Talk:Rielle Hunter/Archive 1

Edit request
editprotected Please redirect to John Edwards paternity allegations. Thanks! Kelly hi! 03:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC) This request is now obsolete. Kelly hi! 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's currently on AfD.  Sandstein   09:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the redirect. Just because an article is on AfD doesn't mean you cannot improve it (which includes creating relevant redirects).  Joshdboz (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Negative, even if the target survives AfD, this article (and redirect) failed at WP:DRV. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The John Edwards paternity allegations article didn't exist at the time the deletion review was conducted. Kelly  hi! 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also second (third?) the redirect. Hunter certainly doesn't need her own page, but for ease of use (of wikipedia) we should add the redirect. DiggyG (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose a redirect: Hunter does not "need her own page," but Wikipedia needs to have a page about her. Her notability is easily gauged (see section below), and it is not our role to cast judgement on how or why she achieved that notability. For a list of others who achieved their notability through their role in a political sex scandal and who have Wikipedia pages, see Category: Political Sex Scandals. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above request was made before the page was created and is now obsolete. Kelly  hi! 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Let's continue to work on the page, then. Cordially, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rielle Hunter is notable
Editor Blaxthos removed the forllowing message from Talk:John Edwards earlier today, which i find unconscionable. In light of the Edwards confession and the recreation of the Rielle Hunter page, i am reposting it here, with additonal notes, because at this point, the jig is up for those who want to bury or downplay the notability of this woman.

Yesterday i wrote:


 * There is still great resistance to allowing a Rielle Hunter page into Wikipedia (but WHY?) so once again i propose that Rielle Hunter should either redirect to the same page that Lisa Druck redirects to -- or both names should redirect to the John Edwards paternity allegations page, take your pick. Am i the only one who perceives an unpleasant mix of control-freakism and inconsistencty in the fact that the name Rielle Hunter is verboten -- when the search term Rielle Hunter in quotes at google brings up 190,000 web pages -- which is 20,000 more web pages than the last time i checked? You do understand that searching for the string in quotes at google results in exact matches only, right? You do understand that the name Rielle Hunter is as fabricated as the name catherine yronwode, and so there is only ONE person of that name in the entire world, right? 190,000 web pags, folks, as of tonight. Only 1,000 fewer web pages now than Cassandra Peterson and 23,000 more web pages than Elvira, Mistress of the Dark -- and not even a REDIRECT! This is pathetic. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The following post of mine, also deleted by Blaxthos, has been revised by me to indicate the steady increase in the notability of Rielle Hunter as per google result pages -- and thus to demonstrate the sensibility of her having a pasge so that the John Edwards page can link to it.


 * Auguast 9, 2008" list below again revised, with date, to indicate Rielle Hunter's notability.


 * Not being able to link to Rielle Hunter from John Edwards is inconvenient and ... dumb. Here are some other names for comparison. All have Wikipedia pages, all have unusual and possibly unique names, and i searched for each string in quotes at google, with the resulting page counts shown. Those who are currently alive are marked with an asterisk. They are listed in decreasing order of number of pages found by google -- most "notable" at top, least "notable" at bottom.
 * Annette Funicello          452,000 pages *
 * Tampa Red                  388,000 pages
 * Kurt Busiek                292,000 pages *
 * Rielle Hunter ON AUG 9, 2008 265,000 pages *
 * Marv Wolfman                262,000 pages *
 * Johnny Otis                 227,000 pages *
 * Meredith Monk               202,000 pages *
 * Rielle Hunter ON AUG 8, 2008 201,000 pages *
 * Cassandra Peterson          191,000 pages *
 * Rielle Hunter ON AUG 7, 2008 190,000 pages *
 * Red Sovine                  183,000 pages
 * Rielle Hunter ON AUG 3, 2008 171,000 pages *
 * Len Wein                    159,000 pages *
 * Steve Gerber                145,000 pages
 * Walt Kelly                  143,000 pages
 * Silver Ravenwolf            111,000 pages *
 * Roy Blount                  107,000 pages *
 * Mort Sahl                    77,600 pages *
 * Tom Magliozzi                37,100 pages *
 * Mandy Rice-Davis              1,350 pages *

