![]() | This page 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. |
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is essentially a description of a crime; not suitable for an encyclopedia article-- 81.101.253.108 12:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{ 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]
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Tegrofi ( talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. [10] I would hate for Wikipedia to jeopardise any upcoming trial. WWGB ( talk) 12:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I updated the link to Emily's obituary (the link had changed) and added a memorial. To some the latter may look like conflict of interest as I am somewhat associated with the site that features it.
However, I never met nor even corresponded with Emily Sander. My friend Perlie knew Emily, and because of her The Loveshade Family Blog was as far as I know the first news source outside of Kansas to report that Emily was missing--see Please Help Us Find Missing Emily Sander. This was posted very early on November 27, 2007, before it was announced that Emily had posed as Zoey Zane. A link to the memorial tribute at http://discordia.loveshade.org/xtra/emily.html was posted as part of the second entry in Emily's online obituary (it was posted by Perlie). Again, I have no direct connection with Emily Sander, and even if I did I don't think it would disqualify the value of the link. Alden Loveshade ( talk) 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
To keep the history clear, due to the blog being reworked the link has slightly changed. The link for "Please Help Us Find Missing Emily Sander" is http://loveshade.org/blog1/2007/11/please_help_us_find_missing_em.html Alden Loveshade ( talk)
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)
![]() | This page 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. |
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is essentially a description of a crime; not suitable for an encyclopedia article-- 81.101.253.108 12:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{ 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]
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Tegrofi ( talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. [10] I would hate for Wikipedia to jeopardise any upcoming trial. WWGB ( talk) 12:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I updated the link to Emily's obituary (the link had changed) and added a memorial. To some the latter may look like conflict of interest as I am somewhat associated with the site that features it.
However, I never met nor even corresponded with Emily Sander. My friend Perlie knew Emily, and because of her The Loveshade Family Blog was as far as I know the first news source outside of Kansas to report that Emily was missing--see Please Help Us Find Missing Emily Sander. This was posted very early on November 27, 2007, before it was announced that Emily had posed as Zoey Zane. A link to the memorial tribute at http://discordia.loveshade.org/xtra/emily.html was posted as part of the second entry in Emily's online obituary (it was posted by Perlie). Again, I have no direct connection with Emily Sander, and even if I did I don't think it would disqualify the value of the link. Alden Loveshade ( talk) 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
To keep the history clear, due to the blog being reworked the link has slightly changed. The link for "Please Help Us Find Missing Emily Sander" is http://loveshade.org/blog1/2007/11/please_help_us_find_missing_em.html Alden Loveshade ( talk)
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)