Talk:Sante Kimes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Incorrect Information

Extended content

Excerpt: "During the trial for the Kadzin murder Kenneth Kimes confessed that after his mother had used a stun gun on the sleeping Silverman, he strangled her, stuffed her corpse into a bag and deposited it in a dumpster in Hoboken, New Jersey...." This is untrue, please reference where it says Kenneth Kimes said "his mother used a stun gun on the sleeping Silverman". --Sktruth (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC) More incorrect information: "The Silverman trial was unusual in many aspects, namely the rare combination of a mother/son team and the fact that no body was recovered. Nonetheless, the jury was unanimous in voting to convict them of not only muder but 117 other charges including fraud, arson, theft, and identity theft on their first poll on the subject." Sante and Kenneth Kimes were never charged with or convicted of arson. --Sktruth (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

POV bias

Extended content

Listed as a source is "Mother and Son Are Given Life Sentences Katherine E. Finkelstein, The New York Times, 6/28/2000" The Sante Kimes article has several quotes. Within this supplied source is a quote by Sante Kimes: "All of our precious civil and constitutional rights were trampled, Mrs. Kimes said. Much like the witch hunts of old Salem, the police planted and planted and planted evidence to fool the jury. No one has been told the truth in this case." I suggest/nominate this quote by Sante Kimes (in the above named source) be placed on the article. If one quote can be made from a source, cannot another? How is one quote more noteworthy from a source than another? There is a message on the article stating "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." However, I would argue the opposite, the current article contains mostly, if not in full, one sided information - even from the named sources. --Sktruth (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC) First off, please place new discussions at the bottom of the page. You can do this automatically by using the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Secondly, I added mentions of both sides of the statements at the sentencing hearing, so how is that biased? The coverage of her crimes and trial are negative in nature because she was convicted of two murders and numerous other crimes. There is no way to whitewash that to make it positive, and we shouldn't try. Frankly, I am increasingly convinced that you have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. You have claimed (similarly to Kimes herself) that you have information that contradicts the content of this article. Where is it? If you can produce these sources we can include them in the article. If all you have is a Facebook page where Kimes is trying (and by all appearances failing) to get support for her cause that is really not going to cut it as it is not an independent reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1. Thanks for the tip, I will be sure to follow that from now on. 2. If you are referring to the content listed under "Trials". It reads from a biased point of view. Even looking at it from a neutral perspective the section is constructed in a biased point of view. Instead of simply listing fact, it read like the interpretation of a biased onlooker at the trial. Furthermore, the source for which this information is listed is misquoted. Here is the actual content from that source. "...But investigators said that the pair's murder of the woman, Irene Silverman, 82, was just one of a number of crimes: by the time the Kimeses arrived in New York in June 1998, they had left behind what investigators described as a huge mosaic of fraud, theft, arson, identity theft and murder that stretched from Hawaii to Las Vegas to the Bahamas...." As you see the context of "...117 other charges including fraud, arson, theft, and identity theft on their first poll on the subject..." which is listed under the "Trial" section is misquoted and inaccurate as to the Irene Silverman trial. Furthermore, Sante Kimes was never charged or convicted of arson - ever. I would like to call attention to this source by pointing out there are NO named sources in the referenced news report. Therefore, should it even be considered? Is simply because something is published make it a reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines? (I know this may sound sarcastic, but I'm actually confused about this. I have looked for this info and I am confused by what is considered "reliable sources".) 3. I have never said "You have claimed (similarly to Kimes herself) that you have information that contradicts the content of this article." I have only said the Sante Kimes article contains inaccurate information and has a biased point of view. 4. I resent the constant personal attacks on me saying I have some personal interest or conflict of interest concerning the Sante Kimes article. Also attempting to characterize me by saying "similarly to Kimes herself" - BTW, that statement itself sounds very biased. I simply have extensive knowledge of the Kimes case (among many well-known cases) and I am concerned about the current misrepresentation of the Kimes case on the article. Actually, in all honesty, I have concern that you may have a conflict of interest concerning the Sante Kimes article because of what you have said on this discussion page, such as: 1.Your opinion of the convicted by saying "A convicted murderer maintaining the position that they are innocent is pretty much par for the course, as is endlessly appealing the conviction." In case you are not aware of this, there is innocent people released daily for being convicted of crimes they did not commit. One such case is the brother of Betty Anne Waters, Kenneth Waters. Who was convicted of a crime, served many years in prison and during that time was filing appeals. Betty Anne Waters went to law school and fought to have him released on DNA evidence - which he was. Saying "A convicted murderer maintaining the position that they are innocent is pretty much par for the course..." is extremely biased. 2.Comparing me to Sante Kimes. 3.The comment "...If all you have is a Facebook page where Kimes is trying (and by all appearances failing) to get support for her cause that is really not going to cut it as it is not an independent reliable source." PS - after rereading this, it sounds very attacking. I am not trying to attack you. I am only wanting to work together to resolve the issues on the Sante Kimes article. Though, if you have a personal issue with Sante Kimes, maybe another admin. can help. I will continue to post here before attempting to make any big change in content and add tags to the article as so that it can be reviewed. --Sktruth (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I never heard of Sante Kimes until I reviewed your unblock request yesterday, so no, I do not have any conflict of interest. My suspicion that you do have a conflict of interest is based on your manifest desire to scrub information you claim is incorrect from this article while ignoring requests for sources that contradict the book or the other sources used. My edits to the article have been based on reliable sources, my statement that many felons plead not guilty and appeal their convictions many times is an easily verifiable fact. And a Facebook page absolutely is not an independent reliable source, and is generally considered invalid even as an external link. Doubly so if the page is claiming to be "The Kimes Foundation For The Wrongfully Convicted." Is it really a Foundation? Who is organizing it? Who is on its board of directors? Other than this Facebook page and a YouTube account, I think it likely this Foundation is as fictional as the many other cons perpetrated by Kimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I can totally appreciate that the Facebook page isn't considered a reliable resource since it is from one side of the story. So I have no problem with your stance on this. Again, as I have stated many times, I am only a merely a scholar of well-known criminal case. Several of which, are listed in Wikipedia. Oddly, the Sante Kimes page is the one that I saw had lots of incorrect information listed on it. I agree that my first edits weren't the correct way to improve the quality of the page, but I have since tried to follow the correct procedure and post here and add tags for larger amounts of questionable information. I think the quality of the page HAS improved since yesterday, however, there are still a few spots of misinformation that concern me. Yes, you have provided sources, but (perhaps in your haste) you have misquoted them. I would simply go ahead and fix these, but I don't what to appear that I am trying to disrupt the page or alter the quality of the content. I think I have already listed the misquotes here, so if you want to change them, please do. Or, I can correct them and you can 'check' my work for accuracy- which ever you see best is fine. As for people wrongfully convicted. The general consensus is that all people convicted of a crime is guilty of it. However, that is not always the case and that is usually public opinion, rather than fact. I'm not speaking about the Kimes case, but for all conviction cases. --Sktruth (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Serial killer?