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Updated Aug 9 by cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * @cat, you might want to ask someone at WP:WQA to comment if you are having trouble with a particular editor. DiggyG (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice; the problem is not serious enough at this point to distract me from my primary goal here, which is writing for Wikipedia. :-) cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete this article since it does not adhere to the WP:Notability guidelines. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with RFD; she's notable, this article should be kept This article is not suitable for deletion. John Edwards is a major political figure, and Rielle Hunter is the central figure in the scandal currently surrounding him. The citations for the article are almost all to respected mainstream newspapers or major news shows, and the cite to the National Enquirer is appropriate as it was the NE which broke the story. Hunter is as notable as Monica Lewinsky. Burying her in other articles would be clumsy and obfuscative, a disservice to Wikipedia users. -- LisaSmall T/ C 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Donna Rice has a page and no one has denied that she meets the WP:Notability standards. Same for Golan Cipel.  Even Fanne Foxe has a page, and while its quality has been critiqued, it has been agreed on her discussion page that she meets the WP:Notability standards.  Hunter is in the same league as Rice and Cipel.(66.0.21.130 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree with Lisa Small and "66". As you will note in the list above, Mandy Rice-Davis has a Wikipedia page as well, yet only appears on 1,350 pages through a google search. Rice-Davis is best known as one of the woman involved in the Profumo scandal, a political sex scandal of 1963. Rielle Hunter has far, far surpassed Rice-Davis in web-notability, with almost 200 times as many web pages -- and in addition, she has notability outside her relationship with John Edwards in that a character based on Hunter was also the subject in a popular novel by a notable novelist. As long as Rice-Davis has a Wiki page, i would argue that Rielle Hunter should too. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A) WP:OSE... just because some other people have wiki pages doesn't mean Hunter should have a page. B) Those google hit counts are not very meaningful... the scandal is ongoing, so she's momentarily well known. Those other scandals are old news. C) I'm not however disagreeing with your main point: she is notable. However, Hunter is (for the time being) only notable for one thing and thus to avoid unnecessary clutter, and to avoid dividing the attention of editors between her page and the scandal page, we should focus our attention on the edwards and edwards scandal pages and redirect from this page (after having moved all the importent content over to those pages). I believe the policy that user Camilo Sanchez was referring to is WP:ONEEVENT. For now, I think this encyclopedia is better served by putting all edwards scandal material in one place. DiggyG (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I would disagree with the merge as well. She's notable enough to have her own bio page...in addition to the other examples mentioned above, see Ashley Alexandra Dupre, which survived two AfDs. Kelly  hi! 00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also strongly oppose deletion of this article. She is notable for multiple things besides the affair with Edwards, as one can see by actually reading the article. —Lowellian (reply) 06:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What "multiple things besides the affair" would those be? As far as I can tell, there is only reliable sourcing and notability (as defined by our notability guidelines) for the affair only.  I still contend that this falls under WP:BLP1E, and will have much less significance in a few weeks than it does now, and have yet to see a convincing policy-based argument that addresses WP:ONEEVENT directly.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, her role as the basis for a character is multiple notable novels (and a film) should cover that. Kelly  hi! 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a full length film, a little-seen short. I don't think every film school student who produced a short film should have his/her own wikipedia page. And trivia about the characters based on her could easily be added to the scandal page, or to the pages for those novels.
 * Clearly Hunter is notable, however not every notable person ought to have a separate wiki page. The policy being cited, WP:ONEEVENT, is designed to deal with situations where a person achieves public notability in connection to a single event:
 * If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. (from WP:ONEEVENT)
 * Furthermore, in this particular case Hunter has tried to keep out of the public eye, so there ought to be a stronger presumption in favour of privacy (as opposed to Ashley Alexandra Dupre, for example, who tried to use her notoriety to boost her music career, and who had a non-Spitzer related lawsuit against Girls Gone Wild).
 * Btw, I also tried to argue for a redirect of Vicki Iseman. The discussion failed to reach any agreement. That discussion can be found here, although it's probably too long and boring to read through all of it. That discussion differs from this one however in that Iseman was an established lobbyist before she had anything to do with McCain, whereas Hunter's career accomplishments pretty much begin and end with the Edwards campaign videos. DiggyG (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully intend to nominate this article for deletion once things have settled out some (maybe a week or so). This is clearly a case of one event, exactly what the policy is designed to cover.  The argument that she is notable because of short, little-known films hardly makes her worthy of a full biography.  Once you couple the policy implications with the privacy issues mentioned above, I fail to see how this article serves any purpose beyond what's already covered in the article about the event.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, your bias is becoming more and more blatant the more and more you try to intercede in these discussions. Your ONE interpretation of the rules of Wikipedia is just that, YOUR interpretation. As such, if the majority of editors disagree with you...you're wrong. Simple as that. That IS after all, what Wikipedia is all about: working with each other to form an encyclopedia. Using your administration powers to beat people into submission is patently NOT what Wikipeida is about; in fact, it's the exact opposite. I feel that being granted admin powers has inflated your ego and your belief in your own infallibility, ironically leading you to do exactly what you're susposed to protect against.70.152.147.174 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, after a contentious debate, and in the interest of keeping politics out of things, I've proposed, here, that delete/redirect discussions for Vicki Iseman be postponed until the election is over. DiggyG (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, Blaxthos, that is pretty short-sighted of you. In the realm of internet development, she was one of the first people to utilize youtube for "viral marketing" puposes, and may have been the very first to use youtube for targeted political campaign marketing through the creation of a series of videos. (The latter claim is suggested by Maria Russo, the LATimes web reviewer, and reffed in a footnote in the Rielle Hunter article.) In the literary realm she is s person upon whom the lead character in a major novel by a major modern novelist was based, and she is also the inspiration for subsidiary charatcers in two other novels written by a second major modern novelist. Obviously the political sex scandal brought her to prominence, but i will strenuously argue that hers is more than "one-event" notability. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any significant coverage of your claims in multiple reliable sources independent of the affair? If she is truly notable (not one event), then there shouldn't be any difficulty establishing verification through multiple sources.  Also, please limit yourself to discussing the issues instead of calling other editors "short sighted".  Thanks.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The youtube videos were little noticed when they first came out. The recent Russo blog piece is an reexamination of the youtube vids in the context of this newly revealed info about the relationship of filmer and filmee. i.e. it is notable, but not independently of her involvement in this affair. Wikipedia can only reference published material, it cannot be the publisher of original research... if you can find some articles on the topic of viral marketing that discuss her pioneering work then we can credit that to her. DiggyG (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is not my original research. The Hunter "Plane Truths" webisode video was mentioned by Catherine Holahan in a Businessweek article on the development of web vidoes in 2006. In fact, her video is said in that article to represent a "tipping point" for the trend of weblogging, fninally defining web video as a "serious medium". That ref has been in the article all along. All you have to do is click on it. But, if for some reason you can't, here is the text:

