Talk:Deborah Jeane Palfrey/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Deborah Jeane Palfrey. 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.

Archive 1

Death Controversy

She is a very decent woman, and the "laws" that drove her to suicide are SICK! The entry should reflect a respectful attitude to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.144.72 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Folks, the body isn't cold and we're speculating about whether or not her death was a suicide. As of the hour, her death is still under investigation. Also, recent comments reflect a person that would have not committed suicide. So if her death is ultimately ruled a suicide, we should include a 'Controversy' section in the article reflecting the contradictory comments. -Spencer,Leon 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a controversy. She hanged herself.[1] I doubt the conspiracy theories will amount to much but if they do there's plenty of time to cover them once they emerge. Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

She had a VOICE INTERVIEW only weeks ago where she claimed she was going to be killed and they would make it look like a suicide! You can hear her own words... all you have to do is CLICK A LINK. You are enabling the criminals who did this by ignoring this evidence. You are an accessory by proxy. "Nothing to see here" didn't wash with the Holocaust, and it sure as heck doesn't wash here. If you can't be bothered to check the facts, don't post as if you are the authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been no conclusion in her death. And the FBI has been called in because of conflict of interest. Any classification should be prefixed with 'tentative' or 'questionable'. -Spencer,Leon 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer leon (talk • contribs)

There is no enabling of anything here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to post your independent investigations. The prudent thing to do is to let OFFICIALS investigate, and when they release any info, that's what we should put up here. However, if you'd like to create a page speculating about her death, go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.188.25 (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several RS entries from her mother, friends, and herself which indicate that she was not suicidal, but instead ready for a long trial with lots of revelations against the government. When you include the speculative hearsay from her publisher, who had not talked to her for months, yet ignore the direct quotes from her mother as stated on MSNBC, you ARE creating a soapbox for your own assumptions.71.42.239.130 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not we believe she committed suicide, or even if we are just not sure, the audio recording of her stating she would not commit suicide (found at this page - www.infowarscom/?p=1862 ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}) is relevant and should be linked to or at the very least acknowledged.71.146.74.201 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've copied your comment to the below section #Discussion of points of disagreement under "Jones questions". Please go there for my response. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged suicide

We're not speculating but the Tarpon Springs police do seem sure it is a suicide and the alleged notes allegedly found at the scene were written by her. Did she manage to shoot herself twice in the head like that other alleged suicide - Gary Webb. Getting my conspiracy hat on, I figure in the near future, we'll start reading stories about her unbalenced mental state.

"Cause of death Apparent suicide", I don't think so. How about 'Cause of death Unknown'

This just in ...

"She wasn't going to jail, she told me that very clearly. She told me she would commit suicide

author Dan Moldea told TIME soon after news broke of her body being found in Tarpon Springs, Florida

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736687,00.html

emacsuser (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus among law enforcement people covering her death appears to be suicide: Police: 'D.C. madam' kills herself in Fla. coastal town. Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is based upon hearsay. I prefer to use her own words. In an audio interview on PrisonPlanet.com you can directly hear in her own words that she believed she would be killed and they would make it appear as a suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"The consensus among law enforcement people..." Cla68, that isn't fact. These folks found a couple of notes and a hanging body. There has yet to be a coroner examination or forensics. Let the examination play out unlike the police. The investigation is still underway. And isn't this the same situation she recently presented against being suicide? -Spencer,Leon 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, we're now getting formal wording from the government that Palfrey was facing 5 ot 6 years - not 30 years as beign widely quoted. So let the dust settle first.

AP Article:

"Channing Phillips, the spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in the District of Columbia, said that under sentencing guidelines, Palfrey faced about five or six years in prison. She was free while she awaited sentencing on July 24."

-Spencer,Leon 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy into these convenient suicides. The woman said she would never commit suicide, and a third party claiming she would suddenly has more clout than her last radio interview? We had a local schoolteacher found floating in the river bound in duct tape around his hands, eyes, and legs, and the police deemed it was a suicide, despite death threats upon the man and a bunch of unusual men seen around his house carrying Israeli SMGs. The police simply refused to investigate.

You might not "buy" into it but that is not relevant for Wikipedia. What is relevant is if reliable sources "buy" into it or not. There is no evidence that the Jones interview was her last. Palfrey never said she would "never" commit suicide. Please see #Original research and non-reliable sources for details. Please sign your statements -- use four tildes! Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

She said she would not commit suicide not only once, but SEVERAL times. You may not like the source, but you cannot deny the voice. It's her own words. Reliable sources doesn't wash here. You have allowed conjecture and hearsay to clutter the death section, and you still deny her last interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, she did answer no multiple times to Jone's question. You want to infer from this that she would never have committed suicide. I argue that even if she at that point intended to commit suicide if convicted she would have still answered no. Would you expect her to say, "Yes, Alex, I will commit suicide"? No reliable source (read WP:RS) has (yet) reported on this probably because they feel that this doesn't really prove her state of mind. The only hearsay that is cluttering up the death section is the biographer's statements and the reported suicide notes. Both of these have been reported on by hundreds of reliable sources. Please understand, what Wikipedia means by reliable sources: the news papers and magazines and not that the biographer or the police are themselves necessarily reliable. When a RS questions whether this is a suicide, then it may be included. ∴ Therefore | talk 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

She has been quoted from reliable sources saying "they will kill me and make it look like suicide" as early as 1991. Alex would not have asked the question without that prior context, it wouldn't make sense. So your explanation, once again falls well short of explanation of a viable insight into her state of mind - and you still quote the biographer in the death section when her interview came well after her biographer's last meeting with her. If that is not bias, I cannot imagine what is - and I would note that your first source you cite is titled "Alleged Suicide" which is a correction you refuse to make as well. Her interview was specific in stating that she was prepared for a legal battle to expose the government. These are not the words of a person who is planning to commit suicide. These are the words of a person ready to name some people in high seats. Those are the words of a person who is going to upset some very powerful people.

Know this... she turned down a Plea Bargain of 4 months in jail if she would remain silent. Does this sound like someone who was readying herself to commit suicide, or more likely, someone who wanted to get the truth out, regardless of the consequences.

I think if you took the tiniest logical assertion you could put two and two together and see that suicide is not defensible. It is clear beyond any question she was murdered for what she would have revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

An addendum... for your "Realiable sources" how about when she was reported by msnbc as stating "I am sure as heck am not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, you know, four to eight years here, because I'm shy about bringing in the deputy secretary of whatever," Palfrey told ABC last year when she released phone records that revealed some of her clients. "Not for a second. I'll bring every last one of them in if necessary."^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, "Blanche Palfrey had no sign that her daughter was suicidal, and there was no immediate indication that alcohol or drugs were involved, police Capt. Jeffrey Young said." ^[2]

Can we at least come to a concensus that either the police and other references go into the death section, or the biographer section be removed. I think I have built a considerable RS case that she was not suicidal, and indeed intending to expose government officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

She was murdered by the government. Arguing otherwise makes you look foolish, and it will cost wikipedia credibility to not include a section about it in her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.67.68.202 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, you can nurture those conspiracy theories elsewhere, but on Wikipedia we don't mention them until they're credible, widely accepted, or notable in their own right, and don't endorse them unless they're the prevailing interpretation. Any argument that suicide is unlikely is just that, an argument, and this is an encylopedia not a debate forum. Wikidemo (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for a conspiracy theory. Just balance in the description of her murder. You are quoting her publisher, a months-old third party reference, when there are hours-old RS references from her mother, and her friends (Larry Flint, for example on Fox News) which refute the publisher's claim. The publisher's claim should be removed. You are the one inviting the argument by dallying in speculation.71.42.239.130 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

As said above, it's early days, and speculation is unhelpful. Due to the volume of to-and-fro editing, I have protected this article from all editing, nominally for a week but at least until the dust dies down. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected from "all editing ... for a week?" How has wikipedia come to this? Do you really have the right to do that? And is it an expression of the consensus of the community of editors to do that? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nominally for a week". If you take a look at the edit history for today alone, you may agree that protection is justified by policy. There is a thread on WP:ANI here if you think it should not be protected, or you can apply at WP:RFPP or to request a non-controversial edit, start a topic here headed by {{editprotected}}. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is disputing that it was a suicide. She left two suicide notes, and it's been confirmed by numerous independent news sources. I'd suggest reducing to semi, as I don't see any need for full protection to begin with. - auburnpilot's sock 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with AuburnPilot. CNN is calling it a suicide also- [2]. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the two of you are ignoring a lot of evidence to the contrary if you say it is a suicide. She said in a recent interview that she would be killed and they would make it look like a suicide. All you need to do is click on the radio interview and listen to her own words. In fact, she added that she had no intention of killing herself and she would vigorously pursue legal action to expose the government. If that's the case, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that she killed herself? She was threatening to expose people in the government and she dies in a way she said she would never do. No rocket science there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why the article says "apparently". We do not do the job of the Coroner for them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring her VOICE INTERVIEW which completely is evidence that contradicts your comments that state that you support the suicide theory, which has less evidence than the murder. This is clear political vandalism by the editors. Why is it when I see a controversial issue being covered up, with clear, cited evidence from THE VICTIM HERSELF that we have wiki editors foisting their blind support for the official line?