Extended content

Did she kill other people? One murder does not a serial killer make, as the FBI generally requires at least 3 murders before classifying them as a serial killer. Seems she just killed the one and committed fraud, or is there more that hasn't been written about yet? "Serial killers are people who kill on at least three occasions with a break in between each murder. The crimes committed are a result of a compulsion that may have roots in the killer's (often dysfunctional) youth and psychopathological disorders, as opposed to those who are motivated by financial gain (e.g., contract killers) or ideological/political motivations (e.g., terrorism, democide)." from the serial killers page which would mean as she only killed one person which was for financial gain she is not a serial killer at all. It is my understanding that murderers whose primary motivation is to cover up other criminal activities are not considered serial killers. Serial killers are people with an illogical compulsion to kill, often totally unrelated to any real-world motivations. If an evil spirit in their head or a talking dog or an irrational hatred of women or homosexuals causes them to kill that's one thing, a profit motive is something else entirely. We don't consider mob hit men to be serial killers for this reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Sante Kimes was convicted of TWO murders; Irene Silverman in New York, NY (2000) and David Kazdin in Los Angeles, Ca (2004) Both murders are ALLEGED to have been committed for financial gain. It should be noted that Sante Kimes has held to her plea of innocence and deny any involvement in these crimes. Both convictions are currently being aggressively appealed. Sktruth (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC) A convicted murderer maintaining the position that they are innocent is pretty much par for the course, as is endlessly appealing the conviction. However, to get back to the topic at hand, she does not appear to meet the accepted definition of a serial killer no matter how many convictions she has. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Beeblebrox: I don't mean to unrespectfully question your last post, but "A convicted murderer maintaining the position that they are innocent is pretty much par for the course, as is endlessly appealing the conviction." but is this personal opinion or fact? It sound like personal opinion. 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sktruth (talk • contribs) Are you honestly contesting the notion that the majority of convicted felons claim to be innocent? My point is that appealing the conviction is not really noteworthy as it is extremely common. The validity of her appeal is something for the courts to determine. If an appeal was successful, that would of course be very noteworthy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Again, is this personal opinion or fact? I'm just confused as to how it's noteworthy to list Sante Kimes' projected release date, but not that the convictions are under appeal.--Sktruth (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

POV/sourcing problems

Extended content

While I certainly don't agree with the tactics recently used to try and alter the tone of this article, the underlying reason it was done may be valid. There are no inline citations in the "criminal career" section, which contains some rather outlandish claims that really should be attributed to a specific source if they are to be kept. Also, we should only say she murdered the individuals she was actually convicted of murdering and not engage in speculation about links to other murders without evidence. Kimes is apparently still living so WP:BLP applies here, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Let's se it or remove the unsourced material. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I've added two sources that report the facts stated in the "Criminal career" section. I'll be checking further but it's a low priority for me as I'm convinced that the bulk of the content is factual. This does not address the fact that the article could use a serious copyedit. I will not attempt that in the short term in the hope that more qualified editors step up. Tiderolls 02:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC) As administrator Beeblebrox says "...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...", the news reports you've listed as sources are not "extraordinary proof", but rather hearsay. Furthermore, those article are from July 1998 - during which time, Sante Kimes was not indicted with any murder charge. Therefore, NO trial transcripts or conviction was available to be quote.Sktruth (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hearsay statements

Extended content

The Sante Kimes Wikipedia article ALLEGES crimes that Sante Kimes was never charged for or convicted of. 1. "Both mother and son are thought to have committed the brutal killing of an Indian banker, Syed Bilal Ahmed, in Nassau, Bahamas on September 4, 1996, because he refused to approve her loan. Both mother and son drugged Ahmed, drowned him in the bathtub and stored his body in garbage bags overnight. The following morning, they dumped his body in the sea." 2. "She committed insurance fraud on numerous occasions, frequently by committing arson and then collecting for property damage." Sante Kimes was never charged with any such crime. "She delighted in introducing her husband as an ambassador - a ploy that even gained the couple access to a White House reception during the Ford administration." Sante Kimes NEVER gained access to the White House during the Ford Administration. "Sante and Kenny Kimes are also suspects in the 1995 disappearance of 62-year-old Jacqueline Levitz, the heiress to a multi-million dollar estate in Mississippi. There are striking similarities between Levitz's case and Silverman's, but no link between the two cases has ever been established. Levitz is presumed murdered and was legally declared dead in 2001." Sante Kimes nor her son were NEVER seriously considered suspects in this disappearance and no charges were ever made against Sante Kimes for this alleged disappearance. "After three hours he was subdued, and the following month, both Kenny and Sante Kimes were extradited to Los Angeles to stand trial for the murder of David Kazdin, a 63-year-old businessman whose body was found in a trash bin near Los Angeles International Airport in 1998." This statement is inaccurate. Sktruth (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Extended content