"You know a tech trend has hit the mainstream when even politicians use it in campaigns. So it was clear online video had reached a tipping point when former North Carolina Senator John Edwards posted a video on YouTube announcing his 2008 presidential bid-a full 10 days before Edwards officially declared his candidacy to the mainstream media on Dec. 27. Aside from revealing Edwards' intentions, the clip also sent the message that online video isn't just about porn, Star Wars fans, and lip-synching teens anymore. It's a serious medium, ready to contend with traditional media for audiences and ad dollars. Holahan singled out Hunter's directorial efforts for the Edwards campaign as the specific body of work that "sent the message" that web video was now set to challenge traditional media for attention and financial reward and pointed out the indisputable fact that Hunter's online video revealed Edwards's candidacy a full 10 days before he announced it to the mainstream media.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk about a stretch... that references the videos only, and makes no mention of Hunter at all. If that's the best you can do, I don't think it's going to satisfy as "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources".  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry cat, I hadn't noticed that link before. My concerns are twofold; a) I don't think we can say that she's independently notable, even if these videos received some recognition for breaking new political messaging ground. For encyclopedic purposes I would still say that she is only notable as an extension of the John Edwards story. I would be even more emphatic about this point if it were to come out that Edwards started this affair before hiring Hunter. I suppose we'll have to wait to see what the timeline of the affair was before discussing that point. b)even if it's independently notable I don't think it gives enough balance to keep the article from being, for the most part, a rehashing of material already found on the scandal page. I feel like the you-tube material would be better off as a section in the "08 campaign" portion of the Edwards bio (didn't he also have a Second Life thing? or was that someone else?). DiggyG (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We are now establishing notability on four points: film career, literary inspiration, the horse-killing scandal that swirled around her and took the life of her own prize horse which was said to have been killed at the direction of her own father, thus ending her equestrian career, and then the Edwards affair. I didn't believe it would be possible, but today i feel sorry for her -- ABC is revisting the story of how her greatly-loved horse was horribly electrocuted for insurance money at the behest of her own father. That's so sad. The horse-killing scandal is still news, it seems, and its effect on her forms a revealing moment in the Jay McInerney novel based on her life. Pretty notable stuff. When her natal name was first revealed, people snottily referred to her as "plain old Lisa Druck" -- but she was a lot more than that, poor kid. And i feel bad for the poor horse, too. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, it seems she was more directly involved in this horse thing than I had thought. btw I don't think we can use McInerney's novel as a source since it's only "based on" her and her life.


 * I found that article I mentioned above. It was a Sam Stein piece on huffington post. Here's the quote I was thinking of: "A search for the filmmaker, Rielle Hunter, proved that Google does, in fact, have its limitations. No hits. The same held true with Facebook and Myspace - a bizarre level of anonymity for someone in the movie business." i.e. she wasn't notable prior to the scandal under the name "Rielle Hunter"... I didn't realize that she had changed her name though. Stein also writes: "I had come to the Edwards' videos in a haphazard way: the byproduct of a story I was writing on new technology and politics" Did he ever publish such a story (I can't find it on huffingtonpost)? If so, that might go a long way towards establishing that Hunter was an early participant in net-based political messaging. DiggyG (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had asked myself the same question when I originally researched this story - it looks as if Sam Stein never did write his story on tech and politics, because he inadvertently stumbled into the campaign's cover-up and decided that was more interesting. Kelly  hi! 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources
For anyone looking for additional source material, here is an extensive piece in Newsweek. Kelly hi! 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Has Andrew Young made any public comment? I don't think this sentence is accurate: "Andrew Young still maintains that he, not Edwards, is the child's father." DiggyG (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * read the citation provided from ABC news. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It only says this: "...Andrew Young, the former Edwards campaign aide who has said that he, not Edwards, is the child's father." DiggyG (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: IMO the way the sentence was written makes it seem as though he had made a more recent comment. Letting a previous comment stand is not the same as "still maintaining" claims of fatherhood (and even if we suppose that it is, then the sentence is redundant as his fatherhood claims were already mentioned in this article). DiggyG (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, from a hunter/jumper horse site called "Sidelines" comes mention of a new name connected to Lisa Druck, Ira Zimmerman. [] I have no iea where or how he fits in to the picture. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is Rielle Hunter's Father's Background Relevant in Bio
Is a very brief NPOV mention of the fact that Rielle Hunter's father was implicated in reliable sources in the horse killing insurance fraud of the 1980s relevant in this biographical article? I would argue that it is, especially given the subsequent record of impulsive and reckless behavior. Background facts about subject's parents, even very negative ones, are included in many Wikipdia articles, so long as they adhere to Wiki's standards. For example, Bill Clinton's father's background reads, "[Clinton's] stepfather [was] a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused his mother and, at times, his half-brother, Roger, Jr." The reliable sources about Rielle Hunter's father are:

ALJDJDD removed this background with the comment, "I deleated information about my father that was false. It was an accusation made by a convicted criminal. My father, James Druck was never investigated nor charged with any criminal activity" (link). I agree that the provenance of the charge must be crystal clear, but these allegations are published as credible in a reliable source history (#1) and a reliable source magazine article (#2). Please comment on whether a brief mention of this fact belongs. AdamKesher (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that there is not even a source for who her father is, the answer at this time is that the material is not admissible. In the longer run, such a mention will not under No original research, be admissible until after a reliable source biography of Rielle finds it appropriate to mention those allegations.  GRBerry 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for now, due to lack of foundation. I agree with GRBerry, but for slightly more convoluted reasons. As i see it, the material about her father is not admissable at the present time, for lack of foudation. Depending on when during Rielle's life her father was accused of being involved in a horse-murdering scheme for profit, the event's relationship to her might also be negligable, and throwing it in now would smack of Coatracking or Laundry Listing.


 * However, let's say that one were determined to see the material admitted. In order to admit the material, i think that one would need to build a three-link chain of reliable sources.
 * (1) First, one would have to find properly sourced basic information about her parentage (their names and occupations, her sibling-ranking, etc.) and add it as unlinked text, because that is always acceptable in a BLP article.
 * (2) Next, one would need to either create or locate a reliably sourced Wikipedia entry about the horse murders to which one could link. (James Druck is not notable enough to support a Wikipedia entry on his own.) The wiki article on the murder of Helen Brach would be a potential article from which to build. The cited book footnotes that implicate James Druck in the horse murders cannot stand alone in a Rielle Hunter article, due to violating Undue Weight directives, but they could be part of a horse murder or Helen Vorhees Brach article.
 * (3) Only after those foundational steps were laid (and this is where GRBerry's argument comes into play), could one then cite a reliable source biography of Rielle Hunter or of James Druck that confirmed the allegations, and link from the Rielle Hunter article to the horse murder article and/or the Helen Vorhees Brach article.