By citing the ALLEGED suicide and not presenting the FACT that she claimed she was going to be killed and made look like a suicide, you ARE doing the coroner's job. You have ignored a critical element of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see below section #Original research and non-reliable sources that discusses this. Your belief that the voice interview is "complete evidence" is your opinion and not supported by any reliable source. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu unprotected it. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still semi-protected for 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope that you are monitoring the page -- many are just itchin' to get in here and post unsourced conspiracy theories (naturally using a lot of caps [see previous]). Make life a whole lot easier if it stays semi-prot for awhile. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget the UNSOURCED stuff... I want her OWN WORDS put in the article. From the last words she spoke on air before she was murdered. I would think the person in question would have the most authority over their own state of mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Original research and non-reliable sources which already addresses these issues. Please indent your comments. Just add in an extra colon at the beginning. Really helps keeps things readable. A small piece of advice, using caps doesn't make your point stronger, it in fact, for most editors, hurts it. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cited several reliable sources (msnbc, etc.) now which confirm she was not suicidal, including the person she was living with at the time she died. I have shown that she turned down a 4 month plea bargain (and silence) so she could get the truth out and expose the guilty. Being that she stood to expose upwards of 15000 clients, most of which were politicians or people of power and influence, it does not take a scientist to figure out she was murdered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, your decision to keep this page protected, and to keep the recent death warning is wise. The page will fall into an editing war if you unprotect the page. The simple fact of the matter is that as of now, there isn't any solid information. I mean, it's been a day. The only real facts in the case are that 1.) She's dead. 2.) She was found hanging. As for cause of death, not only is it up for debate, it hasn't even been fully investigated yet. Letting people post "information" that receive from sensationalist media outlets (ie, cable television) is a serious disservice to everyone who comes to this page to find FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.188.25 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has become a whitewash of the facts. Wikiedia has told me several times that FACTS are not important, but reliable sources ARE. I have posted reliable verifiable sources that indicate that she was not suicidal, that she never stood to face a long term, and she willingly pursued the case. I wasn't asking for a conspiracy section. Just a retraction of the hearsay. 70.113.119.168 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, what is reported is what she apparently said on a radio show nearly a year ago. That isn't a reliable source on her recent state of mind, and anyone who insists that it is only adds to my resolve that this article will continue to comply with WP:RS and WP:V policies. If that means maintaining protection, protected it will remain. We are not into speculation here, just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. --Rodhull andemu 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, you aren't reading my sources. I am referencing MSNBC. And her own mother, who she was living with at the time who claimed she was not suicidal. I also reference an article which shows she was set on pursuing this legal action to the end. And you are using speculation. The words of her biographer were from a meeting a year ago. The words of her mother are from yesterday.71.42.239.130 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to report sources, it's entirely another to synthesise those sources into an inference, even implied. We are an encyclopedia here, not a crystal ball. --Rodhull andemu 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but by citing the publisher, you are guilty of the very thing you claim I am doing.70.113.119.168 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TSG on Palfrey

The Smoking Gun has posted an excerpt from Palfrey's June 1992 court filing: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0501081palfrey1.html

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that reflect her current state of mind? I mean 1992 is 1992. That was nearly 20 years ago. -Spencer,Leon 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer leon (talk • contribs)

MSNBC reported that her mother said she was not suicidal, and there are reports in Fox news that she was eager to take the government to task in court. These speak of a person who was in the mood for a fight, not one who was giving up.71.42.239.130 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Brandy Britton, a former employee that also committed suicide, be referenced?

The Yahoo AP article on Deborah Jeane Palfrey mentions her former employee committed suicide in January 2008. Normally this would just be a footnote but Palfrey commented as follows:

Yahoo AP Article: 'D.C. madam' kills herself in Fla. coastal town

One of the escort service employees was former University of Maryland, Baltimore County, professor Brandy Britton, who was arrested on prostitution charges in 2006. She committed suicide in January before she was scheduled to go to trial.
Palfrey said last year that she, too, was humiliated by her prostitution charges, but said: "I guess I'm made of something that Brandy Britton wasn't made of."

This seems relevant to the circumstances and mindset surrounding her death. -Spencer,Leon 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research and non-reliable sources

The inclusion of the 1991 quotation is asking the reader to make an inference that is not supported by the source. Find a reliable source that uses this quotation to make such an implication then re-include it.

Done, see comments below. (and above) No Prison Planet. Just MSNBC and the likes. 70.113.119.168 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Prison Planet is in no fashion a reliable source. That section should be excluded. Wikipedia is not for posting conspiracy theories. The use of reliable sources is required. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While you may dispute the reliability of Prison Planet, her interview on there does have HER state HERSELF that she does not plan to commit suicide. I believe that in light of the fact that she apparently did commit suicide, this should be referenced, as it is a statement straight from her mouth. Primary sources should be a pretty darn reliable resource. JJ4sad6 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Prison Planet is not a reliable source, a core policy of Wikipedia. Here are the criteria from WP:V and WP:RS:

respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers
published
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

Prison planet fits none of these. This isn't a matter of opinion but of established policy. It does fit this:

Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included

Primary sources are not to be used. Please see Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Doing so, in other words, you the editor decides that a primary source is relevant is a violation of no original research. Find a reliable source that uses this and it is then a candidate for inclusion. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when primary sources are audio recordings of the biographied person ("reliable source"? is there any dispute that it was her speaking?) the criteria for inclusion are clearly insufficient. DaveWF (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the entirety of the talk page, you will see no one is contesting whether it is her. Wikipedia's stance against primary sources (please read up at WP:PSTS) is (quoting from just above, which is what you need to address) because "Doing so, in other words, you the editor decides that a primary source is relevant which is a violation of no original research. Find a reliable source that uses this and it is then a candidate for inclusion." ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And because this is a biography of a living person, extra care is necessary. The internet is a huge world where one can speculate and make claims of conspiracy. Wikipedia is not the place for that. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I listened to the Alex Jones interview. He asked her several times if she was going to commit suicide and she said no. This was before the verdict. Exactly how did you expect her to answer this question? "Yes, I'm going to commit suicide"? Again, I see that Jones decided that she was murdered from this assertion. For an editor to decide that this is the correct inference is a vio of WP:NOR. And the 1991 interview has nothing whatsoever to do with her current state of mind. Just be patient and let reliable sources digest and investigate. If you feel that the mainstream media is in on the conspiracy, then you are at the wrong place. Wikipedia is for reliable sources which is, partly, the mainstream media. There are a-plenty of places for discussing conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is not one of them. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points, she isn't exactly a living person anymore now is she? Second, Wikipedia does state that primary sources can be use if the facts of those sources are not contentious, ie. there is no doubt who said it (the subject of the article) and what was said (she was not planning to kill herself). Rather than contentious in the "Prison Planet isn't reliable and thus is a contentious source." While we may not be able to cite an article from Prison Planet, I still maintain that her words should be included in this article. Even something to the effect of "During a radio interview on X date with Alex Jones, Palfrey stated to the radio host that she did not plan to commit suicide." (Link to the source). JJ4sad6 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points -- not the least of which is that this isn't a WP:BLP anymore. Geesh, I can be slow.

The issue of using a primary source isn't necessarily a question of whether she said it -- I guess we should presume that Jones didn't fabricate it. It is a question of

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

The intent of including this material is to support the assertion that she was murdered. This, I believe, is the very definition of contentiousness. If you find a reliable source that uses this quotation in support of that belief, then it is possible to include.