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages." Much "tabloid" content and "titillating claims" are contained within the Sante Kimes Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sktruth (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Well, there are several previously uninvolved users working on the article now who, unlike yourself, do not appear to have any personal stake in the matter, so it should continue to improve. I just added several new passages that are all properly attributed to reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Is it not wrong to list uncharged crimes as if they are facts of a person's life on a BLP article? --Sktruth (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Yes it is, are there such things still included in the article? It's been established through reliable sources that she was convicted of murder, theft, arson, identity theft, and fraud. I don't know about the "enslaving immigrants" charges as that information was based on a book I do not have, but if the book says that it can be included. If that information is contested (by another source, not just Kimes herself who apparently denies all of it) we can note that as well. I would ask again that if you have sources refuting these claims you produce them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Hi - Yes, there are such things still included in the article. 1. "Arson" - Sante Kimes was never charged or convicted of arson. Please review the source for that information. I have added a tag to it on the article. 2. The "slavery" charges were appealed in 1990. I do not have the actual paperwork in front of me about it, but I will look online. 3. "Impersonating Elizabeth Taylor", no documentation to support this. Sante Kimes favored Taylor and that is it. It would probably be best to change this to "Sante Kimes resembled Elizabeth Taylor" or something along those lines. But saying " Impersonating Elizabeth Taylor" sounds like she was defrauding Elizabeth Taylor in some way. Which is also not documented in any sources. 4."...delighted in introducing her husband as an ambassador - a ploy that even gained the couple access to a White House reception during the Ford administration" This statement is just not true. Thanks.--Sktruth (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Ironically, you are providing ever larger amounts of circumstantial evidence that you are either Kimes herself or have a very close connection to her and her case. How would you know that the book that was he source of this information is wrong? I haven't seen any sources that contradict this, and you have not provided them despite being repeatedly asked to do so. I must ask: What is your connection to Kimes? Are you in fact Kimes herself? If not, how can you claim to have all this firsthand knowledge of what she did and did not do? Be advised once again that it is strongly discouraged for anyone to engage in autobiography or other conflict of interest editing n Wikipedia for exactly these reasons. We can't go by what you say is true or false, especially if you are in fact a convicted con artist and murderer. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) No, I am not Kimes. As I have stated, I am merely a scholar of several well known court cases. One being the Sante Kimes court cases. Can you please define what you are referring to in your post? If you are talking about the paperwork for the "slavery" appeal? If so, court documents in the US are public information that any person can request from the court that presided over the trial and appeal. I am not sure of how I can present paperwork in my possession to Wikipedia as a source. Suggestions?? I seem to remember finding evidence of the appeal online some time ago, but will have to look for it. As for the other items I listed: In no news report or book does it mention any charge or conviction for arson for Sante Kimes. This is just simply misinformation. Likewise for the rest of what I listed. If you have any other questions, please ask and I will do my best to help. As a side note, I would like to mention one item you wrote "especially if you are in fact a convicted con artist and murderer" - there is no actual criminal charge of being a 'con artist', therefore a conviction is impossible. --Sktruth (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Well, that is technically true, "con artist" is a phrase applied to persons who have committed crimes of the type Kimes was convicted of. Not necessarily murder but all the rest of it, fraud, identity theft, other forms of grifting, all fall under the umbrella term of con artistry, which if you ask me sounds nicer than the actual names of the charges, but since you object I have altered the lead to indicate actual crimes that Kimes was convicted of, namely murder, robbery, burglary, conspiracy, grand larceny, illegal weapons possession, forgery and eavesdropping. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

BLPs should not have trivia sections

Extended content

According to Wikipedia: "ToneBLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections." The Sante Kimes Wikipedia article HAS a "trivia section". Sktruth (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC) {{Adminhelp}} Dear administrator, I hope I am following a proper procedure to contact an administrator about this issue. If this is not please 'don't bite a newbie' - which I am. The Sante Kimes article has a "Trivia Section". According to the guidelines for BLP, "BLPs should not have trivia sections". I would like to nominate this section to be removed from the Sante Kimes article since it does not belong on the BLP according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks. Sktruth (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC) No need for an admin. Click 'edit' and remove it yourself; say why in the edit summary. If others object, you can discuss it here. Admins don't get involved in content problems, really. See WP:BOLD WP:DISCUSS  Chzz  ►  16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Chzz is right that this isn't really an admin question, as it is more a content question. I'd take a little different approach - while BLPs are not supposed to have trivia sections, it isn't perfectly clear that everything in that section truly qualifies as trivia. A different approach would be to start a discussion on this page, with the goal of determining whether the material in that section belongs in the article, and for items that do belong, how they could be incorporated into another section, or perhaps they deserve their own section, which a better title than trivia. I see that you have gone ahead and removed the section, which is fine, but if someone objects and reverts it, please try the approach I'm discussing. As a minor note, your edit summary on the deletion says "Removed "Trival section" as per admin: "Chzz" approval". Chzz is not an admin (but probably will be one soon).--SPhilbrickT 17:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I agree that a "trivia" section is not something we should have, but there do appear to have been multiple books and television programs dedicated to this case and that is something that is worth mentioning, if it can be properly verified that the works were directly based on this case. Some of the entries, like the Law&Order eisode, probably do not qualify, as they always go out of their way to say their shows are inspired by, but not factual depictions of, real events. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Respectfully, the films made are only partly based on this case and are fictionalized versions of the events. --Sktruth (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Headline Tab

Is it possible to change "Criminal career" to "Life"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sktruth (talk • contribs) 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  Chzz  ►  16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sante Kimes article lead info

Extended content

The current Sante Kimes lead info is repetitious. The lead info is covered in the article. The previous lead was not "whitewashed" as posted on the editing note. Kimes is best known for two murders and the locations of the convictions. The current lead "Sante Kimes (born July 24, 1934) is an American felon who has been convicted of two murders, along with robbery, burglary, conspiracy, grand larceny, illegal weapons possession, violation of anti-slavery laws, forgery and eavesdropping." was added by a user who has expressed a biased opinion upon the article's subject. The correction I made was neutral to the articleSktruth (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I don't have a bias. My edits are based on verified fact and nothing more. The purpose of the lead is to summarize facts from the article. Now that your lawyer is here trying to get the article deleted you really need to stop making any edits at all to this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Which one of those claimed convictions isn't a matter of public record at court? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC) You stated "The lead info is covered in the article." - Please read WP:LEAD, as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and thus any information in the lead SHOULD be covered in the article. Eldamorie (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

1. Beeblebrox has surmised, here and at ANI, that Sktruth might be Sante Kimes herself. That seems unlikely to me, given that the article says that Mrs. Kimes is in prison and won't be leaving any time soon.