 * I do think that the information is fascinating and potentially of great interest to readers, but it must be sourced in a logical and reliable way, or it is little more than a drive-by slam at her family.


 * I also find it of interest that someone who may be Rielle Hunter or one of her siblings is editing the Wikipedia article on Hunter. If that is a fact, we might see great improvement in the article, because relatives often can fill in details about living persons by knowing what to mention and -- most importantly -- how to reliably source it.


 * cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Updated 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Getting back to the allegations made against attorney James Druck: The deleted sources are [here] and [here]. Also, [here] is another source, from the NYT of March 2, 1995, with no mention of James Druck. It states that the horse-murdering scheme went back "20 years" (to circa 1975). I am still unsure how or if this will ever be linked up to a Rielle Hunter bio, but, for the record, there already is a (messy and tagged) Wikipedia article on Helen Brach, whose death in 1977 is the centerpiece of the book "Blood Money" which was cited (and deleted). If nothing else, thse refs could be carried over to the Brach article to improve it. I would love to do so, but i really must go to work now for the day. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If Hunter is to have her own page (and I still maintain that we should redirect), I think it is fair to include this, provided we can find proper sourcing for it. It doesn't really speak to Hunter's notability, but as a bit of family-life bio, I say put it in as long as it's only mentioned in passing (i.e. "her father was James Druck, a -insert career here- most well known for his involvement in this horse thing"). DiggyG (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm This is important and well-researched bio information Okay, so i didn't go to work. Instead i went over to the Sports Illustrated article and read the lo-o-o-ng and very well written article on the horse murders. James Druck is clearly named in the very opening of the piece. This is bigger and more substantive than i originally thought. However, we still need a reliable source to indicate that Rielle Hunter actually is the daughter of this same deceased attorney James Druck of Ocala, Florida -- and here it is! The Palm Beach Post newspaper just weighed in on the subject: ["Was John Edwards' lover's dad a horse killer?" by Jose Lambeit, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer]. Looks like her notability quotient is rising... :-) There is other, new-to-us, solid biographical data on Rielle Hunter in the article as well. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[New indent] A cursory glance at Jay McInerney's Story of My Life shows why these facts about Rielle Hunter's father are highly relevant in her biography: the novel begins with a detailed description of Alison Poole's (Hunter's) father, and the detail that Poole's jumping horse "Dangerous Dan" "dropped dead" on page 7, and the impact on Poole (Hunter). Druck's jumping horse "Henry the Hawk" dropped dead from electrocution, according to the reliable sources cited. Here are the relevant passages. The book starts with the paragraphs, "I'm like, I don't believe this shit. … [Dad] buys his new bimbo Tanya who's a year younger than me a 450 SL convertible—always gone for the young ones, haven't we, Dad?—plus her own condo … My old man is fifty going on twelve. … Nothing my father does surprises me anymore. … My parents have seven marriages between them … Acting is the first thing I ever really wanted to do. Except for riding. When I was a kid I spent most of my time on horseback. I went around the country showing my horses and jumping, until Dangerous Dan dropped dead. I loved Dan more than just about any living thing since and that was it for me and horses." The allegations against Hunter's father appearing in numerous reliable sources are highly relevant to this biographical article. AdamKesher (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * AdamKesher, i have come around to your way of thinking. Thanks for the MacInherney quote. That really is relevant. I reinstated the information about James Druck, by building the foundation on an additional reliable source, not previously given, which demonstrates that Rielle Hunter is actually the child of this same attroney James Druck -- that source being the Jose Lambiet Palm beach Post article of this morning. I also countered the deletion made by the person claiming to be one of Druck's children, who moved for deletion of james Druck mentions on the basis that the accusation against Druck came from "a convicted criminal" -- it turns out that this true, but at the time the accuser was also an FBI informant, according to the various sources, such as the Sports Illustrated article. This story is really complex, and i thank you for your patience in bringing us all up to speed on the issues. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: What DiggyG is calling "the horse thing": I found a good local newspaper source for more early bio material at the "Gainseville {FL} Sun" newspaper site, and will be inserting and citing that tonight. While looking for bio refs, i also found a horse-owners's message board [here] containing posts from people who worked for James Druck on his farm and knew the children, the horse-killer, and even the murdered horse. It's nothing we can use, but very interesting.  cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * AdamKresher, your most recent edit -- adding the extentended quotation from the close of the McInerney novel -- is brilliant. It works as a piece of simple and direct encyclopedia writing because it demonstrates the degree to which the novel is a roman a clef, and how central the subject's personal narrative was to the creation of the novel, but it also hints at a bit of literary flair on your part, because without drawing any conclusions, utilizing any synthesis, or employing any original research, it unobtrusively ties together some loose ends from the previous paragrpgh about which the reader may be wondering at that point. Good going! cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I quote a passage of Jay McInerney's, and I'm praised for "literary flair." I will say that this whole episode reveals the validity of criticisms of Michiko Kakutani's off-base assessments of work such as McInerney's Story of My Life. More importantly, these facts put Rielle Hunter is a much more sympathetic light than appears anywhere in the mainstream media—even the New York Magazine article cited focuses on the salacious, almost irrelevant secondary aspects of Poole's character, and completely missed the boat on the surprising key to McInerney's roman á clef. No one reads anymore, not even Pulitzer Prize-winning literary critics. I just hope that Hunter does the right thing for herself. AdamKesher (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside (and previously uninvolved) opinion: reading the comments here, it's clear that what's needed is a shade more context as to how her father's actions affected her. A simple addition of "after which she quit riding altogether" would get rid of the implication (by association) that she's a horse-killer herself. That's the problem with it right now. Longchenpa (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:OSE as justification for AfD
Diggy G brought up WP:OSE as a counter-argument to the earlier notes by various editors citing other people who have wikipedia pages and whose notability consists in large part of their roles in political sex scandals. In the first place, as i have argued above, i sincerely believe that Hunter has more than one-event notability, but even if WP:OSE were to be invoked, i still think she meets the quaifications. From WP:OSE:

"It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an 'Other Stuff Exists' angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same."