It is misleading to even state "Palfrey stated ... that she did not plan to commit suicide." Palfrey answered no when asked repeatedly by Jones during her trial if she'd commit suicie -- she didn't volunteer it per se. Again, I ask, how was she to answer this question? You are making an interpretation of a primary source. If she volunteered, "Even if convicted and sentenced to prison for many years, I would never commit suicide" then your argument may have more weight. As an answer to a somewhat inane question, it has no importance. But that is just my opinion just as it is your opinion that this is significant. That is not up to us -- find a reliable source that claims this is signficant, then it may be included. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I am not making any interpretations or inferences from her comment on the Jones show. Merely that if her biographer's statement is included in the page (third-party heresay information), it seems reasonable that her own statement conflicting her biographer should also be included. Such as, "Biographer said X. However, Ms. P stated herself when asked by Alex Jones Y." I believe taking a biographer's statement as gospel without Ms. P around to dispute it can be just as contentious as citing a Prison Planet article stating she was murdered. I do not infer nor interpret that she was murdered, merely that she answered no when asked if she was going to commit suicide. I'll grant that this was before her conviction. But likewise, this biographer remembered this conversation after several months of not talking to her? This to me seems like a potentially unreliable source as well, unless he has audio of his interviews with her for the book perhaps. JJ4sad6 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can the statement of a quotation be misleading, other than taking it out of context (which is certainly not the case here)? DaveWF (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the entirety of the talk page (which I do recommend to avoid having to repeat the response multiple times), you are attempting to force an implication that only a third party (i.e., mainstream publication known for accuracy and fact checking) should make. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that a reliable source said "Biographer said X". Find an RS that says "Ms. P said no when asked if she would commit suicide by Jones" then that may be added. In other words, find an RS who deemed that this was relevant and notable. It is not up to the editors to make that determination but instead we defer to reliable secondary sources. Don't forget that WP:PSTS states:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

The primary source you want to use was not published by a reliable source.

You may not be inferring anything from her comment but its inclusion is to counter the statement that it was apparently suicide which naturally means murder. We need a reliable source to make that implication. Right now we have her biographer's statement (from a RS), her two suicide notes and other information. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason the mainstream media isn't picking up on the Jones comments is that a) consider the source and b) how should she have answered such a question? This was a couple of months ago when she thought she would beat this. Even if she knew that she intended to commit suicide, would she really answer in the affirmative to the question? No, she wouldn't. Therefore, since she would have answered no regardless of her state-of-mind, no inference can be made by her denial. Even if her then state-of-mind wasn't considering suicide it doesn't speak to what her reaction was to her pending imprisonment. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet your own bias is as clear as day. I have not edited this article but have watched for the last couple of hours as you systematically cut all references which might suggest foul play, including the San Francisco Chronicle, hardly as dubious as the Alex Jones show. Even then, while speaking to Jones (as much as I loathe the man) she spoke her own words and even mused (mere weeks ago) that Brandy Britton (someone in her employ who also committed suicide) may have been suicided to keep her quiet. And she was hardly disagreeing with Jones (the San Francisco Chronicle article does establish that she had previously feared for her life - this is not uncommon in the business):

"Yeah, I have...and not to be concerned; I have no intention of letting anyone buy me off or make any kind of deal with me. "And you're not planning to commit suicide." <<IMMEDIATELY>> "And I'm not planning on committing suicide either." "The fact that you're so visible really protects you, going on Larry King and other big shows, but do you want to put it on record that you are not planning to commit suicide?" <<pointedly>> "No, I'm not planning on committing suicide, I'm planning on going into court April 7th, if indeed we have the trial, and I plan on defending myself vigorously and I plan on exposing the government in ways that I do not think they want me to expose them; I want them to explain to me in open court why they came after me."

But her own words supposedly come from sources you personally deem dubious through your interpretation of Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. For how you would this line

According to Palfrey biographer Dan Moldea, “She wasn’t going to jail, she told me that very clearly. She told me she would commit suicide."

be retained while all mention of her speaking on the subject of the real potential for her to be silenced with a faked suicide must be removed? I see from your edit history that you frequent the pages of mostly Republicans and Republican Strongholds and Often their Scandals...should I accuse you of working for the RNC seeing as you belittled everyone who posted information you personally felt unsanctioned as"conspiracy theorists"? Ease off on the bias, my friend. I too despise much of the CT community for my own political reasons (and the last editor here did throw in some clearly CT-oriented drivel) but that does not exclude that aspect of the story. It would likely be best to allow for some discussion of these elements, as they will likely only take place as vandalism if they are not. here is a Fox News story reporting on the CT-friendly nature of the story. A beginning point, perhaps? - Horseytown | talk 05:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations. My bias is to keep Wikipedia up to standards. I won't comment on your superficial analysis of my editing except to remind you keep things WP:CIVIL. I don't believe I called any editor a CT but I do maintain that Jones is a CT. I am unconvinced how a statement made in 1991 could in any way reflect her current state of mind.

On the other hand your Fox article is a reliable source. I would recommend using that to create a section separate from the one concerning her death that discusses conspiracy theories. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. My only aim was to point out that all people have a bias and that you are no exception, no matter how you may try. I admit the word "systematically" is a tad heavy. Nevertheless, I must go to sleep and am typing on a computer with a computer with no spacebar (all spaces between my words are copied and pasted) and my writing is both staggered and impersonal because of flow problems. I again apologize for any unintended insults. Horseytown | talk 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely have biases as does any editor. The purpose of the Wikipedia policies of RS, NOR and NPOV is to attempt to keep those biases in check. Consensus is the other way to do so. The best way now is to discuss them here and try to come to a consensus agreement. I really didn't take any offense and much admire your determination with your damnable spacebar. ∴ Therefore | talk 06:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Chronicle quote from 1991, I don't see a problem using that in the section "Prior legal problems" as that is where it belongs. Including it in the "Death" section introduces all the problems I outlined above. ∴ Therefore | talk 06:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You are including HEARSAY in the description of her death... forget the source, biographer or not... Since when is this RELIABLE? This is obviously a slant on the story. If you want to maintain NEUTRALITY, eliminate ALL references supporting or denying her suicide until the coroners do their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First, some process points. Please indent your comments by adding in the appropriate number of colons. Sign your comments with four tildes. And you should know (really really) that using caps weakens your arguments.

That aside, the issue isn't whether the biographer is reliable for he may or may not be. The issue is that the source (Time magazine for one of hundreds) is reliable and said source deemed this a noteworthy point to make. The point of neutrality isn't to include all "sides" but to give weight to those viewpoints that are reported on in the mainstream press (and other reliable sources). I recommend reading up on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(toungue in cheek) An exception to the hearsay rule is declarations against interest. If the biographer believed it was not suicide, he would not have stated it was. Why? If it is some nefarious murder, that biographer would reap the benefits in skyrocketing sales of any book he would write. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another hearsay exception is official records...anyway Wikipedia has no rule against hearsay - all secondary sourcing is hearsay, no? What we do have is a verifiability requirement. The hearsay rule in judicial proceedings is there because the nature of the proceedings is adversarial, with temptations to lie and fabricate events, and questions of reliability of observation, memory, and recollection of utterances. There is a constitutional guarantee of the right to confront one's accuser, and also a desire to require any party proffering evidence to produce the best available source. That has little relevance to the process here. It is true that the account of a witness that "I heard her say X" is unreliable for some of the same reasons hearsay is not admitted in court. However, if a journalist or police official (upon analysis by a publication) repeats a statement, and it is subject to the routine editorial fact-checking and quality control of a reputable publication, the source is probably reliable....subject to some concerns about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary sources, etc. If all the law enforcement officials say a death is by suicide we can certainly report that. Normally we would just say that's what happened. But if there are widespread claims to the contrary we can either mention those claims, or if they're credible enough we can include a disclaimer....like "law enforcement officials have pronounced it a suicide" or something like that. There is plenty of time to work this all out and, now that she's dead, no urgent need to clear her name. Wikidemo (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to insist on including the hearsay of a biographer from months ago, how about some from her own mother on the day of the death? She states clearly that her daughter was not suicidal, and she would know, being that she was living with her at the time. It also has the distinction of being from a clearly reliable source."Blanche Palfrey had no sign that her daughter was suicidal, and there was no immediate indication that alcohol or drugs were involved" ^[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with this poster above, suicidal people often display some type of precursor behavior^[4]. Granted, the mother may not be a clinical psychologist, but she was one of the people closest to Ms. P before her death and thus a more relevant and timely source than her biographer commenting on a conversation from a year ago.