2. The article is sensationalistic; Sktruth may well have a COI, but the article smells of at least one other COI in the way it spams the Kenneth Walker book (why is the book cover and Google Books link in the article? We are supposed to just use the ISBN, for vendor neutrality). [I just removed the cover image and fixed the ISBN link]. I also wonder if the section about the book was copied from somewhere, because of the spurious [1] that it had. (Old version).

3. The book author (Mrs. Kimes' older son, according to the article) obviously cannot be expected to be a neutral party. He might be sympathetic to Mrs. Kimes or he might have a grudge to pursue. If the book says Mrs. Kimes was convicted of arson and that can't be verified from public records, and there are other detectable errors of that sort, the book isn't a reliable source and shouldn't source any factual info. It is appropriate to use it as a POV source to an extent, but anything used from it should be attributed in-text, and the book itself (winner of the Edgar Allen Poe award, suggesting a level of sensationalism) shouldn't be allowed to influence the article's tone—this is not "Encyclopedia Noir".

71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, they have computers in prisons, so it is not impossible. The arrival of a lawyer on the heels of Sktruth's failure to whitewash the article speaks massive volumes about COI. Whoever Sktruth really is they have crossed the line by involving a lawyer. The article does not claim she was convicted of arson, I edited it to reflect that that was accusation made by her son in the book he wrote. Everything that is an unproven accusation from the book is identified as such. Despite the accusations I really do not have a bias and have endeavored to reflect only what can be properly sourced. A third party source wrote that she is accused in the book of arson and some other odd behaviors, and that is what the article now says, thanks to my editing. I agree about the book cover though, the book is not actually the subject of the article and we should just use the ISBN number. With all the editing I'm not sure who keeps adding it back. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,I'm the one who is guilty of adding the book and the ISBN number the last time. I was trying to get things that were removed by Sktruth back into the article. I just did a copy and paste from a previous version to the latest version that was there, sorry. I have no COI though for this subject at all. I caught the problems that the editor was having and not knowing better at the time I tried to help out a newbie with a welcome template and some comments. Needless to say that thread was deleted from the editors talk page with his/her comments to what I said also removed. If you go into history you will see when the editor first started editing the article and removing things that were not put back. There was also a section titled trivia which should be renamed to something like Movies, books etc. There have been movies based on this person, Sante Kimes along with documentaries. Also if you look, I haven't had time to do research yet as I am in a grieving process from a family members violent death, you will find movies, books, documentaries and so on about this case. Again, I am sorry about adding those two things back into the article. I was going to add more that was under the trivia title but RL called me away. There is a lot more we can add to this article, at least I think there is. Beeblebrox, you did good with the article. I thought the book cover could at least give our readers an image of what she looked like. Sktruth also added an image to the article which got reverted. Did anyone check the image out to see if it breached copyright? If it didn't maybe that image can be used after it is adjusted in size? I also believe that the book can be used as a reliable source for some things that can be verified outside the book. At least other article have used books to tell the story. An example I can think of off the top of my head is Ted Bundy with Ann Rule's books and comments and Diane Downs again with Ann Rule's comments. I hope this clarifies things for everyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I missed that a different image was here at one point, there has been a lot of activity here the last 48 hours and I have been more focused on sourcing and improving the article than checking all the diffs. I'll see if i can dig that up, maybe it is something we can use. I could also see the book cover being re-introduced, but I don't think it is really proper to have it attached to the lead of the article. There is information from he book in the section now titled "Criminal behaviors," it may be better suited to that section. I'm not sure I'm wild about that section title either, but maybe we should wait till things calm down a bit before mucking with that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'm not claiming you have a bias; I'm just taking issue with some of the stuff that was in the article and saying we have to be careful about sourcing. You wrote:[1]

I don't know about the "enslaving immigrants" charges as that information was based on a book I do not have, but if the book says that it can be included. If that information is contested (by another source, not just Kimes herself who apparently denies all of it) we can note that as well. I would ask again that if you have sources refuting these claims you produce them.

but it's a little more complicated than that--we can't automatically treat the book as reliable. I'd also oppose restoring the cover image to any part of the article. This isn't Amazon. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't "encyclopedia noir". This isn't "Amazon". This isn't the "SF IP", now is it? Say this is "harassment" from me, & I'll certainly know it's you. It is you, correct? Just want to be sure. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The slavery thing was in fact a crime she was convicted of, and that information is now properly sourced. The accusations of crimes from the book are clearly identified as such, and a source is provided proving the book does make these accusations, the reader may make their own determination on the validity of those claims. I put a lot of work into making sure things in this article were properly attributed to sources so this endless carping about problems I already fixed myself is getting really old. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal life, or lack thereof

Some section titles have been changed, and I note that in one edit summary it was suggested we need to come up with a "personal life" section as is normal for a biography. I don't think that is going to be possible in this case. From everything I have read, grifting was Sante Kimes' life up until she went to prison, she doesn't seem to have had much else in it. I haven't actually read "Son of a Grifter" but the NY Times book review mentions that she used all of her children in her schemes, and the human slavery case destroyed her previously wealthy husbands' finances and reputation. There just doesn't seem to be any divide between her personal life and her chosen profession. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about things like her parents names, places of birth, date of birth, siblings and things along these lines. These are the types of things that should be put into her her personal life or maybe titled Early life. As an adult, I agree that there is no line between how she lived. --CrohnieGal^Talk 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of that stuff is in the article and may be able to be split off, but I'm not sure how well verified it is. The NY Times book review noted that her son had observed that her life story was a bit different every time she told it, including her age, time and place of birth, etc. One of the sources noted this was a point of contention at her first murder trial as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sante Kimes official website link

This dispute is covered under WP guidelines for external links as follows:

