Talk:Theresa Duncan

Blog links
I've removed the two blog links inserted by User:75.31.79.120 (who is apparently Alex Constantine) and I am putting them here for the moment.
 * The Murder of Theresa Duncan, and the Cover-Up Here at Wikipedia
 * A Letter to Kate Coe: How You Got the Theresa Duncan Story - Wrong

While the presenting of dissident views is fine, neither of these really fall under WP:RS and WP:V. The first comes from a blog with a very difficult to assess credibility or reliability as far as I can see. The second, while possibly credible, is impossible to source, being a blog apparently consisting only of this one letter in response to the LA Weekly story. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 02:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Constantine blog has been removed as inappropriate by people who were very close to Theresa and know what the facts are. The same is true for the Kate Coe story, which though published in a local paper has no more standing than a blog article, particularly as it's assertions have been vigorously disputed and even discredited. To say that a blog piece rebutting Coe's story is somehow inappropriate is disingenuous, especially when justifying removing is using the ridiculous explanation that it is "impossible to source." I think it's fairly obvious that the writer (myself) knew Theresa well, and hence is an authority as good as any other when it comes to understanding who she was. Regardless, to remove that link while leaving Coe's piece amounts to censorship, as you allow one point-of-view and disallow another. I am perfectly happy to leave both off, but as long as Coe's piece is on there then my rebuttal will be as well. --Empyreal1 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kate Coe story does have more standing than a blog article, in terms of Wikipedia's own guidelines. Whether or not it stands as a valid external link is not conditional on whether your rebutting blog is a valid external link. "The Theresa Duncan Tragedy" was a researched story with named sources and it passed editorial muster. A local paper is not automatically considered a less legitimate source; there are a number of excellent local papers around the United States, ones I would read before a "national" paper like USA Today. LA Weekly has editorial guidelines and reporters must meet them. Your blog does not have such guidelines and you can write whatever you want.

Just because a blog posting represents a different point of view doesn't make it a valid external link (or invalid, for that matter). It has to be judged on its own merits. Removing one and not the other does not, as you say, amount to censorship. It's a matter of meeting Wikipedia guidelines. You're entitled to having your own opinion or views. You just don't have carte blanche to have them referenced on Wikipedia. Again, as noted above, this is about guidelines for reliability and verifiability. Kongjie (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite what Pigman ☿ wrote above, the Constantine link is still there. I am deleting again. Candy (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Kongjie, exactly, it has to be judged on it's own merits. Many works published in newspapers pass do not pass editorial muster in any real sense of the term. The New York Post's recent story on Beck and Theresa is a good example of that. On the other hand, many blog articles are totally authoritative and becoming widely read as such. I have some authority to speak on the matter. I was a long-time friend of Theresa's and am now responsible for maintaining her blog. It is extremely distressing to me, her friends, and her family to see so much false information disseminated about her, and now to see an edit war go on with people who do not know the facts, as well as other people whose intent in clearly malicious (just look at some of the previous edits). I will remain vigilant in attempting to assure that only undisputed facts are published on this page. Kate Coe's article certainly does not pass that standard.

--Empyreal1 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Empyreal1, I can understand how friends and family can be distressed to read things about loved ones that they believe are false. Nonetheless, that's not the issue here. The purpose of external links is to provide Wikipedia users with further sources of relevant and factual information. Since the LA Weekly article is about Duncan's life and death, it's clearly relevant. So, the only question is its accuracy. The article is backed up with named sources. Many of the article's assertions are backed up by other articles that have been published since then, most recently the Vanity Fair piece. When Coe is speculative, it's clear that she is speculative. Just because you don't agree with some of her assertions doesn't mean the article isn't a valid external link under Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, any disputed facts that Coe brings up aren't "published on this page," as you put it. None of Coe's assertions are on the page. Your desire to remove undisputed facts from this entry doesn't give you the right to remove valid external links. People can visit a link and decide for themselves. Since you are responsible for her blog, I suggest you apply your editorial impulses to that. Why don't you write up a complete rebuttal to Kate Coe's article and put it on Duncan's blog? Kongjie (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not been reverting links because it is unproductive. But we need to reach a consensus on this and it won't happen if User:75.31.79.120 continues to put in his blog link. The problem with blogs as external links has been adequately explained--it's in general not in line with Wikipedia policy. But even if this link were legitimate, it's absurd to insist on having a link entitled "A Letter to Kate Coe A friend of Theresa Duncan corrects the public record" when you won't allow the actual newspaper article to remain as an external link. It is furthermore outright self-aggrandizing to put the link to your blog rather than the link to the blog that the post originated from. Kongjie (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular process for reaching a consensus? Perhaps something like calling for comments? I have read about that, but I haven't ever instigated it.