Also, I would like to correct myself, I used the term primary source, which while her own words would be a primary source, that is not the concept I was trying to apply in this case. According to Wikipedia:

Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

* the article is not based primarily on such sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source

Now, while this is referring to written work, I believe we can safely and logically apply it to spoken words as well. After all there are many pages on Wikipedia that make reference to statements made by the individual in spoken form. Granted, these are later picked up by "reliable sources" (of which I personally believe Time is not for lack of fact checking, though it once may have been). The definition of an RS seems to me to be overly vague and subjective. But I believe SF Chronicle should be allowed if Time is allowed. Heh, and if Time is allowed, Fox News certainly should be. (And for some reason I can't get the formating of my response to look right) JJ4sad6 (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the SF Chronicle is an RS. And so is the news division of Fox News. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"operating a house of prostitution"

The cited source itself makes no such claim. Needs citation from court documents or changed to "convicted of money laundering and racketeering" - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. She was operating an esort service where it was alleged she engaged in prostitution. She was convicted of of money laundering and racketeering. -Spencer,Leon 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer leon (talk • contribs)

POV Facing A Long Sentence? Shouldn't This Be Corrected To Reflect 4 to 6 years?

The opening paragraph cites a POV that she was "Slightly over two weeks later, facing a long prison sentence, she was found dead. Authorities have described her death as a suicide.[3]". This is incorrect. The government said the following:

AP Article:

"Channing Phillips, the spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in the District of Columbia, said that under sentencing guidelines, Palfrey faced about five or six years in prison. She was free while she awaited sentencing on July 24."

That isn't a long prison sentence. In fact, witness cooperation would have reduced the sentence by at least a year per act of cooperation in naming names & etc. -Spencer,Leon 12:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

She was offered the ability to plea bargain down to 4 months for her silence. She chose to pursue the case for the sake of getting out the truth. She knew what she was facing, and she wanted to face her day in court not run from it. Look at my prior RS citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.119.168 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet more 'evidence' of her suicidal frame of mind

'Palfrey told writer Dan Moldea, who was helping her write a book, that she would commit suicide rather than return to jail, according to Time magazine.'

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/dc.madam/index.html

A slight distortion of what she actually said, now lets see that quote in full ..

"I sure as heck am not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, you know, four to eight years here, because I'm shy about bringing in the deputy secretary of whatever," "Not for a second. I'll bring every last one of them in, if necessary.", Palfrey

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/05/01/2008-05-01_police_woman_believed_to_be_dc_madam_kil.html?ref=nl&nltr_ct=1&nltr_id=Police:%20Woman%20believed%20to%20be%20'D.C.%20madam'%20kills%20herself

These are two different quotations. The one you are quoting is from an ABC 20/20 interview. Moldea is saying what she personally told him. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But in the same article Palfrey is quoted as saying this:

'Palfrey had made similar comments to ABC News in 2007, saying, "I sure as heck am not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, you know, four to eight years."'

Presumably to backup Moldea claim that she was suicidal. When viewed in full it portrays the exact opposite, someone who is fully prepared to have her day in court. "I'll bring every last one of them in, if necessary". Why invoke the quote, only to leave the ending off it? emacsuser (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and that is why the quote isn't used in the article. Taken in context, she is, in essence, implying that she will use the names in her proverbial little black book. Most of the sources do use the complete quote. Also, the quote is from long ago and does not speak to her recent state-of-mind. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to EXCLUDE her own statements regarding the fact she would NOT commit suicide. Why are you excluding them? And why are you bent on not acknowledging a CONTROVERSY when there is an obvious debate on this dicussion, contradictory statements from Palfrey, and similar debates on news outlets e.g. Headline Prime News. You are representing your POV instead WHAT IS REPORTED. That is NOT appropriate. you should add back the following text into the death section:

Palfrey had appeared on the Alex Jones radio show in July 2007, saying "No, I’m not planning to commit suicide.[4] Then in January of 2008 the Associate Press reported reaction of Palfrey to the news that her former escort service employee, Brandy Britton, has committed suicide:

One of the escort service employees was former University of Maryland, Baltimore County, professor Brandy Britton, who was arrested on prostitution charges in 2006. She committed suicide in January before she was scheduled to go to trial. Palfrey said last year that she, too, was humiliated by her prostitution charges, but said: "I guess I'm made of something that Brandy Britton wasn't made of.".[14]

-Spencer,Leon 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me give a little piece of advice from WP:TALK:

Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!!

As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, no reliable source is reporting on the Alex Jones questions. I will avoid repeating myself. Please read where I've discussed why this isn't appropriate and why her response to Jones' questions carry no weight. Palfrey's (cold and unemotional) quotation about the death of her previous employee is, in fact, in the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

comment:

She told a writer she would suicide, but not her own mother, strange that. I wonder what's in the 'book' can we see a copy of the first draft. Is there any third party corroboration that Palfrey contacted Moldea to write a book. If she really suicided, then why the necessity of making up evidence of her suicidal intent, why the fake 'quotes' from Palfrey.

We don't know if these quotes are fake. At this stage, the MSM is reporting them on face value. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to second guess the citation. Find a reliable source that contradicts or casts doubts on Moldea's statements then it should be included (written in a neutral tone of voice, of course). ∴ Therefore | talk 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of points of disagreement

In order to make this discussion proceed in a more orderly manner vs. the more scattershot approach used above, I'm going to isolate the points of contention here.

Jones questions

Some feel that when Alex Jones asked Palfrey multiple times back before her conviction whether she intended to commit suicide her denial is evidence that she may not have committed suicide.

I argue that this is a conclusion that is not supported by any reliable sources. Jones concludes she was murdered. But Jones is not a reliable source.

Additionally, WP:PSTS discourages the use of primary sources (in this case, her words from a Jones recording) and restricts them to those "that have been published by a reliable source". Again, Jones isn't a reliable source.

Regardless, the intent of including this material is to support the assertion that she was murdered. This is an extraordinary claim. From WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Extraordinary claims are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources".

Finally, if we ignore all that (which we can't as Wikipedia editors), exactly what is the value of her statement? Copied from above: This was a couple of months ago when she thought she would beat this. Even if she knew that she intended to commit suicide, would she really answer in the affirmative to the question? No, she wouldn't. Therefore, since she would have answered no regardless of her state-of-mind, no inference can be made by her denial. Even if her then state-of-mind wasn't considering suicide it doesn't speak to what her reaction was to her pending imprisonment. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Her pending imprisonment was a term of at most 6 years (and even the media analysts at Fox News were stating that it is unlikely that she would have done more than a few months in jail). Given her comments to the mainstream media (forget her comments to Alex Jones), she said she was willing to go to jail to expose the people involved in this scandal. She was ready for a fight. This states to me that she was not intent on committing suicide, but instead on a protracted legal battle. The fact that she was living with her mother because she had packed up her belongings in storage in preparation for her jail term while she went through the process of exposing officials enhances this idea even more. She gave no indication to her mother, whom she was living with, that she was suicidal - and this alone is odd, because most people who are suicidal give a number of clues to that regard (all of the students of psychology here know exactly what I am talking about). I would think if anyone was the best judge of her mental state, it would be her mother, and it's quite clear that her mother did not think she was. If you look at the testimony of Larry Flint (also on Fox News), he reports her as anything but suicidal and ready for a protracted battle in court. These facts have not escaped media notice. Even a number of news anchors (one again from Fox News) have speculated that this looks like a murder.70.113.119.168 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what your point is here. This page is for discussions on how to improve the article and not to discuss the subject. The article addresses that some on the internet are questioning the suicide and states that the mother didn't see any signs. I recommend finding a blog or a newsgroup or some other forum to discuss your ideas. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from above) Whether or not we believe she committed suicide, or even if we are just not sure, the audio recording of her stating she would not commit suicide (found at this page - www.infowarscom/?p=1862 ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}) is relevant and should be linked to or at the very least acknowledged.71.146.74.201 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First, see above why this shouldn't be included and then please read the section below titled "General discussion" by Wikidemo who summarizes the overall issue succinctly and clearly. Secondly, should we make an entire section with "battling" quotations? See here [3] where Palfrey told a judge in 1992 she thought about killing herself because of the prospect of going to jail. I don't consider this Smoking Gun source reliable either plus it is a discouraged primary source. Finally, the existence of statements that she was disinclined to commit suicide is already addressed in the article using a reliable source. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment about previous employee

Some want the comment about her previous employee who committed suicide included in the "Death" section. She said, "I guess I'm made of something that Brandy Britton wasn't made of."