What should be linked

1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

Wikipedia guideline: Official links

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline

• Any reason to not follow this guideline is biased.--Jfaia (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that's Kimes's real web site? It looks like it was hastily put together on a 'free web site' service, and there's nothing I can find that would verify that Kimes even has a web site. I would not support adding a link to this web site unless we can verify that it really is hers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it turns out to be authorized by Kimes or her lawyer, we are under no obligation to promote the website of a convicted criminal attempting to "game the system", when there is absolutely no evidence of any public controversy about the convictions. Wikipedia is not a promotional website and we, collectivley, can make an editorial decision about whether the website enhances the article for the reader or not. Considering the probablity that the editor adding it is a sock of an SPA here to whitewash the article by any means possible, I have no compunction about saying that we should not, under any circumstances, allow the link in the article. Allowing it would open a very messy can of worms for every convicted criminal who has a lawyer who is new-media savvy. Let's not go there, let's draw a line: if there's a legitimate public controversy, we will consider a link to a defense campaign, but if there's not, we're not here to jumpstart the campaign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't include it if the lawyer doesn't confirm that it's official (I've asked Stifle to check with the lawyer through OTRS). If the lawyer does confirm it, I'm ok with including it, though I'm meh about it mostly since it's such a crappy site. BMK is correct that we're not under obligation to link to it. But we do link to sites of article subjects (including some very disreputable ones) as a general practice. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that in the case of a bona fide controversy -- Ruben "Hurricane" Carter, for instance, or the guy in Philadelphia whose name escapes for at the moment -- I have no problem with including a link, even when the crimes that the person has been convicted for are reprehensible. If there are reliable sources that have reported about a "campaign for justice" and which indicate that real concern is being expressed (even if it's likely misplaced concern) we should link to a site as part of our public duty to inform. That's not the case here, which is why I'm adamantly opposed to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Barring some kind of notability as per what you've just said, the link should stay out, as it contains no new or useful information. It's just a rehash of what the attorneys would have said at trial and/or in appeals, which is already covered in the article. The website as it stands now is of no value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at about controversy. Let's say someone is in prison uncontroversially (e.g. they confessed to the crime, or aren't currently disputing the conviction), like Phil Spector. Are you saying we shouldn't link to their website? I'm generally supportive of the (rejected) notion that we should delete most BLP's if the subject requests it. Since we don't do such deletions, including a link in the absence of unusual circumstances against it is a way to let the subject reply to the article, which I don't have a problem with. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an abstract question that needs to be worried about too much, since this web site is a painfully obvious fake. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's the subject's official website. It should be linked rather you agree with the contents or not.--Dogma152 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Another sock! Awesome! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As was stated at your WP:ANI thread, considering the website seems to have been set up to specifically get around our rules on WP:VERIFY, WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, and who knows what else, per WP:IGNORE(one of our 5 pillars of editing here) we do not have to include a link to any site from here, official or not. Creating more sock puppets will not help your case, it will just make it all the more likely that the stuff you want included will not be included. Heiro 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Stifle to ask Kimes's lawyers to call off the socking. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Heiro. This (horrible) "official site" was just created, obviously, like the sudden arrival of a lawyer (not sure I even believe that at this point) in direct response to events here. Nobody, not her own children and former accomplices, not any of her former lawyers, not anybody at all aside from a few suckers on Facebook who probably didn't mean to link their accounts to this B.S. foundation, actually supports her appeal or believes her story. Whoever is behind these dishonest attempts to circumvent our policy and use Wikipedia to advocate for Kimes' cause, we should not reward this deceptive behavior. Multiple identities, underhanded scams, a fake "foundation" angry denials when caught in obvious lies, etc. Do we still think this isn't Kimes herself we are dealing with? If it isn't, it is someone who shares her comfort with deception and ignoring the facts. Lets not get played like the suckers who were duped (or murdered) by her already. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It apparently is now confirmed as a (cough) official site.[2] I'd say if a biography subject wants a link to a crappy site that makes them look even more foolish, why should we stand in their way? I also still think it's unlikely that Kimes was personally editing the article. It's not like there's any shortage of sock-operating soapboxers on Wikipedia already, and they can't all be Kimes. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverse engineer your logic there.

• We know the site is brand new.
• We know that Sktruth was told, right here on this page, that the Facebook page was no good for a link.
• Kimes' own, real life lawyer now confirms that this brand-new site is "official."

• When finally blocked for socking here, the user went on to attack me, the same way Kimes attacked anyone who might be able to expose her scams.

