90 ( talk) 18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide me with substantiated, 3rd party evidence beyond-a-doubt that Jessica is a real person? Only then can such a Jessica be included in this article.
Solntsa90 (
talk) 18:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Kosilek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)