That information is included in the article as relevant for the "D.C. Madam" section. 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". Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is proof the standard? This is a story of incomplete information. It is an anomaly and it is a mystery. The standard should be painting the picture with greatest detail, and properly indicting all detail (some by "unreliable source", but others by "use of incorrect and leading language" -- such as the incorrect and leading use of the word authenticated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that is what Wikipedia is about: verifiability, not truth. This is a mantra! For details, please see WP:NOT, WP:OR, and especially WP:VER, which begins: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Frank | talk 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1991 comment

In 1991 Palfrey speculated that "they will kill me and make it look like suicide". For all the reasons above, to include this in the "Death" section would make an extraordinary implication that none of the reliable sources are making. How can a statement made 17 years ago reflect her current state of mind? Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: In 1992, Palfrey told a judge she had suicidal thoughts because of the prospect of going to jail.[4] ∴ Therefore | talk 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To Emacsuser: Let me be clear: My point was not that this statement from 16 years ago is relevant. Statements such as these are standard fare in plea documents, aren't proven facts and do not reflect her recent state-of-mind. The same holds true for the 1991 comments. They are both immaterial. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the 1991 statement isn't relevant to her 2008 state-of-mind, but that doesn't mean they aren't relevant to her story. This was a woman who felt entangled with powerful men in dangerous ways. In fact, the pressure that powerful men can have on media suggests that, in the case of this article, what is and is not a traditionally reliable source might be very different. There is plausible suggestion for instance that ABC and 20/20 were coerced. Why not let the whole story be told so that readers can decide for themselves the relative credibility of sources in a case that is very much about relative credibility of people with power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

I don't see that any of the above are relevant to a biography of her for Wikipedia purposes. If she committed suicide as the authorities report, coincidences and anecdotes like that are simply morbid curiosity or trivia. The only purpose of including these would be to support the case that her death may not have been suicide. Wikipedia is not the place to support cases. It is a place to report on what reliable sources are saying. If there is a source that says that credible concerns have been raised that the official account of death is unreliable, we can cite that source for that proposition. But citing the underlying evidence, to make the argument here, is synthesis or some other flavor of original research. Wikidemo (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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. So please report on the death of Palfrey and say this, Tarpon Springs Police report finding the body of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Police sources also state that she hanged herself and notes found near the body were suicide notes left by the deceased. See, simple, isn't that's the sum totality of what happened. emacsuser (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reporting official statements from a reliable source is not opinion. The prohibition is on Wikipedians offering their own opinions in articles, not on reporting factual conclusions made by reliable sources. Generally we don't preface every statement with a text description of the source, only where it's important to the flow of the explanation to cite who said it. In this case, it might make some sense to mention that the death was a suicide according to local police. If nothing ever comes of these conspiracy theories we should simply report the death as suicide. If there are lingering, credible doubts then we should report briefly on the doubts but not get into speculation or attempts to prove it one way or another. Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To emacsuser: First, please read up on verification, a fundamental policy, the first line of which reads:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.[emphasis from source]

Given that, I understand your point. You are concerned with the statement, "Police pronounced Palfrey dead on the scene of an apparent suicide." The word "pronounced" has legal connotations that imply there has been a determination of suicide. The use of the word "apparent" is meant to give a sense that it hasn't been officially confirmed. Let's look at the sources used for the article:

"the authorities said she had apparently hanged herself."
"Police were called to ... investigate an apparent suicide."
"Palfrey .... apparently hanged herself Thursday ... authorities said."
"Police said it was an apparent suicide."

If we changed the word "pronounced" to "found", would that satisfy your concerns while keeping in line with Wikipedia's policies? ∴ Therefore | talk 16:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How about 'Police found the body of Palfrey in a shed near her mothers mobile home. Officers at the scene speculated that she died by her own hand and further, that notes found near the scene were suicide notes written by the deceased. No autopsy has yet been conducted, one is planned for May 2, 2008.' emacsuser (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have concerns with using the term "speculate" as this is not in the source. I've attempted a rewrite:

On May 1, 2008, Palfrey was found hanging in a storage shed outside her mother's mobile home in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Police reported finding handwritten suicide notes near the body and authorities said it was an apparent suicide. An autopsy was planned for May 2, 2008.

The "authorities said it was an apparent suicide" seems to capture the source precisely and makes it less "official". Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some changes

My edit summary was growing too long so a brief note here to explain some changes I just made to the "Prior legal problems" section. First, calling them "problems" introduces judgment and analysis. I don't think it's a POV issue, it just sounds too much like we're writing an essay rather than reporting facts. Comments like "may have" and "according to court papers" are wishy-washy and tend to indicate that the sources are unreliable. A claim made in a court filing is just not a reliable thing. People make all kinds of claims in court filings, many of which turn out to be mistaken. Either we can source these or not. Perhaps it's just not possible to get a good source on her escorts charging $300 per hour (which would be an unremarkable fact anyway, that's neither high nor low) or her total earnings. If we can't find a better source it might be okay to just identify it more specifically "according to police claims made in a court filing" or "according to one estimate", but "according to court filings" just doesn't establish credibility. She was convicted in court though, which means her criminal activity was not "alleged" or "maybe". It means she was proven guilty. Wikidemo (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I also attempted to reorganize things by putting all the escort service material in the DC Madam section. But it could use some more work, and there are holes in the chronology. My experience with these bio articles is that it's hard to organize them thematically, and you usually end up just putting things in chronological order. Wikidemo (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources is a guideline not a policy

Verifiability is the standard. Allow me to quote - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation".

The emphasis is not mine. Audio/Video of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's own words can in no way be considered "challenged or likely to be challenged" by any reasonable person and thus RS cannot be used as a crutch to support removal of for example her interview hosted on prisonplanet.com.

Basically people need to stop using this misrepresented technicality of Reliable Sources to pursue their own agenda and completely ban all use of material they object to. 88.212.144.188 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RS and WP:V are policies. Infowars.com and prisonplanet are not a published sources, not known for fact checking and not mainstream and are therefore not reliable sources; your quoted policy precludes it. To avoid repeating myself too much, please see above sections at #Discussion of points of disagreement and address those concerns. The inclusion of this primary source (which is discouraged) with its implications are most certainly ones that have been and are challenged. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS "This page is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. It is not a policy" - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Infowars.com and prisonplanet are not a published sources, not known for fact checking and not mainstream and are therefore not reliable sources" has no relevance whatsoever as the veracity of the material is not being challenged. You are basically using the Chewbacca defense ie "if prisonplanet is not a RS it cannot be included" - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected about WP:RS. Thanks. Actually, that is the issue. Quoting from the policy WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Please address the other concerns in the previously mentioned sections. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The need for a reliable source, and the general explanation of what a reliable source is, are policy. What is a guideline is the thin amount of material in WP:RS that helps sort some material as reliable sources and some as not. A deceased person's own words on whether or not they intend to commit suicide is not a reliable source on whether they really intend to commit suicide, much less whether they actually did at some later date. If the material is reprinted in a publication with little editorial control then yes, there is even some legitimate concern as to whether the person actually said it as quoted. But the more serious issue is relevance. An earlier statement about an intent to commit suicide is only evidence as to her state of mind when making the utterance (she may or may not be telling the truth or engaging in some denial), which is relevant to the article if we're using it to argue that she did or did not. We aren't supposed to be making arguments and analysis here, just reporting facts as laid out by reliable secondary sources. This is not the place to prove she did or she didn't. That decision has to be made in the world outside of Wikipedia. We will report the conclusion(s). Wikidemo (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case ALL references to her state of mind need to be removed as they are not relevant.

My point is this - people are using the crutch of RS to prop up their own POV decisions for material to include/suppress. Just because something is from a RS is not justification for it's inclusion, similarly RS alone is not justification for material being removed.

#1 - Verifiability is the standard, RS is simply a means to an end. There is no absolute rule/requirement for all material to come from a Reliable Source. Again I quote WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged [...]".

#2 - If as you say the more serious issue is indeed relevance then the Dan Moldea quote needs to be deleted. This is the perfect example of RS being wielded as a weapon to push agendas - Dan Moldea quote is from a reliable source therefore is included with no regard to relevance, audio interview of her own words is rejected on RS grounds with no regards to actual verifiability. You can't have it both ways. Is her state of mind relevant or not?

#3 - The purpose of WP:RS and indeed WP:V is to ensure that challenged or likely to be challenged material can be verified. If that wasn't the case every article would need a thousand citations. Do you cite a RS that she was born on March 18? Nope, sorry then that material has to be removed. Of course it would be utterly ridiculous to do so on that basis but that is the exact same "logic" being used to reject audio hosted on prisonplanet.com. Is there a single person on this page who will come forward and challenge that audio as being a fabrication? - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the above discussions (a tiresome task to be sure), no one is (necessarily) questioning that these aren't Palfrey's words but are contesting their usefulness. Again, please respond to the summary issues at #Discussion of points of disagreement where WP:RS issues are but one factor.