You can't see the attacks anymore because someone RevDeleted them, but believe me they were full of vitriol that revealed far more about the person posting them ("You will die alone and unloved" was the general theme) than they do about me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt for one second that Sktruth and the sockpuppets were connected to Kimes or her lawyer in some way. I just see it as unlikely that Kimes was personally editing Wikipedia from prison, though I suppose it's possible. I guess the distinction isn't really important. She'd have to have rather poor impulse control to run those stupid socks and post the attacks you mention, given that internet access from prison is a rather rare privilege and I'm sure all of her keystrokes would be monitored by prison authorities. But who knows. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, are you suggesting above that the "attorneys" are not really what they say? That is something Stifle might be able to look into, if it seems relevant. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe that there really was an bona fide attorney. There is an obvious pattern of deceptive (dare I say fraudulent) behavior here. If they are emailing OTRS from an address at a legit law firm i guess that would verify that. More important than that is the fact that, whoever they are, they are trying to trick us into linking to this so-called official site. The first step in avoiding a trap is knowing where it is. The second step is not to step in it or let yourself be pushed into it. Whether it is her in person or a close associate of some sort it seems clear she is pulling the strings in one manner or another. I feel like we are being conned into this by someone who still believes themselves a master of the craft despite the spectacular failure of many of their previous cons and the fact that they went from a secure life of idle luxury in Hawaii and the Bahamas to an extremely extended stay at the Bedford Greybar Hotel. This is less about rigid interpretation of the external link policy and more about right and wrong. We're being flimflammed. We all seem to agree on that now, so why let it happen? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if consensus here is not to add the link. Of the legitimate editors who have contributed here only 71.141 does not object to the addition, but even he or she agrees that it's a crappy site. I think we can do without it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a very strange situation. On the one hand, I wouldn't support keeping a legitimate link out simply because the editor who wants to add it is behaving badly. But on the other hand, the 'official web site' guidelines are written to deal with the web sites we normally think of as 'official web sites' - for example, the web site of a band or movie or business- which might otherwise not meet WP:RS. I don't think the people who put those guidelines together were thinking of low-quality web sites that were written specifically for the purpose of being linked to from Wikipedia. I confess that I too noticed that no lawyer I've ever met or heard of behaves quite like the lawyer we're hearing from secondhand in this situation. There are clear conflicts of interest here, and I'd like to know what they are. Is Ms. Kimes editing from prison? Is the lawyer the same person who wrote the web site? Is the person who called User:Beeblebrox such unpleasant names Ms. Kimes, or the lawyer? Is the lawyer a real attorney, or someone representing Ms. Kimes in a less formal way? Ordinarily, we link to official web sites because they contain information that would be useful to a reader- concert tour schedules, product updates, updated contact lists... I am not seeing what useful information this particular web site would offer a reader. The whole thing is very confusing, and without knowing who I'm talking to, I find myself very reluctant to weigh in very definitively, but I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how this link would be useful to a Wikipedia reader. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I found it mildly amusing in its cluelessness, (the You Tube video that says nothing of substance but when it is over links to other, less positive YouTube videos on the subject pop up) and the fact that the whole thing is dripping with American flag imagery, but that's about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I still say per WP:IGNORE(one of our 5 pillars of editing here) we do not have to include a link to any site from here, official or not. Our rules here are flexible in instances like this for a reason, so we are not required to do things possibly detrimental to the project just so a bureaucracy can be maintained or rules followed to the letter. Consensus is that the "official" site is a crappy site that does not further inform our readers, to link to it merely because our rules say official sites are preferred as links is the kind of situation for which the WP:IGNORE pillar was put in place. Heiro 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see inclusion of the link as having a BLP rationale, in that it gives the subject of an adverse article a chance to have their own say. It actually represents a near-total capitulation on Kimes's supporters' part. They go from wanting the whole article deleted, to wanting it turned into a whitewash, to wanting a number of reasonably concrete problems in it fixed, to wanting the inclusion of one lousy link. They went through a range of tactics from requesting deletion (perfectly legitimate even if the request is not granted), to trying to edit the article directly (very badly, but we tell people to be bold), to making a decent attempt to understand our editing policies and participating reasonably politely on the talk page, to (after getting told they were topic banned and the link was rejected) launching that moronic sock attack and the vitriol against Beeblebrox. I see the "polite talkpage participation" phase as being like the long-term situation at Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb that comes up at ANI from time to time (basically Taleb has a self-declared representative hanging out on the talk page). I'm sympathetic with John Nagle that the Taleb situation has problems, but we observably tolerate it, so I was ok with letting the Kimes advocate stay on the talk page on a similar basis. I agree that if there's real doubt that Kimes's alleged attorney is legit, they should be verified off-wiki before acting on any requests or info coming from them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'll agree that there were legitimate neutrality concerns when the user in question, whoever she is, started editing. Thanks for the rewrite, Beeb. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

EC. Since when is it part of our policy to let anyone who demands it have links posted so they can explain their views no matter how deluded or nonsensical? This person started with an agenda that is antithetical to our project, pulled out no stops and used pretty much every dirty trick they could think of to WP:OWN this article. We don't have to compromise with them to play nice or prove we are the nice guys. We have our rules and policies in place for a reason, and no where does it maintain that we represent the most fringe of view points just because one deluded person demands it or thinks they have found a way to wikilawyer us into it. Heiro 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, there is no valid reason for including that link. "Official" or not, it is not wikipedia's purpose to provide a forum. She was convicted, and dat's dat. If she has a problem with the conviction, then she needs to go through the court system, not wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, that link was pretty stupid but I don't see how it was detrimental to the encyclopedia. It would be detrimental if it pointed to child porn or something like that. I wouldn't worry too much about the spasm of bad editing unless it persists. Plenty of new users with viewpoints about anything go through wikilawyering and other such phases. I actually begin to see including links from involuntary BLP subjects as more legitimate than the links FisherQueen mentions containing band concert schedules, etc. Those bands fight like hell to get their articles included in Wikipedia, compromising Wikipedia's neutrality and turning it into a self-promotion venue, and then the accompanying links are basically spam. I'd support removal of all the "official links" to band and movie sites (limiting coverage to stuff in independent secondary sources) except in situations where we got believable requests from the bands/producers to delete the articles about them, and we refused the requests. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's detrimental because it rewards bad behavior. We don't want to do that, we want to discourage bad behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) There might be a case for overlooking the socking and the incivility and including the link if it was a high-quality website which was informative to our readers and if there was a noted public controversy about the subject's convictions, but since neither of those is the case, I see no reason to reward the bad behavior of Sktruth by giving them what they wanted, and every reason not to. This is not a borderline case requiring fine parsing: socking COI SPA + crappy low-content website = go peddle your papers elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea you're expressing seems to be that someone who engages in misconduct to gain advantage in a content dispute should lose the content dispute, in addition to whatever behavioral sanctions they get. I've thought similar things myself around various other wiki-disputes, but we don't seem to do things that way. WP:EL says "[o]fficial links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." I don't think it's for us to judge (especially in the case where we impose a biography on someone who has requested its deletion) the quality of their link or whether it informs our readers. If Kimes wants to look like an idiot through a link saying she was wrongly convicted despite the reams of documentation against her, then fine, let her say that. It's not like we're claiming that she is credible. Right now Sktruth/whatever is indefblocked, any new apparitions will also presumably be indef'ed, they can't respond on the talk page to the article, and the article still contains a lot of errors (it says stuff that its citations don't back up). Suppose that site turns into fancier one, or into a documented response to the article--what do we do then? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the idea I'm expressing is that if SPAs can't twist an article here to suit their delusional POV, they don't get to just create an outside website for their POV and wikilawyer to force us to link to it from here. WP:IGNORE exists for a reason. Heiro 01:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear as day to me that 71.. is the only user currently supporting inclusion of the link. I believe we have a rough consensus not to include it at this point. If there is some new development in the future we can revisit this issue then. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I don't think it's a big deal for this particular article anyway (since that link is so terrible, and the article itself is very well documented); it's more a matter of principle. I might bring up the more general question of these types of links on the BLP policy discussion page sometime since I think it merits wider consideration from the BLP community. For what it's worth, it occurs to me that the link proposed for this article does inform the reader. I read the article about this awful awful criminal, now serving a very long prison sentence as is proper, and I wonder if she's at least feeling some kind of atonement for her awful awful deeds. Then I click that link and see that she's not expressing atonement, she's in fact still trying to peddle the same bullshit as before. Presto, I'm informed. Anyway, this has been one of the weirder and more interesting ANI discussions I've seen recently. Thanks everyone, for the discussion and especially for the cleanup work on the article itself. (Added: I'm interpreting Hiero's comment to mean that if Sktruth had not done the whitewashing attempt etc., Hiero would be ok with including the link, similar to what I see BMK as saying). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would have been accepted without all of the extra scrutiny generated by sktruths bad acts, most "official sites" probably dont get alot of extra scrutiny. The point I'm trying to make is that WP:ELs (whether an official site or not) shouldn't be used as an end run around WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:FORUM. Heiro 04:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me from the WP:EL wording that the purpose of official sites is precisely to give article subjects a way to sidestep those very policies and say whatever they want to our readers. If we don't want to let them do that, we should delete the articles about them when they ask us to. 71.141.88.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Actually, rather than listing it is an external link without comment, it could be in the body of the text, prefaced by "despite the convictions, the supposed official site of the subject (built in January, 2011) continues to make arguments of innocence."[website link] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That works for me, though the current EL wording seems to recognize a right of reply (I finally remembered the name of the concept), which seems like a good idea to me. It's not terribly consequential for this article but I can think of other articles where it might be. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ELBLP and WP:ELBURDEN. Heiro 07:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are about links adverse to the subject, and various marginal sorts of links. I could see an issue if the "official link" contained (e.g.) libellous attacks against other people, but that doesn't seem to be happening here. I wonder how media outlets handle this in jurisdictions where the right of reply is legally required. I might try to find out. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember the right of reply being part of any policy page, guideline, MOS, or anything else here at WP. Since we don't publish "original research" here but rely on secondary or tertiary sources and try to maintain a NPOV, I don't see why we would be required to give them a forum of any kind to rebut what has been written about them in other places. Heiro 08:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL: "[o]fficial links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." I see that as a right of reply, but WT:BLP is probably a better place to discuss that question. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELBURDEN- "This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article." Heiro 08:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've lived in Alaska a long time now but there is one place I've never cared to visit. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeb :-). Hiero, I'd say listing something in WP:ELYES goes beyond "not actually prohibited". But, I see this as more a question of BLP principles, than one of fine-parsing WP:EL. So per Beeblebrox we should move the discussion elsewhere. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, per Beeblebrox, you need to back away from the carcass and stop beating a dead horse. There is no consensus for adding the link, and no policy that requires it. There is also no need for additional discussion on the general topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Occupation"