I could contend that we are dealing with a set -- much like the set of Star Wars characters -- but in this case the set consists of non-politician men and women involved in the sex scandals surrounding politicans. Mentioned so far have been the following, all of whom have wikipedia pages: Mandy Rice-Davis, Ashley Alexandra Dupre, Vicki Iseman, Donna Rice, Golan Cipel, and Fanne Foxe. Of course, we also have Christine Keeler, Monica Lewinsky, Chandra Levy, Marika Fingerroos, Elizabeth Ray, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Tracey Temple, Sara Keays, and so forth and so on.

For me it is not a question of whether these folks "deserve" Wikipedia pages, but rather a question of "customer service," of how we can best serve the curious, inquiring Wikipedia "customer." People want to know about this stuff. It is historical. It gets referred to in popular culture jokes -- and then, ten or twenty years later someone asks, "Who was Mandy Rice-Davis and why is she mentioned in that old song / tv show / film / joke? And i sincerely think that Wikipedia should be there with a reply to the question. The cost in bandwidth is negligible; the payoff for readers is great.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting position, but we're dealing with a real person with real privacy and sourcing concerns, not some character from a movie set. Instead of trying to "satisfy" "customers", or justifying your position by how much bandwidth it won't cost (double negative, I know, but it's to make a point!), try sticking to policy (most specifically WP:N and WP:BLP1E).  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Blaxthos. The matter of these being real, not fictional, people, and the matter of sourcing are straw man arguments; both BLP and sourcing issues are being dealt with here on a daily basis. The issue i brought up was my opinion that Hunter is a member of a "set" -- a set of non-politicians whose notability either came into being or was magnified through sexual involvement with a politician. (In Hunter's case, i would say that her notability was magnified by the scandal, not created by it.) To eliminate Hunter would be to break what is obviously a Wikipedia set including deaceased and living people who were involved in political sex scandals. There already is an entire category-level listing of such people. Why would Rielle Hunter, out of all of these people, be singly deemed not notable enough to be included? I would argue that she is more notable than many others currently in the category-set, due to the fact that she was not a young prostitute or political aide, but rather a mature woman who had already achieved some notability for other reasons at the time that her relationship to Edwards was revealed. Think about it and see if you don't agree that my point has merit. I am not saying, "Well, So-and-So has an article, so Hunter should get one" (the typical OSE argument); i am saying that the entire category-level set of people involved in political sex scandals would be diminished or broken if she alone were removed from it (usig the OSE argument cited above). cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't think your position has much merit. You argue that she had notability before the affair revelation, which only "amplified" her notability.  I earlier requested that you establish such by providing "substantive significant coverage in reliable sources".  The only reference you've provided thus far is one blurb in Business Week about her web video... it does not mention Rielle Hunter at all, and you trying to use it to establish that she has notability is dubious.  You also make the assertion that persons involved in political sex scandals are somehow exempt from WP:BLP1E and point to other articles with similar subjects.  I personally don't believe that is proper, and have seen no policy or guideline in support of that assertion.  However, I do recognize that other articles may exist, but that's not a reason to torch well established policy.  In any case, an AFD will resolve most of these questions, though as I stated earlier I'm not in any rush, and think it prudent to allow time for additional sourcing and article development.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with cat on this one. Yes, she's primarily notable for one event, but the additional borderline notability is enough to make a case that this is not BLP1E, which is a widely disregarded policy anyway. Pretty sure that any attempt to AfD an this article this well-sourced, on such a widely-known person, would be regarded as ridiculous and/or disruptive. Kelly  hi! 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the "borderline notability" stuff is still too closely tied in to her involvement with Edwards to escape falling under the ONEEVENT policy/guideline. (Except for the character in the novel, but I feel like that's too trivial to sway this argument in either direction).
 * I seem to recall an article many months ago that mentions that a google search for Rielle Hunter comes up empty (at the time). Does anyone else remember reading this? (It might have been in slate, or some blog.) This would bolster the argument that she wasn't notable before the Enquirer brought her into the spotlight. DiggyG (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A reference that does not even mention the subject can't be used to assert the subject's notability. If there were multiple sources that made the same claim regarding the web videos, that could be used to bolster the claim that the videos were notable, but there's not even more than one source that makes such a claim.  Trying to represent a one-paragraph blurb that does not even mention the subject as evidence of notability beyond one event is academically dishonest.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, Blaxthos, save the "academic dishonesty" B.S. argument. There are reliable sources that credit Hunter with the creation of these videos that were out there before Edwards' infidelity story was published in the old media. Kelly  hi! 20:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are multiple reliable sources that offer substantive coverage (not just en passant mentions) of her alleged notability before and beyond one event, it would be helpful if you could add them to the article (or at least share them with us). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The reference we currently have on the article states her first name is pronounced "Riley" (I even asked someone to add the IPA symbology). However, this source, which seems to be better because it's based on an interview with an acquaintance of Hunter's, says it's pronounced "Ree-ELLE". Should we change it? Kelly hi! 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had assumed "Ree-Ell'" myself when first reading it. The "Riley" pronunciation is found on news-TV videos online (sorry, no time for sourcing right now). This has me stumpd. I spent days pronouncing it "Ree-Elle," then spent 24 hours continually self-correcting to "Riley" and now ... ????? I leave this one in your capable hands, Kelly! cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the you-tube vids? Does anyone say her name out loud in those? DiggyG (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Edwards simply calls her "Camera Girl." cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the Extra interview with her (pre-scandal) if it's available - I;'m pretty sure they pronounced it Riley. Tvoz / talk 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thats where i heard the Riley pronunciation. Thanks, Tvoz. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw yet another interview with an acquaintance who said it's pronounced "Real" (as in "get real") - the person said when she chose the name is was intended to mean "authentic". So basically I have no idea. :) Kelly  hi! 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This morning on the CBS Early Show preview for an ET interview with Rielle Hunter's sister, which is [online here], the pronunication was most definitely Ree-ell, two syllables. I am going to update the page accordingly by deleting the spurious "Riley" pronunciation guide. I hope this is okay with everyone. --cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Inside Edition has audio tape from a 911 call, in which Hunter herself pronounces her name Ree-ell. DiggyG (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good find on that one, DiggyG. Thanks. This topic can now be laid to rest. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Header
Wouldn't it be more accurate to call her an "aspiring" actress and film-maker. Producing and acting in a single short doesn't seem like enough to warrant calling her an actress and producer. Did she do stage work? Can we get some sources that confirm some auditions for film or TV roles?