The current state of the section is a compromise (you see that, don't you?) in a good faith effort to balance the facts of the case with the skepticism that has arisen using published, mainstream, fact checking news media -- the very definition of RS. If there is consensus, then let us keep only the first paragraph and delete the rest. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with the "ridiculous" position, i.e. that her claimed state of mind is not relevant to deciding on Wikipedia whether or not she committed suicide. Plus we shouldn't be speculating on that point to begin with. So yes, I think the Dan Moldea quote is too much at this point. If there is an investigation and some lingering concerns at the end of the day, we can report to what the reliable sources conclude and why. But for now it's too early. If it does turn out to be a suicide after all, then her overall mental state could be relevant to a discussion of her life. If it were proven to involve foulplay then her being suicidal or not is entirely irrelevant. Wikidemo (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a story like this makes it very difficult to apply the reliable sources standard. I know I wouldn't want to be the one in charge of this article right now. But I do think the people in charge should consider that significant pressure may have been put on reliable sources not to report on this story, and at least certain details of this story. Accuracy of an ordinarily reliable source comes into question when dozens of lawyers are employed to manipulate the information (the 15,000 number list specifically -- but who knows where that leads) that gets made public. It seems like no story about Palfrey or her death could be honest without a section detailing her conflict with power and the struggle over information within the media -- even the media that rarely gets indicted for its accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of paragraphs in Death section

I copied the following from my personal discussion page so that it can get the benefit of all of the editor's input. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to undermine your balance in the edits, but it seems to me, that given the closeness to the time of the death makes the comments from the apartment manager and the mother more timely than those of the biographer. In addition, the biographer has been cited by none other than the person he did a biography of (Sirhan Sirhan) as fabricating comments that he, Sirhan Sirhan, did not make. While that does not eliminate his comments from citations, it certainly brings into question the validity of his claim.

I don't think the weight of relevance comes by how many RS you can cite, anyways. There are sufficient citations for all of the witnesses involved, and I am sure you must admit that the mother and the apartment manager's statements, having come from witnesses who had seen her considerably more recently than the biographer gives them more relevance, especially to Palfrey's state of mind. If the timing of the 1991 statement puts it on a lower relevance than the biographer, then certainly you have to agree that the same applies to the biographer's statements in relation to the mother. 70.113.119.168 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I haven't viewed your edits as undermining mine. They are made in good faith and we are both equal editors.

You make a good point here. I agree that mother's statement should be given weight because it is so recent and speaks more to her state-of-mind. I'm less enthralled by the manager's comments since a) she only lived there when visiting her mom and b) his statement that she had too much class to hang herself in a shed, in my opinion, diminishes his usefulness because that isn't an insightful comment. The manager is, at best, an acquaintance whereas Moldea had, from what I can gather, multiple contacts and interviews with her. That said, I agree that since it was a year ago it speaks little to her current-state-of-mind. My concern with this section is with the undue weight being given to the skepticism. This policy does address the issue of multiple major sources:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

I think that it may be appropriate to move the mother's and manager's statements first but then I recommend paraphrasing his comments so that they are not given so much weight. At the every least, dropping the comment about the "class act"? Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my suggested rewrite:

Her mother said she had "no indication" that Palfrey was planning to commit suicide.[12][13]. Additionally, Florida's Orlando Sentinel and WESH television reported that Palfrey's condominium manager met with her the previous Monday and said, "She did not seem the least bit distraught" and spoke of her future plans. She moved her possessions to her mother's home in preparation for prison.[13][15] Still, Palfrey biographer Dan Moldea claimed that etc.

∴ Therefore | talk 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with your rewrite as it seems a bit less contentious than my original, which was not the intent. I agree wholeheartedly that the "class act" has no merit to state of mind. Your rewrite, as usual, is well-considered and I feel the best balance. Thanks 70.113.119.168 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done I didn't view your edit as contentious. If anything, my reversal was a bit knee jerk. Probably is best if we discuss changes on this page first since this is a difficult subject. Thanks -- it reads better now. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Palfrey Suicide Notes in Death Section.

I would remind the editors that there has been no forensic analysis of the suicide notes. And while I agree the letters appear "authentic" that is not a valid claim that they were written by her. I would remind everyone that including content from the letters (especially sans any forensic study) is not only exaggerating the relevance of them, but basically drawing assumptions that exist in the realm of POV as it puts undue weight on them.

If a RS cites what is clearly a slanted statement, those tend to be ignored or not inclusive in the context of an article, so despite the fact we are dealing with a citation from a RS, it still does not eliminate the fact that the words draw conclusions that the facts do not currently support. We are not trying to be a crystal ball here I have heard several times. Well, that being the case, inclusion of "evidence" that has yet to be studied forensically in the Death section is inappropriate without clarification (or I might argue, at all).

There are a number of reasons to doubt this was a suicide, as well as there are reasons to doubt it was a murder, (my personal opinion is suicide under duress - perhaps even at gunpoint). But for the sake of fairness, I feel that we should try to balance the comments from both sides. Currently, the death section seems highly slanted towards the idea of a suicide, and without an investigation, it is an unfair assumption to make. Crystal ball again.

Thanks... and suggestions are plenty welcome. 70.113.119.168 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the recipients of the letters - her two closest relatives - validated them; this is cited in the article from reliable sources. What's the problem? Frank | talk 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion -- that Palfrey's mom is capable of validating her state of mind just like a handwriting expert could. It's a good thing Palfrey's mom is a reliable source on the matter -- as a forensics expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a suggestion, but rather reporting what has been cited in a reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I don't know if she committed suicide or not, and I don't know if she wrote the notes or not. But the media are reporting both of those things, and those are the things we are citing in this article. Also, by way of clarification, what I should have written above is that her mother and sister authenticated the notes - saying merely that she wrote them. I did not mean to imply that they were reporting on her state of mind. Frank | talk 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the use of authenticated in forensics represents much more than being attached to a source. That word has a very specific legal connotation, suggesting that the note was not coerced in any way. Use of that word is very leading to readers. It implies detail far more conclusive than has been reported by your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To be more clear, the "reliable source" is using a word falsely. There's no other way to put it. It may be that there is intent in bias, but the falseness alone should be reason for Wikipedia to use a different set of words, even when citing the article, or to at least clarify the falseness of the article. In essence, even a reliable source should be properly indicted for overstepping the bounds of language in its description of events. To ignore that is to the source far more credit that it seemingly deserves, big impressive name or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant sentence of the article reads as follows: "Her family said the notes were authentic." This does not imply anything more than exactly what it says: they said the notes were authentic. There is no legal connotation associated with that, and the word "forensic" doesn't even appear in the article. Frank | talk 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. People don't use the word "authentic" in casual conversation very often. When they use such a word, they are usually applying it in a legal or scientific context. Her mother never said, "this is authentic." The word authentic was used by media -- and used in a way that carries its ordinary connotation into the mind of the readers. In other words, this reliable source of media is picking a loaded word to lead people beyond just the conclusion that Palfrey's mom said something like, "Yes, it looks like this is her handwriting." This indictment of language is relevant to whether or not the source is reliable in this case, which is far more important than whether or not the source is usually accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just read over the CNN article, and I feel your response is a little obtuse. The article reports that police report that the family reports that... See the problem? The word "authentic" got inserted in a way that could be viewed innocently, but its reporting creates a different feeling that even you buy into. CNN could be called the source. The police could be called the source. But really, the parents are the source and are not quoted using the word "authentic", a word that police would normally use after carrying out an investigation. This chain of language should be disentangled for the reader, and the reporting should be at least criticized if only on that level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to add this at this juncture, but several glaring problems have been found in the suicide notes, notably, the way that she writes several of her letters, like the letter "N" for example. If you compare her signatures (on file in several sources for those truly interested in the truth) and those on the suicide note, they are considerably different. Not a case of well, she wrote it different, but a difference in style that would best be described as an oversight in a forgery. In every sample I have compared to, she finishes the letter N with a "U-shaped inward swoop", but in the suicide note, the shape is "V-shaped and swoops outwardly. If you couple this with the apartment manager (who is also her personal friend) who comments to the media ^[5] "She could sign her signature a hundred times and it would be identical," Strizack said. "That is not her signature." - you are left with the impression that the suicide notes are likely forged. Since his report was to a RS, how do we deal with the notes issue? We are left with two choices:

 1) We eliminate the references to suicide notes because any evidence on this has yet to be forensically studied, or
 2) We include his statements to balance the references to the notes.