The occupation field in the infobox was recently changed to "inmate" and then changed back to "con artist." I would have to agree that con artist is correct. Not surprising since I put it there in the first place, but allow me to explain: Unlike most multiple murderers, the Kimes' crimes principal motivation was financial. If this were a case of a hit man, the normal category of financially motivated killers, we would put that. If it was a doctor who killed his patients, we would put that. The occupation is relevant to the crimes, and Sante Kimes' chosen occupation was con artistry. Sante Kimes was convicted of two murders, yes, in addition to over 100 other crimes. On top of all that "inmate" is not an occupation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, which is exactly the reason why I reverted the other editors change to "inmate". The rationales you listed seemed self evident, otherwise why would there be an "occupation" field for the "infobox criminal" template if the vast majority of them were "inmates". Heiro 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Irene Silverman

It's a shame that my search for the name "Irene Silverman" re-directed me to her murderer's page. Will Wikipedia immortalize criminals forever in cyberspace but relegate their victims to the footnotes? 69.158.87.99 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

While I understand your concern it is not really about who was a better person. Wikipedia is not a memorial, it is an encyclopedia which contains articles on notable subjects. I just ran a search of her name at Highbeam Research which netted hundreds of hits. However, when I narrowed the search to results from before 1998 when she was murdered I got nothing at all, so it looks like she was unfortunately not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed "who?" tags

Two statements were tagged with {{who}} in the section on the Kazdin murder. Someone was apparently concerned that we did not identify the notary and the accomplice by name. They are both named in the reference used to support that paragraph [3] but frankly they were just bit players and their names do not seem particularly relevant to an article on Sante Kimes and her crimes, and knowing their names does not add to the reader's understanding of the subject. The "who" tag is for more vague statements such as "according to authorities" or "some people think" not a properly sourced reference to a specific individual where we have just not bothered to include their name because it is not important to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Demotion

I notice the article has just been "demoted" from B to C class. The following is the definition of a C class article:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.

I think a more detailed explanation of why this was done would is in order, "BRD" doesn't really tell anyone what the perceived problem is. What material is missing? Are there excessive irrelevant details? What areas require substantial cleanup? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response I have restored the previous rating. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When updating the article to report her death[4] I quickly realized that the article is lacking what B Class describes. "Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." It is certainly not complete enough to satisfy any serious student or researcher. It needs considerable expansion and additional referencing. For instance: "Kenneth Kimes' demand was that his mother not be extradited to California, where the two faced the death penalty for the murder of David Kazdin. After four hours of negotiation Kimes removed the pen from Zone's throat. Negotiators created a distraction which allowed them to quickly remove Zone and wrestle Kimes to the ground." Now, I know this to be "true" only because I watched some media coverage of it; but there's no reference for it at all. In the "Imprisonment and death" section, there is only one reference: and only because of the brief sentence that I added to report her death. The "In Media" section is entirely unreferenced. This article is simply not one step below an A class article, and nowhere near a GA. Doc talk 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The one source used for the content regarding the Maris Zone incident does on fact verify pretty much all of the content we have on that incident. It is placed before the the sentence you quote here but it thoroughly describes the whole thing. So there is a reference for that after all, it is just in the middle of the content instead of the end. As for the other material, I am pretty sure it is also covered by refs we already have, it just needs to be cited again in the subsequent sections. This is more of a cleanup issue than a problem with WP:V.