I would also like to remove the word "innovator." The LA Times blog piece, far from concluding that she was an innovator judges her as follows: "Rielle Hunter is revealed as not simply some “videographer hired by the Edwards campaign.” She is a member of a much older and savvier profession: a groupie." Unless you want to cal her an innovator in the field of groupiedom, I think we need a different adjective. Maybe we can just say she "produced web videos for Edwards marking one of the first uses of this technology in politics"... or something like that. DiggyG (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Businessweek article; that article still doesn't call her an innovator, it says: "You know a tech trend has hit the mainstream when even politicians use it in campaigns." Maybe we can say Edwards was an "early adopter," but it seems like a stretch to call Hunter an innovator. DiggyG (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats fine, DiggyG, if you think "innovator" is too strong, feel free to tone it down. As for "aspiring," i think that is a weasel word. She has an IMdb entry as an actress. Its a difficult call. She does have more credits for film direction and production than for acting. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Update -- see below; we missed some stuff by only checking her Rielle Hunter IMDb credits. There are valid acting credits for major movies featuring Lisa Hunter / Lisa Jo Hunter which were added by user ALJDJDD (thought to be the subject herself). cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By way of comparison, Sen. Patrick Leahy has more acting credits, yet we would hardly call him a "senator and actor". I have friends who have "acted" as a favour to film-school friends, and I wouldn't call them actors either. I think we need something more than a few imdb entries before we can ascertain that Hunter's made a career as an actress. "Film-maker" on the other hand is vaguer and could include both producing and acting. I don't know... I'll wait for more feedback on this before making any changes.


 * btw has anyone seen this "Billy Bob and Them" short? Every news piece I can find cites this imdb entry, but doesn't actually say anything about the short film. DiggyG (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Here's a blog post with lots of nice links (and some skepticism about calling Hunter a "producer"). Here's a vague description of the film. Here's a description of her unproduced film/tv scripts (“So Very Virgo,” “It’s All About Uranus,” “Shit Happens: The Never Ending Search for the Perfect Diaper”... weird). DiggyG (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fact check: Actually, Senator Leahy only has two acting credits at IMDb other than credits for his appearances as himself on TV news shows, while Hunter has four acting credits: three under the names Lisa Hunter and Lisa Jo Hunter and one under the name Rielle Hunter. I would say that these four IMDb credits qualify her as an "actress". What do you say? Shall we add "actress" back into the header? cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks cat, I keep forgetting about all her different aliases... At any rate, "actress" is still there, I hadn't made that edit yet. DiggyG (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.184.125 (talk)


 * Oh, good. Then we'll let it stand. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Houston, we have a problem"
User ALJDJDD is back and is engaging in what appears to be a revert war regarding "the horse thing." This sucks. Coding errors are being left behind as well, because ALJDJDD is not an experienced Wikipedian and, due to edit conflicts, my fixes are not being accepted right now.

Normally i would request semi-protection, but that seems cruel. I really am at a loss. I feel a sort of despair here. I really don't know what to do ... except "DO NO HARM."

So i am going to walk away from the article for a few hours, rather than revert again (or fix the code errors). I am going to upload the deleted material later and also [at my own web site] in case ALJDJDD decides to delete it from the talk page as well.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Updated Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the material i "stored" here, having reinstated it on the page. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User ALJDJDD, who claims in her edit summaries to be James Druck's daughter (ALJDJDD may be an acronym for "Alias Lisa Jo Druck, James Druck's Daughter"), has repeatedly deleted from the Rielle Hunter page all mention of James Druck's involvement in the horse-murder insurance fraud scheme, incluing the murder of Lisa's own horse, for which we have numerous reliable msm sources now. (Apparently ALJDJDD does not believe the confession of the FBI informer and horse-killer Tommy Burns, upon which all the sources are based, and prefers to think that her father is innocent of the crime or that no crime was committed.)


 * We have no proof that ALJDJDD is who she says she is (i.e. one of the four Druck daughters), but she has added a bunch of unsourced material, such as the year of James Druck's birth, the location where Lisa Jo Druk and Kip Hunter were married, and some IMDb-sourced data about Lisa Jo Hunter that we had previously overlooked due to the subject's several name changes.


 * This puts us in an uncomfortable position: we have a tendentious, one-purpose new editor engaging in unacceptable revert-warring, and we also believe that this editor can materially improve the article by supplying dates and places relevant to the subject because she may be the subject herself.


 * Editor Kelly has left a message at ALJDJDD's talk page, offering to help. There has been, to my knowledge, no respose, nor has she posted on this discussion page.


 * That's where the matter stands now. I just wanted to place a summary of events here, in case further developments warrant action of some sort.


 * As a "notable Wikipedian" myself, i can understand the impulse to micro-manage the page upon which one's life is described -- but i think that the only legitimate way to edit one's own page is to use a real name as a user name or otherwise make it clear who you are, to be available via outside means for confirmation of your identity, and to keep your edits within Wikipedia guidelines.