As much as it would be easy to go with #2, hey we are talking RS here, this further mires the controversy and leads to speculation (and more edit wars). The best thing to do is eliminate all references to them as they place undo weight upon something that has yet to be studied. And as I said, even a casual investigator like myself sees serious problems with the notes, a serious forensic expert is sure to find other issues. Until this is sorted out, we'd be best to eliminate the notes.71.42.239.130 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet, in all of this, the point remains: wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Your conclusions are based on original research. They may be correct. When they are reported as such by reliable sources, they can be included in the article - not before. Frank | talk 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. My conclusions are based upon my expertise, and as I stated RS information from a witness (who would be as close to an expert on her signatures as exists, even moreso than her mother, because the individual collected signatures from her on a routine basis. My point is not contention, just accuracy. We do have a RS questioning the signature. It just seems an invitation to a heated debate on a bit of data that is being unduly weighted (IMHO). Perhaps others would disagree. That's why I am trying to get us to come to an agreement.71.42.239.130 (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If verifiability means "reporters said that police said that a non-expert witness said [insert word with expert connotation here]," then you're setting this article up as a joke that would undermine Wikipedia. You have every opportunity to balance a point-of-view about a Wikipedia article. It's been done all over Wikipedia. I've been part of that at times. But a start refusal to even consider detailing source indicts is disturbing. I hope you change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to be convinced of anything...you are free to edit the article, as anyone is. This is not "my" article - or anyone else's. Nobody is refusing to consider detailing sources - quite the contrary, that's what Wikipedia is all about. I invite you to do so - be bold! Frank | talk 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the article was open to edit, so I apologize. I was told by a regular Wikipedia editor that the article was locked (which I noted in another comment above -- that I wouldn't want to be in charge, as in sole charge, of this article). I will try to be considerate in my contributions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to note here that I feel I found a nice way to remove the loaded word "authentic" from the article. After all, this word was not actually used by the police. It was first used by the media as a reference to a police opinion about the family. It should not have been in quotes in the first place since neither the police nor the family used the word (the cited articles do not place it in quotes) and it's best to avoid ambiguity when reported sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Aetiology of the Palfrey Suicide Notes and Notebook.

"Police found handwritten suicide notes in her bedroom where she was staying dated a week before her death", Wikipedia May 08

What happened to the notes and notebook found near the body. Are these the same notes and if so how did they get to the bedroom and when and by whom were they found. Are there any other handwritten notes we can compare them to.

"Tarpon Springs police reported finding handwritten suicide notes near the body", Wikipeda May 01

According to Capt. Jeffrey Young her Mom went searching for her, in the shed. If so why didn't she earlier notice the notes in the bedroom. I mean, she must have checked the bedroom, else why go looking for her. I'm just curious, in the interests of clarity ..

"Capt. Jeffrey Young said. She was searching for her daughter .. Deborah Palfrey, 52, left behind two separate notes and a notebook with other messages to family, Young said"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/orl-madam0208may02,0,5557053.story

emacsuser (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How to characterize signatures

24.158.225.30 changed the text from

Her family said the notes were authentic.

to read

The police state that her family said the notes seemed to be from Palfrey's hand.

with the explanation:

clarifying the chain of reporting on the family's opinion of the suicide notes. removed word "authentic" which was not in fact reported as a word used by police (paraphrased) and when used by police carries a connotation of forensic investigation.

Here is what the sources say:

Palfrey's mother and sister identified her handwriting in the suicide notes.

and

Her mother and sister confirmed the notes' authenticity.

The original text is an accurate paraphrase of the sources. The rewrite is not. The word "authentic" was used by the sources. The sources didn't use the word "seemed" as that comes laden with implications they weren't making. Accordingly, I returned it to the original text but welcome other suggestions (here) for improvement or other sources. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed to "Police have stated that Palfrey's mother and sister have confirmed the notes' authenticity" which is pretty much is what is stated by the source. I think both options above are too big a leap - no mention of "seemed" but equally "identified her handwriting" is not a direct claim of authenticity certainly not enough to use the word "authentic" as the family's own words. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. Why stick to the word "authenticity" just because CNN did? Yes, we all agree that it's in the CNN article, but that's not the point at all. The point is that it's an incorrect word (at the very least it's loaded with incorrect connotation) -- and that the police never used it, and neither did the family. The Wikipedia article is currently factually incorrect as stated. It could be made factually correct by saying something like, "CNN stated..." (which is close to the way I rewrote it). If you disagree with my statement that CNN is not quoting the police, the press conferences can all be found on YouTube. Source reliability isn't a religion, and it's perfectly reasonable to choose a less loaded word in a factual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"a local conspiracy theorist"

Is a mischaracterisation of what is stated in the source and carries the negative connotation of a prior reputation for being so. 88.212.144.188 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The source states:

Among the conspiracy theorists is Joe Strizack

If you feel they mischaracterized, then contact them. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with anon here. The way it was inserted into the article made it appear that this guy is a regular conspiracy theorist...not just someone who is skeptical in this particular case. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include it use the quote exactly as the words "a local XXX" have a different meaning. For example when people use the words "a local drunk". It implies that person has a general pattern of behaviour or reputation. The mischaracterisation I'm talking about is yours and not that of the source. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"They will kill me and make it look like suicide"

Why is her statement, to the effect of "They will kill me and make it look like suicide," not mentioned anywhere in this article? Did she not state this? Badagnani (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Truth (or more specifically, verifiability) is a requirement but it is not the standard for inclusion. We do not add everything to an article for which there is a source. Material, among other things, also has to be relevant to the subject of the article. I see no relevance of that statement to her life, unless you mean to use that statement to prove that she was murdered (in which event that is inappropriate as per WP#SYNTH. Wikidemo (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The sourced statement is not simply "of importance" of "some importance," or "of some relevance," it is of the utmost crucial importance and relevance to an understanding of the death of this individual. As such, if we endeavor to be encyclopedic (we do), we include such information, which the public (including myself) would expect to be here. Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what makes it WP:SYNTH. Is it used to prove how she died? It could mean that she knew something, or that she was paranoid, and anyway, this is not the place to prove how she died. The police, courts, journalists, etc., make their judgments and we report the prevailing view(s). If the public expects Wikipedia to follow its policies it would not expect to find analysis, opinion, and argumentation here, just the facts. Wikidemo (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my (or anyone else's) mouth; it's just not a good thing to do. Badagnani (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Please. Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Murder conspiracy theories

I've selectively deleted some material here. There's a lot of inappropriate stuff getting added to the article. I've sat out the discussions of how to describe this because (per the above discussion) I don't think this material should be here at all. If there is a bona fide controversy that her death may not have been suicide, we can cover that controversy to some level. I'm not so sure this even rises to that level at this point. It's just Internet rumor and speculation, not a legitimate school of thought on the subject. The sources seem to bear this out, reporting the matter as a conspiracy theory and not a real inquiry. But even if the controversy is real, we should not be using Wikipedia to try to present evidence on both sides. Stuff like what her mother thought, and her landord, is not relevant at all to her life. It is only pertinent to covering the latest news and establishing whether it was a suicide or not, something that is not decided here on Wikipedia. All this stuff is messy and will have to go sooner or later. It's best not to get too hung up on playing out these details here. Wikidemo (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The "selective deletion" is highly improper (especially without consensus, as I am sure you already knew) and not permissible if we wish to have an absolutely encyclopedic article. I came to this article looking for information about such issues and expected to find them here. Neither has the question I asked been addressed, leaving another lacuna in the article. This is not good. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing improper about it so please don't toss around the term carelessly. I made an appropriate edit per WP:BRD and it's the right outcome. Consensus is needed to add stuff when others disagree, not to reject a proposed addition of controversial content. At any rate the conspiracy theory stuff has to go, and will sooner or later. If you want the latest controversies and conspiracies, that's news, which Wikipedia is not. Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with the "selective deletion" comment. Your edits would have more credibility if you applied the same standard across the entire article ie ALL references to state of mind, authenticity of notes were removed in particular the Dan Moldea quote. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Credibility is your thing, not my issue. I've addressed this point above if you'd care to read. Her state of mind shouldn't be used on either side to support that she did or did not commit suicide, and it would be incorrect to use the Moldea quote in that way. However, the reliable sources are all covering her death as a suicide, and in the case of someone who does commit suicide, the life issues and state of mind that lead to it are relevant to a telling of her life story. I don't have an opinion one way or another whether the Moldea quote is relevant for that purpose, and I do not want to delete any more than necessary. "Selective" deletion means deleting only what I believe is clearly inappropriate, not the whole section. Wikidemo (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and find it an absolutely horrendous proposal, so I'll ask that you similarly do not "throw it around" here. Badagnani (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you refer to an essay on the subject or not, it's normal that if a proposed addition of content doesn't meet with acceptance you go to the talk page instead of trying to force it in via edit war. See below, though - there's a good proposed solution. Wikidemo (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that murder conspiracy theories are almost sure to never die in this case (pun intended), perhaps an entirely new article should be devoted to them. Why not? We write articles about people's deaths, which is weird and morbid enough on its own. Such an additional article would relieve a lot of the disagreement over the needs of this article (in which both sides seem to have very reasonable points). A story like this one just isn't ordinary, and applying ordinary standards as if uniformity is a religion seems like a never ending stream of trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it doesn't need its own article - it can just be a section here. We can keep the account of her death factual and brief, and cover any "conspiracy theories", "controversies, "doubts", or whatever people want to call it, in a separate section or a subsection under her death. That way all the news-ish reports that come out about who thinks what are clearly about the controversy, not an attempt to prove here how she died. If the section grows enough, and someone is truly convinced that it is a notable thing in itself, it can bud off into its own article later. Wikidemo (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not expert on where articles typically divide, but I think you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.225.30 (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"arrested for prostitution"

