Jump to content

Talk:Adrienne Shelly

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

Illegal immigrant

[edit]

Personally, I dont see how adding that Pillco is an illegal immigrant adds greatly to the story, but if you do want to source that addition, see this search: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Diego+Pillco%22+illegal&btnG=Search+News, but be careful, it looks like some of those sources may use this article as their basis. That search may return more reliable sources in coming days.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Daily News mentioned it [1] If the guy was from Minnesota, they would have written that. Barneygumble 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you libs can't keep your bias out of anything, huh? (unsigned comment)
The fact of the matter is this: If Pillco was deported or captured, Adrieene would be alive today. But no, people will have to die because of the liberal/socialist agenda. (unsigned comment)
Say, is killing innocent women a job illegals will do that Americans dont' want to? (unsigned comment)
If Republicans cared about illegals, they would have done something about it. They don't, and they didn't. It keeps their costs down and brings money in. Republicans care about nothing but money. If the guy's here illegally, that could be newsworthy, but it is also inherent xenophobic POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many Republicans want to do something about illegal immigrants. Ron Paul comes to mind, for example. So do many Democrats; there are many members of both parties on both sides of the issue.--Gloriamarie 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion makes me mad. Please leave grubby partisan politics out of this - it's not only POV, but, for Pete's sake, a woman has died! A bit of respect, please. --Iacobus 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it should, and whatever we say here is not going to bring her back to life. Here's the main point: In "yellow journalism" school, whenever a crime happens, it "spices up" the story to point out that the criminal was an immigrant, legal or otherwise: "If he weren't here, this wouldn't have happened." 100 years ago, even if a legal immigrant did something bad, the papers would be sure to point out that he was from elsewhere, thus stirring fears about immigrants. Is that our purpose in this article? Wahkeenah 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we shouldn't deny the truth either. Brushing aside the fact that the man was an illegal does not serve the purpose of truth. 75.68.6.81 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE remember that talk pages are for discussing the contents of the article. This is not the space for political, national, or socio-economic debates. As for the journalistic aspect of the question at hand, it would be important to describe Shelly's killer, and that involved who he was and where he came from. NickBurns 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the objections to the inclusion of the detail that Pillco was an illegal immigrant. I have often been critical of such extraneous details that are telling of biases. For example, there is the controversy regarding two separate articles one featuring white flood survivors "finding" food and the other featuring black flood survivors "looting" food. However, as the widower, Andrew Ostroy, has filed a lawsuit against the construction company, the fact that Pillco was an illegal immigrant does seem pertinent as it is likely Ostroy's best argument for the culpability of the construction company. Otherwise, his lawsuit might seem ridiculous. Although, this is not necessarily why the detail was originally included.--Songs 4 Pints (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article briefly contained a direct solicitation for financial contributions to a yet to be established foundation. That content was deleted as a copy vio. Now it is back contained in a link. Apparently the foundation is still not established as a legal entity. But aside from that, surely seeking contributions to a foundation, whether good or bad, is not appropriate whether done directly or as a link. Is the solicitation of funds here acceptable? Does it depend on whether it is for a good purpose which would mean we would have to decide whether this is good otherwise, seeking contributions with evil purposes would be permitted as well. I believe this reference should be deleted altogether, but before doing so, I raise the matter here. Comments? KenWalker | Talk 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both, but I think it's encyclopedic info. It is IMO an acceptable addition to this woman's bio, and whether or not the charity has been incorporated yet, there is a widely-circulated press release announcing it (which is where the original text was taken from, which is why it was removed as a copyvio). If the link (I haven't checked it) can also be considered verification of the added content, I don't see why it should be removed. A link to a charity that solicits donations is not, as far as I know, forbidden by any WP policies. But I might be wrong. If you feel strongly about it, you could always find a different copy of the information (although that seems illogical to me, since there may be people who would want to read more on the official website). I'm going to check now to make sure the re-added info is no longer a copyvio. Anchoress 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is just to the press release; I don't see any problem with that. Anchoress 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote in the references section

[edit]

What's it doing there? Anchoress 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question. I have no idea so I changed it to a normal reference, as I have had to do for almost every one added. Way beyond the scope of this, but this article has really convinced me that we do have a problem with the complexity of adding references or convincing users to bother trying to figure out how to do so properly, or both. After Shelly died and I reworked the article, multiple users contributed and despite inline citation markup and properly formatted examples already present in the article, almost every addition was still given a naked embedded link.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder

[edit]

In support of "hanged" and not "hung," the New York Times article used as a supporting reference uses "hanged" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Television fan (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hanged" does sound wrong, but that's English for you. The rule is discussed pretty thoroughly here. --CliffC (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The englishrules.com article says "'hanged'...is used in the sense of 'to put to death by hanging.'" She was dead when Pilco hung her (I haven't seen a report to the contrary) and he thought she was dead when he hung her. Therefore "hanged" is wrong in this context since her death was neither caused, nor intended, by the hanging. Hondo77 (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times article used as a reference says "Mistakenly thinking he had killed her, he hanged her from the shower rod of her bathroom, in a staged suicide"; another Times article here (not used as a reference) says "The city medical examiner, however, found that Ms. Shelly was still alive when she was hanged and died of 'compression of the neck'." I'll agree that saying "hung" in our article sounds better, but it's wrong. Hondo77, so you and I don't spend a lot more of our time debating this, and since we've both already made our cases here and in the edit summaries, what would you say to a resolution by asking for a third opinion? Regards, --CliffC (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need. If the medical examiner said she was still alive after being choked (something I was unaware of and should be made clearer in the article--which I just did), then "hanged" it is.

Death details

[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that many essential details of Shelly's death have been omitted/altered since July 2015? Manupa (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The musical Waitress will awaken great interest

[edit]

The movie was a modest success, but there's a major, major Broadway musical coming in a few months from Sarah Bareilles. Profhum (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adrienne Shelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adrienne Shelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Links to related topics, articles have been removed from page [2], and [3] . E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're not related to the subject at all. They have no use here and are beyond prejudicial, and they haven't been brought up at all in the past history of this article. This is an article about an actress, not a place to advocate within text regarding a political position. Nate • (chatter) 19:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adrienne_Shelly&oldid=1206183409"