 * It's not always easy or fun to be the sublect of a Wiki BLP, i can tell you from experience, and i sympathize deeply with ALJDJDD, if she is who we are led to believe she is -- but just because Wikipedia *can* be edited (whereas, for example, Sports Illustrated cannot be), that does not give ALJDJDD the right to remove the Wikipedia article's link to and description of the Sports Illustrated article in which James Druck is charged with murdering Lisa Druck's horse in order to collect the insurance money.


 * Vandalism and revert-warring on one's own Wikipedia page will not provide the subject with more privacy or change the way that the reading public perceives people whom the subject loves. In fact, such activities, if they violate Wikipedia policies, may lead to blocks or bans, resulting in more hard feelings all around. In this case, a simple statement from Rielle Hunter, published in any reliable source news medium, stating that she believes her father to be innocent of the charge of killing her horse and engaging in a systematic insurance fraud scheme involving horse murders, would be what Wikipedia would need in order to counterbalance (but not to remove) the well-sourced data now in the article. We strive to be fair and balanced, but our directive is to work from reliable sources, not at the whim of anonymous editors.


 * Cordially, catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, a reminder to all editors that the BLP policy also calls on every editor to be courteous to the subjects of articles, their relatives or representatives, and not assume vandalism if they remove material from an article. GRBerry 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A good point; in mentioning "vandalism" above, i was speaking generally, and not about the specifics of the edits made by ALJDJDD. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, per WP:AUTO and WP:BLP, the subject of a bio should not be posting information directly into the bio (unless it is to remove unsourced material or vandalism). Instead, they should post here on the talk page. Posts by other members of the family constitute Original Research and aren't permitted unless they can find a reliable source that documents it and that they can cite. We don't know if that person is genuinely who they say they are, and even if we did we couldn't verify their claims ourselves. So we can't simply take their word for it.


 * If ALJDJDD is reading this, his/her best bet is to post on the talk page and let the other editors make the changes directly. This minimizes the chance of a reversion war. He/She can also contact another Wikipedia editor or admin on their Talk page for advice on improving the accuracy of the article. When you or your friends/family are the subject of the article, it's hard to effectively contribute yourself, especially if you're new. Wellspring (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual name
What's her first name? The article lists four different names at the introduction, and it's not explained (at least as far as I can see) why all are listed when she's really named R.H. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Her first name change -- from Lisa Jo (or Lisa) Druck to Lisa Jo or Lisa) Hunter -- came about through marriage, as implied in the Marriage section. Her next name change, to Rielle Hunter, also occured during her marriage and is specifically mentioned in that section. Her use of the name Rielle Jaya James Druck on the baby's birth certiificate has never been eplained by her, so we have no way to explain it ourselves. According to one news source interview with a woman who knew her in Santa Barbara in the months after the baby was born, she introduced herself at that time as "Jaya" (which the woman thought was spelled "Joya"). Hope this helps! catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

New section: the horse killing scandal
In light of a HUGE new revelation about the horse-killing scandal of 1982, which apeared online one hour ago in an article for ESPN by Lester Munson with William Nack (the same men who wrote the original "Blood Money" story for Sports Illustrated in the 1990s which is cited in the Rielle Hunter article), i propose breaking out a new sub-section in the Hunter bio, dealing specifically with her role in the horse killing scandal.

My reason is this: in their original 1992 reportage, Munson and Nack (probably because of Lisa Druck's age) omitted two crucial pieces of information, which Munson has now brought forward:

(1) Lisa Druck (not her father James Druck) was the registered owner of the show jumper horse "Henry the Hawk" but he controlled her peurse strings, as she was still underage. He was "strapped or cash" and wanted to sell the horse, but the best offer was $125,000 and tthe life insurance on the horse was $150,000. Even after paying Tommy Burns for performing the actual horse-murder, James Druck profitted more from killing his daughter's horse than he would have from selling it.

(2) Lisa Druck was near the barn, in a pickup truck with her then-boyfriend Louis Whelen, when Tommy Burns electrocuted the horse -- and as Tommy fled the scene, Lisa and her boyfriend pursued him in the truck, but he escaped. Then, writes Munson, "Lisa confronted her father about the killing of Henry, and he never denied orchestrating the grisly affair for the money. [Jay] McInerney related this episode from Lisa's -- err, Alison Poole's -- life, in his roman à clef."

Munson refers to the horse-killing scheme, in which 35 people were convicted of various crimes (James Druck not among them, as he died of cancer in 1990 while the investigations were underway) as "one of the biggest, most gruesome stories in sports" and also as "the biggest scandal in the history of equestrian sports." And Lisa Druck was at the center of this scandal -- her and her horse being among the major victims of James Druck's criminal activities and the first victims of the paid hit-man Tommy Burns, who went on to kill at least 50 horses for the insurance money before getting caught.

I am not going to coatrack in an article on the horse killings per se, of course. I simply want to break out a new section on Lisa Druck's notability apart from her mundane "family and early life" and to make note of her as a central (and, i might add, tragic) figure in this highly important historical scandal.

Read the full article here: [Edwards' "other woman" revives memories of a gruesome scandal].

