Jump to content

Talk:Deborah Jeane Palfrey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palfrey not a reliable source

[edit]
"(rvt to last version by Ip208man. Reasoning: This is neither a reliable source nor should a conspiracy mongerer have a say on this article. this issue has already been aired on the talk page.)", Ip208man

This isn't 'a conspiracy mongerer' having a say, but Palfrey in her own words denying she would ever suicide and discussing another alleged suicide of one of her employees. Wikipedia requires verifiability and not Judgement as to the veracity of the statement. In this case, Palfrey did indeed make those statements.

See also the section below "Reliable Sources is a guideline not a policy" .. 'Audio/Video of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's own words can in no way be considered challenged or likely to be challenged"'

emacsuser (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire talk page and respond to its many responses to this already well-hashed issue. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

RoosterEnroughty added in this external link:

Ip208man removed the EL with this edit summary:

rmv unneeded EL. not a high quality link

Emacsuser returned the EL with the edit summary:

restored link, please enumerate any inaccuracues in that link

I concur with Ip208man that this is a low quality source and neither of us are arguing inaccuracies per se. Emacsuser asked on my talk page (and I'm moving it here as the appropriate forum):

Please define 'unneeded/low quality source' in relation to Wikipedia secondary sources policy. Point out any inaccuracies or false hoods in the quoted text. An ABC interview with Palfrey isn't 'quality'. What gives ?

This article was from the "Hyattsville Life and Times" -- a wiki[1]. Wikis are never reliable sources. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this link does not add anything to article and would never pass a test as a reliable source. Ip208man (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Hyattsville Life and Times is not a wiki. It is a professionally edited local newspaper in Hyattsville, Maryland. It is true that if you Google the paper, the first thing that comes up is their wiki, but that's not their newspaper. You can see a pdf of their newspaper on another Google hit, http://issuu.com/hyattsvillelifeandtimes/docs/2009-09edition-final. I don't know who's giving the tests, but it seems to me that this newspaper would pass any test of reliability that any other newspaper would. The case for taking down the article, which mainly just puts together known facts about the case and makes pointed observations, has not been made at all. I think that it should go back up. WayneGoalie (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, could you please provide the source that this is a "professionally edited" newspaper? I only find that it is an "all volunteer newspaper".[2] A reliable source needs to be a published, mainstream newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is very difficult to ascertain the status of this "newspaper" since it really doesn't have an established web site (there is a PDF floating around from September 2009). Additionally, could you please tell me what exactly this external link adds to the article? Besides its pithy quotes of Pericles and Casablanca, what is its point? I'm unsure, but is it posting a conspiracy theory? If so, then such a fringe theory doesn't belong here. Wikipedia demands high quality sources for making that kind of assertion. This "article" is on the personal web page of "DC Dave" with his poetry and conspiracy theories. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Hyattsville's newspaper is the Hyattsville Gazette.[3] The Hyattsville Life And Times isn't a substantial newspaper nor is Hugh Turley a reporter -- he is at best a blogger who doesn't write well. This link is inappropriate for Wikipedia. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palfrey's suicidal state of mind

[edit]

According to her Condo manager "She insinuated that there is a contract out for her and I fully believe they succeeded" and staff stated she asked about her condo fees being paid during her anticipated incarceration[1]. In an interview when asked about Brandy Britton she responded “It’s not that I don’t want to be like her. I don’t want to end up like her.”[2]

So? I fail to see why this should be added, considering it has been discussed extensively on the talk page. The condo manager's thoughts on the matter are no more important than my own. I will repeat the advice given to you by Therefore: "Please read the entire talk page and respond to its many responses to this already well-hashed issue. Thanks!" Ip208man (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(to Emacsuser) The Brandy Britton comment is already included in the article under the "D.C. Madam scandal" section where it belongs. As discussed at (among others)
editors, in summary, said,

To include it in the death section is to ask the reader to make an inference as to her state of mind, again, making the implication that she may have been murdered. No reliable source is using this as proof, as one editor stated it, of her "mental stability".

As you stated at the time:

If she commited suicide ? Given no autopsy has yet been carried out yet, how can they possible make such claims, that she died of apparent suicide and 'handwritten suicide notes' were found near the body. Regarding 'reliable sources', I thought Wikipedia wanted facts and not opinion.

Now that the autopsy and investigations are complete we have the facts and not opinion. There is absolutely no reliable source that is asserting that her death was anything but suicide. Not one. Nada. Your edit synthesized sources and quotes and youtube videos (which are not allowed), contrary to Wikipedia policy. Initially, we included the condo manager's impossible to confirm attention-getting contradicted speculations as a compromise, awaiting the final investigation. Since then, consensus changed; see Talk:Deborah Jeane Palfrey/Archive 1#Speculation section. The Death section does include the sourced fact that there was rampant speculation at the time. Except on for-profit CT sites, this speculation is now a dead issue. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ober, Amanda (2008-05-02). "Building Manager: DC Madam's Death Not Suicide". [wesh.com. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
  2. ^ Joynt, Carol (2007-05-02). "Q&A Cafe at Nathans-DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey-ABC News". [ABC News. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

Archive

[edit]

I have just archived the talk page, in large part to prevent people from reposting on old topics. So, please read the archive page before you start a new section. Thank you. Ip208man (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Moldea is hearsay, then Jones is appropriate

[edit]

89.145.220.86 (talk · contribs) has added in several times Alex Jone's take on her state of mind, saying that since Moldea's comments are hearsay, then Jone's should be included.

My response: The issue isn't hearsay -- the tricky thing to understand about Wikipedia (one we all struggled with when starting) is per WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in the original]

I understand that Moldea's comment are hearsay but what is important is that several reliable sources (meaning, here, published, mainstream, known for fact checking) reported on his comments (AP, Time, Orlando Sentinel). Therefore, they are attributable. No reliable source and I mean none, every reported on Jone's conspiracy theory. WP:FRINGE opinions, unless reported by a reliable source and attributed as such, are never appropriate for inclusion.

Really, please read through the extensive discussion at the archived talk page where these arguments have been made along with many others. Here are some pointers:

Per WP:BRD -- you have the responsibility to discuss adding in controversial changes and not simply keep re-adding them. After the fourth time you will be stopped from editing per WP:3RR and there is no need for that. You also have the burden of reading the extensive discussion on this page and the archive and address all of the specific reasons this is not going to be added so we don't have to re-hash it over and over again. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted his foul-mouthed attack that was previously located where my comment is currently placed. I suppose the only recourse we have is to just keep reverting. And page was so quite for so long! Ip208man (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sibley

[edit]

This article is about Palfrey. It should not become a WP:COATRACK for Montgomery Blair Sibley, who (now) has his own article. --Weazie (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved much of the information about Sibley's recent efforts over to Sibley's article. --Weazie (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deborah Jeane Palfrey. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Deborah Jeane Palfrey. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey&oldid=1208245842"