I can't find a claim for this within the cited source (or any for that matter).

We really need to be more careful about the use of this word especially when describing arrests, convictions, etc. Please use the exact legal terms.

I haven't removed this yet as doing so would delete the reference to her 1990's conviction/jail time which should indeed be included in some manner. I don't know what the actual conviction was for but it certainly wasn't for being a prostitute. Although it's undoubtable she was involved in this world again please be careful. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reformated/Reorganised

I didn't like "Support for official account" as the mere title itself carries the implication that there is doubts, we first need to cite sources that the official story has indeed been called into question. The is handled neatly by the existing paragraph "The New York Times's Patrick J. Lyons [...]" though can be expanded.

I've created a subsection for the suicide notes so we can keep the reported facts there (ie their content, etc) to separate those from the controversies. It also helps with the flow/readability of the content we have thus far - the building manager text requires prior mention of the notes for example.

- 88.212.144.188 (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense - good job! Wikidemo (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Condensing of condo manager section

I've rewritten the paragraph concerning the condo manager to reflect its proper weight:

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

The two reliable sources (Orlando Sentinel and WESH TV) have quoted a single person's non-expert speculations, unsubstantiated assertions and opinions. This is in contrast to the overwhelming set of contrary opinions by all other major national, international and local sources. This is the very definition of a tiny-minority view. Quoting again:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.

That this page even retains a mention of this individual is done as a consensus compromise in spite of the policy proscription. Quoting:

To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Giving it so much detail, including extensive quotations that the interested reader can get from the sources, is point of view pushing that is not allowed. Therefore, I have changed the old text from:

Palfrey's Orlando condominium manager disputes the authenticity of the suicide notes - he claimed the signatures on the notes were not hers despite what the family said. He said, "She could sign her signature a hundred times and it would be identical. That is not her signature." He remained adamant that Palfrey was murdered, stating "Monday morning a woman tells you that she’s afraid for her life, she told me several instances where people were following her, and Thursday she’s dead," and "She insinuated that there is a contract out for her and I fully believe they succeeded." Refusing to appear on camera, he said he spoke with her recently and that "She did not seem the least bit distraught" and that she was too much of a "class act" to have been in a "shed".

to read:

Palfrey's Orlando condominium manager where she stayed when visiting her mother, disputed the authenticity of the suicide notes despite what the family said. He remained adamant that Palfrey was murdered which the WESH reporter characterized as "speculation".

It is important to note that this is not where Palfrey lived full time and that the news station characterized the manager's comments as speculation, ignoring that they called him a conspiracy theorist. To include the manager's opinions without including the news report's characterization is misleading by allowing the reader to infer that the news report considered these comments credible. My opinion, this sentence would be sufficient to read:

He speculated that Palfrey was murdered.

But will retain the longer version as a compromise. One last quotation:

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof.

∴ Therefore | talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Palfrey Suicide Notes and Notebook

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the 'suicide' notes got from the storage shed to the bedroom and what of the notebooks. Certain people here have asked for reliable sources. So why the cherry picking of police statements. Eg. If the police say it's suicide then it must be true. If the police get the location of the 'suicide' notes wrong then that isn't relevent. Come on guys, some consistency here !!!

emacsuser (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculation section

Per WP:UNDUE, this section needs to be trimmed. Considering it is only slightly smaller than the actual part detailing the DC Madam scandal, it should be cleaned up. The condo manager's thoughts are not important enough to warrant mention in the article. It's not a conspiracy theory. Her suicide notes pretty clearly detail her reasoning for her decision. Without overwhelming evidence, the idea of any sort of conspiracy is moot. Thoughts? Ip208man (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I waver back and forth on this. The resultant paragraph came from extensive discussion and editing at the time -- the length of this paragraph is 1/10 of what the conspiracy theorists wanted. I understand your undue concerns but I think it is more a problem with the sketchiness of the DC Madam scandal section than a fault of this section per se. I believe that the section is neutral -- mention should be made that there are those who thought (and most probably still do) that there was a conspiracy afoot -- a somewhat natural suspicion in some ways. If you parse the section, you will see that both sides are carefully presented and in fact, skepticism gets the (justifiably) greater weight. Certainly the condo manager's comments were absurd and worthless and the article, I believe, casts doubt on them by stating that his statements were both contradicted by the evidence ("despite what the family said") and were characterized as speculation. Note that the section relies only on reliable sources and not the for-profit conspiracy theorists' sites (such as Alex Jones).

That all said, I would be happy to listen to your suggestions for trimming! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Time has a way of allowing us to frame things in their proper context. The section on her death is needed, but should not delve any further than a brief mention of the NYT piece and perhaps the quote from Moldea, trimmed up to make it more neutral (claimed is a bit of a weasel word in that context). Thats it. The NYT mentions the idea that some people believe there was more to what happened to her. This constitutes enough coverage to the few that do not believe the official story. The building manager is no more than one person's supposition on her death.

This is what I propose:

The New York Times's Patrick J. Lyons wrote on the Times's blog The Lede that some on the Internet were skeptical that her death was due to suicide. News accounts at the time reported that her mother said she had "no indication" that Palfrey was planning to commit suicide,[21][15] though she later stated, "I was afraid constantly [for her]. I watched her like a hawk."[22]
After investigating the crime scene, police found "no new evidence [that] would indicate anything other than suicide by hanging". The police stated that Palfrey's family believed the notes were written by Palfrey.[3][21][23][24] Palfrey sought to put her affairs in order before her death as she turned over the ownership of her high school alumni web site to a classmate[25][26]and she had moved her possessions to her mother's home, whom she was staying with at the time.[15][27]
Journalist Dan Moldea, who worked with Palfrey on a book, said that in a conversation last year, Palfrey told him, "I am not going back to prison. I will commit suicide first."[15] He said her previous prison experience had traumatized her and she felt she couldn't do it again.[1][14]

The sentence with the 4 refs needs to be trimmed down to at most 2. This is not something that needs to have a ton of references. Two from the most reputable source would be best. This reads much better and gives as much weight to the idea of a conspiracy as it needs (little to none). Everything else is just trimmed and reworded. Ip208man (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Nice job. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any strong feelings either way regarding what references should be kept, out of 3/21/23/24? The ones that are used most often should be kept, as long as they are good solid RS (ie the AP article). I will wait on the change until I hear from you, since I think we are the only ones currently interested in this article. Ip208man (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed 3 & 21 from the article -- these are two named references and wanted to make sure they were preserved for where they are referenced elsewhere. (If that makes any sense). All sources used in this section are "gold standard" RSs -- AP, Wash Post, CNN, etc. There will be no loss off the local news WESH's sensationalistic reports. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for that. I moved the changes over. It was a bit confusing with the way the ref's were set up but I think everything looks good. I don't see any broken links. I've heard a bit of speculation that some more information will be coming out regarding this case, so this talk page should be more active in the coming weeks. Cheers! Ip208man (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Deborah Jeane Palfrey. 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.

Archive 1

[1] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24408142&GT1=43001

[2] ttp://news.aol.com/story/_a/dc-madam-hanged-herself-police-say/20080501134809990001

[3] ttp://news.aol.com/story/_a/dc-madam-hanged-herself-police-say/20080501134809990001

[4] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Suicidal_gestures_and_attempts

[5] ttp://www.wesh.com/news/16178663/detail.html#

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]