Talk:Connecticut v. Amero

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Connecticut v. Amero article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pornography Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 7 June 2007, Connecticut v. Amero was linked from BBC News Online, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Fair use image

I wonder if this image could be added under a fair use rationale:

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070213/070213_teacherporn_hmed_12p.h2.jpg

Image shows Amero w/ husband Wes Volle, cf. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134607/

What do people think? 86.56.48.12 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The images of her themselves are not in question and, I assume, merely for decoration purposes. See counterexample # 8 to the Wikipedia Fair Use Policy. In theory, it would not be terribly difficult for someone to find a free image of her (find her, take a picture) which makes a fair use argument that much more difficult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Letter to Chief State's Attorney Kevin T. Kane

On March 6, 2007 a $2,400 ad was put in the Hartford Courant in the form of an open letter to the chief state's attorney.[1] Because it was an ad it wasn't posted on the courant's website (www.hartfordcourant.com) and although it was reported on NBC30 and WTNH I've been completely unable to find the text of this letter signed by 28 professors anywhere on the internet. A link to the letter (or scan of the page from the newspaper) would be appreciated. As best I can gather the gist of the ad is these experts are requesting the verdict either be set aside or that an independent investigator be called in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.169.185 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Notability

I tagged this for natability and it was removed by LittleOldMe who left the following note on my talk page, copied and replied here:

(note by LittleOldMe)

I am puzzled as to why you tagged this article for lack of notability.

There are six references (pared down to the most relevant) that clearly prove notability.

In fact, Julie Amero's case is so notable that she has made the national news in Ireland. LittleOldMe 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reply)

That something makes it to national news is a hint but not a proof of notability. Here in Portugal we have daily reports on the main football team's practice sessions. That doesn't make the sessions notable, not even worthy of including a note on the team's article. (note: obviously the team itself is "proven" notable by this, given that even such trivia is reported on national news)

Court cases have many reasons to be notable: they showed some flaw in the law, caused new law to be passed or old law to be revoked, established jurisprudence, etc., etc.. The current article shows nothing more than it has been in the news, with no assertion of importance other than to those involved. That's why I tagged, and will do it once more, for notability.

By the way, I suggest the article be moved to "Trial of Julie Amero", or some other more appropriated title as the subject of the article is the trial, not the the person.

Thank you. Enjoy! - Nabla 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sides

All stories like this have two sides. Is there any particular reason why the side of the school district and prosecuting authorities, no matter how weak, is not expressed here?