I will wait for comments before breaking out the new section. If no one has objctions to it by this evening, and if no one else works on it (Kelly? AdamKesher?) i will do some work on it after work tonight.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The ESPN story has highly relevant new details for this biography, and a new section is clearly warranted. I'm sure you'll do your best to adhere to WP:UNDUE—many of the details you mention deserve to be in the new article Horse murders, not here. While it is technically correct to say that "Lisa Druck was at the center of this scandal," this technicality has very unfair and nasty implications that we must avoid. My own POV based on the facts presented in the article is that Hunter is obviously a victim of "her father, James, a criminally minded lawyer and conniver." Just read what McInerney has Alison Poole say: "'[Dad's] new bimbo Tanya who's a year younger than me … —always gone for the young ones, haven't we, Dad? … Dad came into my bedroom one night. I was like, uh-oh, not this again.'" This means one thing only—and should put Rielle Hunter in a sympathetic light, as McInerney himself says about his portrayal of her. That's what I really disliked about the ESPN article: Munson's blame-the-victim conclusion, "Not to sound judgmental, but where some people go, trouble seems to follow, and in wrapping his arms around Lisa Druck, John Edwards found more than his share." The correct conclusion is, "where some kinds of nasty abuse go, related trouble follows." That's the sympathetic point of McInerney's roman à clef that no one in the media has yet covered or even appears to grasp. As for the cause of John Edwards's troubles, I've already implied my POV. This is tragic, so while we choose edits of this biography of a living person, we must tell the truth but hopefully with some sympathy and WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. AdamKesher (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Was James Druck ever charged with a crime? I think we should be very cautious about dealing with fairly serious accusations that were never proven in court. In particular I don't think it's right to use McInerney's novel as a source for any claims about criminal activities. If there's an interview somewhere in which he comes out and says that this specific horse stuff is all true then that's different, but as far as I can tell he's only stated that in general terms his Poole character is based on Hunter. DiggyG (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has used McInerney as such a source. The three reliable sources on James Druck's alleged criminal activities are:
 * McInerney is used as a source of Hunter as his literary inspiration for Alison Poole. While it is obvious to everyone that McInerney's novel appeared in 1989 1988, years before the Horse murders story broke in the early 1990s, this WP:SYNTH fact is not used in the article. AdamKesher (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * McInerney is used as a source of Hunter as his literary inspiration for Alison Poole. While it is obvious to everyone that McInerney's novel appeared in 1989 1988, years before the Horse murders story broke in the early 1990s, this WP:SYNTH fact is not used in the article. AdamKesher (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * McInerney is used as a source of Hunter as his literary inspiration for Alison Poole. While it is obvious to everyone that McInerney's novel appeared in 1989 1988, years before the Horse murders story broke in the early 1990s, this WP:SYNTH fact is not used in the article. AdamKesher (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * McInerney is used as a source of Hunter as his literary inspiration for Alison Poole. While it is obvious to everyone that McInerney's novel appeared in 1989 1988, years before the Horse murders story broke in the early 1990s, this WP:SYNTH fact is not used in the article. AdamKesher (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to amazon (not always reliable), the novel came out in hardcover in 1988 and in paperback 1989. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, got my (incorrect) date from Google books—my copy says 1988; should've looked there first. AdamKesher (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC).


 * On the question of whether Mr. Druck was ever charged, the 2008-08-14 ESPN source says that he died in 1990. Burns (the horse killer/FBI informant) was caught and started informing in 1991.  Since Mr. Druck was dead at the time, I think we can safely conclude that he was not charged, but the fact of him not being charged is without significance - because in the U.S. you can't prosecute a dead person for criminal offenses.  (As an example, Kenneth Lay died between a guilty verdict and sentencing, but since the trial and appeals process wasn't fully over the guilty verdict was vacated/abated due to his death.)  Even if Mr. Druck had been alive, the statute of limitations would probably have prevented any civil or criminal case from being filed in 1991, absent special provisions in the law or insurance contract about delayed discovery extending the period for filing a case.  GRBerry 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good going, AdamKesher -- i see that you have broken out the Horse murders and Henry the Hawk into its own section. I think this significantly improve the article's organization. Should we place a "main" link at the top of that section or should we just let the internal link on horse murders carry the weight? I can go either way with it. We do have a "main" on the Extramarital affir section, so there is precedent for that kind of a call-out in the article already. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Child's name
I acknowledge that the baby's name is sourced. However her right to privacy should be respected above the others involved in this affair. I see little to be gained by naming her. I would prefer that her name be removed in the absence of a compeling reason to hang on to it. Ronnotel (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is already being discussed at WP:BLPN, but I suppose I can repeat my comments here...what privacy is left to respect? The child has been named in hundreds, if not thousands, of prominent places by now, including our most respected reliable sources like the New York Times and the BBC. I'm not sure what "harm" is being anticipated here. It's not a huge deal, but omitting the name makes the article less complete for anyone researching the topic. That's at least some kind of loss to Wikipedia for no gain that I can see. To argue that Wikipedia's reputation is harmed by including the name is a little ridiculous, I think, when nearly every major newspaper and network in the world feels no compunction about it. Kelly  hi! 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Kelly: The child's name is given in multiple hundreds of sources; removing it here does not enhance the child's privacy and keeping it here does not tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. The birth certificate tself is part of the story, therefore the data on the birth certificate should be accurately described. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am copying here what i wrote at the BLP notce board, eplaining why the child's name needs to be retained in the encylopedia: A major point in the article, as in all media stories about the affair, is the information on the birth certificate. The information on the birth certificate is very unusual, and one might say, potentially deceptive on three points: The mother presents a pseudonym instead of her own current legal name, listing herself as Rielle Jaya James Druck; the child is given no father's name; and the child is given a diffent surname than the mother's -- Frances Quinn Hunter. That is why virtually all media reports have named the mother (Rielle Hunter) and the child (Frances Quinn Hunter); both names must be explicitly stated in order to show that the surnames are connected, in order to remove any potential for confusion. This is pretty basic to the story, and therefore the child's name should be retained in the Wikipedia entry, i believe. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider that this is an encyclopedia and we are editors. We are not police detectives who need every possible bit of evidence to solve a crime. Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No one here or in the media has suggested that the birth of the child or the unusual method of filling out the birth certificate is a crime. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The baby's name should NOT be removed from the article. The baby's name has already appeared in thousands of news reports. There is no privacy concern when the baby's name is already widely public. And to hide the information is a type of censorship that is against Wikipedia policy, which is to report what other independent, verifiable sources (which they are in this case) report. —Lowellian (reply) 11:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)