 * If all that's needed is discussion here and expressing opinions, then here's mine: Alex Constantine's linking to his blog raises a few concerns, among them the fact that it's a blog and its POV is far from neutral. It's also his own blog, which raises the issue of self-promotion. (I don't think I have seen anyone besides him arguing for its inclusion or repeatedly adding it back in.) And he hasn't tried to work within Wikipedia guidelines to try to resolve the matter; instead he not only repeatedly reverts the deletions, he reinserts the link with accusatory comments about how he's being censored and so on.


 * I don't have any objection to a link to Raymond Doherty's piece because I can see a reasonable argument that he's an authority qualified to respond to the Kate Coe article. But I agree with Kongjie that if Coe's article isn't linked, Doherty's response should not be, either. Candy (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one else has fixed this, I have removed the links to Constantine's blog and replaced them with the link to the LA Weekly story, Raymond Doherty's response to that story (on his blog), and the most recent Vanity Fair story. Both published stories used named sources and were researched. Doherty's blog, while not within usual Wikipedia guidelines, is written by someone who knew Duncan and challenges parts of the LA Weekly piece. I'm hoping that putting it there can bring the editing war to an end.Kongjie (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kongje. BTW, you accused me of removing the link to Coe's article, which I never did. Please check the edit history and you will see. Thanks. --Empyreal1 (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Empyreal1, sorry I just saw this today. I honestly can't see exactly where I accused you of removing the link and am sorry if I did, but you can appreciate my confusion--weren't we having a discussion about its validity and you were taking the "con" side?--Kongjie (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote help?
I have been reading about creating footnotes on Wiki but have run into some problems doing it for this article. I've made some progress but they still need some work (particularly the last two, which are supposed to refer back to the first footnote but don't, even though I thought I was following the instructions given). Is there anyone here who has footnote experience who can either straighten them out or tell me what I'm doing wrong? (I suspect there is a place to ask for footnote help, but I don't know where it is.) Was I wrong to try to create footnotes in the first place? Candy (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed them - you were nearly there. Creating footnotes is almost always a good idea. You can get general editing help at Help desk. Hut 8.5 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what I did wrong! Thanks! Candy (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits
I just made some edits, with I believed a sufficient explanation as to why. I would have thought this would be a fairly non-controversial one and not be a source of contention. In this circumstance, please do not undo an edit without an explanation as to why you thought the previous version was better, else you are the pot calling the kettle black, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empyreal1 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Your edit was reversed twice, as it went against the current consensus on a hotly contested page. It's wikipedia policy to discuss these things on the talk page, not just to keep changing them until an edit war breaks out. This topic is controversial, so lets please stay civil and cooperative on the page. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point about using the talk page to discuss. However, I believe this was an edit that did not affect any dispute over facts. It certainly did not go against any consensus, unless you are saying no one can edit now without first seeking agreement. My reasons were to clean things up a bit, including the clutter of footnotes when the Vanity Fair article covered all points, as well as to remove the paragraph about discovering Jeremy's body. That belongs on Jeremy's page and does not warrant such prominent placement here. Other minor edits simply improved the flow of the paragraph. Neither you or the previous reverser of my edit had any cause other than finding my explanation inadequate. I will continue being fairly active in editing this page in the future, but will do a better job at explaining the reasons for the edits. Now that I have explained it, please undo your reversal and let the edit process continue. --Empyreal1 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do the following edit if no one refutes the substance of it, referencing the Vanity Fair article, and has the section read: Theresa Duncan was found dead on July 10 2007. The official cause of death was suicide as a result of the combined ingestion of diphenhydramine and alcohol. Her longtime boyfriend and artistic partner Jeremy Blake is believed to have killed himself a week later, having been seen by an anonymous 911 caller walking into the Atlantic Ocean near Rockaway Beach. His body was found five days later off the coast of New Jersey. According to friends of the couple, Jeremy and Theresa believed that they were being followed and harassed by Scientologists up to the point of their deaths. --Empyreal1 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Your changes (and link changes from earlier) all seem solid, very nice work. The problem I had earlier was the complete removal of the death of Blake from this article, I think it should have been referenced here along with their feelings about Scientology. It seems like a pretty major point. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * k, made the edit. i actually hadn't removed the reference to blake's death, but i have now put back in that his death was confirmed when his body was found. to be honest, at first i thought the quick response to my edit was a bit unfair, but now i realize this is a good example of what makes wikipedia work. there have been some pretty screwy attempts to edit this page, some well-intentioned and others downright malicious. i now feel fairly confident that things will go more smoothly from now on. thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empyreal1 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see the cooperation shown here regarding the edits. I was concerned about the deletion of the reference to finding Jeremy's body because I thought it was a major omission to leave out the fact that he actually was confirmed to be dead. But I don't think all the details about Sea Girt, etc., are necessary. I'm also pleased to see that Theresa and Jeremy's allegations of harassment by the Church of Scientology have been reinstated, since that played such a critical role in their final years. (Yeah, it's covered in Vanity Fair, but not everyone will read the whole article.) Candy (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Empyreal1, thanks for adding the link to the NY Mag. article that reported on the Corriere della Sera interview with Beck in which he mentioned his plans to make a film that sounded much like Theresa's film. Candy (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is this person???
As tragic as this may be (assuming it's even real), is this a person of any import (I never heard of her or her alleged accomplishments or alleged death), or can anyone put themselves on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Assuming it's even real"? "Alleged death"? You must be trollin'. Candy (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking legitimate questions is not "trollin'", and unjustly accusing someone of doing so is against the Terms of Service of this website. Skaizun (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a reasonable speculation (not accusation) on my part. The article is properly sourced, so your reference to her death as "alleged" and your insinuation that Duncan posted the article herself seemed unfounded to me. And even though the article is sourced, you cast doubt on its legitimacy by saying "assuming it's even real" without giving reasons you thought it might not be. If you are skeptical about the authenticity of Duncan's death or the facts presented in the article, you are free to present your reasons. Candy (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While Duncan, her short films, her work on early CD-ROM video games for girls and her death were all real, it does seem that she created her own Wikipedia entry almost a year before her death. The same user that posted the first short entry on her also posted an image of Jeremy Blake, claiming to be his husband. While Duncan and Blake were in a long-term relationship, they were not legally married. The user name is Tuesdaytd: Duncan was very interested in Tuesday Weld, and of course those are her initials at the end.Kongjie (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! I'm not surprised. (I bet lots of living people write their own Wiki articles, and Duncan would have been likely to do it, I think.) But still, the article as it stands now presumably has material Duncan didn't write, unless she faked her death. I'm sure there are people who believe she did. Candy (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
Who is identifying themselves as Theresa was their student? Student where? I don't believe this person has authoritative knowledge about Theresa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.11.76.127 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Theresa Duncan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170401225319/http://laist.com/2006/02/06/laist_interview_theresa_duncan.php to http://laist.com/2006/02/06/laist_interview_theresa_duncan.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007040744/http://www.laist.com/2006/02/06/laist_interview_theresa_duncan.php to http://www.laist.com/2006/02/06/laist_interview_theresa_duncan.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821182310/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2007/08/post_6.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2007/08/post_6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218185310/http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/12/how_well_did_jeremy_blake.html to http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/12/how_well_did_jeremy_blake.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)