All in all I think a couple of tags would have been immensely more helpful to understanding your objections than just demoting the article without really explaining why and not responding for a request for clarification of the issue until your action was finally reverted three weeks later. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mel Sachs

I think the involvement of Mel Sachs was important to the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.193.176 (talk • contribs)

Two questions:

• Important in what way? It seems to me like she might as well have not even had a lawyer as the case against her was obvious, her own behavior during the trial helped convict her, and she claimed her own lawyers were part of the imaginary conspiracy against her.
• Do you have a reliable source to verify that he was in fact her attorney?

Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Incest?

Curious why the article doesn't reference accusations of mother-son incest? While a minor issue, it may be of interest to some and relevant enough to be included in the title of at least one book on the subject. Has this already been ruled on? --71.47.177.99 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that reported on such accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thank you. I'm attempting to research the article and was surprised to find no mention in Wikipedia. Known references (sorry, I don't know how to make bullets):

* CourtTV, Oct 2000, reporter Diane Dimond, producer Maria Zone (mentioned in the article), additional reporting by Lisa Bloom. "… and then add into the mix this treachery, and incestuous behavior, and then murder. I mean you couldn't help but watch these two." — Diane Damond

* Dead End: The Crime Story of the Decade--Murder, Incest and High-Tech Thievery by Jeanne King; M Evans & Co, Mar 2002, ISBN 978-0871319425

* The Mother, The Son, And The Socialite: The True Story Of A Mother-Son Crime Spree (St. Martin's True Crime Library) by Adrian Havill; St. Martin's Press, Apr 1999, ISBN 978-0312970697

* Oedipus Wrecks – Mom and Son Killers Back for Seconds; New York Post, Jan 2006

There are other books on the topic, but from abstracts, these specifically discuss the incestuous relationship. --71.47.177.99 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to say this is news to me. I am far from the only one who has worked out this article, but I did do a lot of research several years back and never ran across any of this, but I was mostly using press accounts and haven't read only of these books myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked up one of those books on Amazon, and a review from Publisher's Weekly popped up under it that read, in part "Rife with blunt sensationalism, rudimentary police procedural and unsupported claims (the accusation of incest, for example)..." Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, any book with a title like that will be sensationalistic. Incest is a recurring theme both in print and on television. The New York Post leads with the subject in an article titled "Oedipus Wrecks" (which I added to the list above). Two made-for-television movies (the first with Mary Tyler Moore) addressed their (presumed) incestuous relationship. Larry King on CNN raised the issue with both Sante and Kenneth Kimes (which both denied). It's not clear to me how incest first came up — it was apparently tabloid television fodder at the time — but one hint came up when Kenneth Kimes was questioned whether Silverman knew his mother was staying in his room, a room that contained one bed. They seem to have convincingly portrayed husband and wife in some of their cons. There has to be more — that seems insufficient for the questions, speculations, articles, books, and movies that followed. Interesting mystery. Sante Kimes is listed in the Female Sex Offenders – Survivors Safehouse. --71.47.177.99 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the nature of these accusations, we should be very careful about mentioning them in an article. I've asked at WP:BLPN for some additional input here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Once I started digging, accusations appear everywhere. The public awareness of incest appears to date back to the trial but, Kenneth's tutor, Teresa Richards, says that Sante was nude and sexual with her son age 7, according to LMN "Diabolical Women — Sante Kimes" S01E01. A 2001 A&E Biography article quotes a forensic psychologist involved in the case, Dr. N.G. Berrill, saying Sante used "a grand seduction" to dominate and control her young son, calling her the "master" and he her "slave". (NB, Sante's younger sister and abuse victim, Retha Asheychik, says Sante was involved incestuously with her brother.) I'm trying to locate the Dominick Donne documentary to see what it says. --71.47.177.99 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know much about this other than what I just read today. I have concerns with many of these sources, because a lot of them are the so-called "true-crime" dramas. A lot of these things are like the Amityville Horror, in that they are true only in the extent that they marginally resemble the crime, but are heavily dramatized for better effect. This often involves filling in missing pieces of the story with the author's own imagination and subsequently spicing it up for the target audience. This include those Forensic Files type shows (Power, Privilege and Justice or Diabolical Women, etc...). They often take quotes out of context. There's a reason we don't use Nova to cite contentious scientific claims when better sources can be found. When the source is a form of literary journalism, the author is more likely to be taking liberties with the facts.

I'm not saying it's not true, but I find most of these sources to be less than convincing. A really good source would be a newspaper article. The papers would latch onto a story like that, because it's a headline grabber. Do you have anything more reliable to substantiate these claims? Also keep in mind that BLP policy extends to talk pages as well. Zaereth (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I listed the NY Post article above as well as the CourtTV segment at the time. The Court TV segment is already mentioned in the Wiki article, but it doesn’t follow through with the interviews. I’ve come across references that 60 Minutes interviewed the pair together and apparently something in that interview suggested an inappropriate relationship. I’ve yet to locate that interview. While I’m loath to source, say LMN, they do contain quotes from the parties involved. I didn’t list Sante’s eldest son who says in effect the pair had a strange relationship and he’d never considered incest, but, while his face speaks volumes, he does not actually say what his speculation might be. I’m not a “where there’s smoke, there must be fire” person, but there seems to be a lot of smoldering from multiple sources.

Zaereth, are you sure about not being able to discuss BLP on talk pages? I’m no Wikipedia expert, but it seems such a rule could not only censor and cripple discussion but be used by bad hombres (sorry about that) to limit and control the article. --71.47.177.99 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to access the CourtTV article, but the one from the NYPost is an opinion/editorial, which is promoting a movie, not reporting the actual events. (Everything from a newspaper is not always news.) It's not that you can't discuss things on talk, but the same rule applies here as to the article. Sources are required to substantiate any claim. It's better, until you have some solid sources, to be careful with the language we use. (ie: alleged incest, rather than stating it as fact.) That's merely to let you know that even here your edits can be reverted. Zaereth (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth. I had no idea. Incest between the two is a much bandied topic, but pinning down where that came from is proving difficult. The CNN interview is problematic. Larry King asks both Kimes about incest (and both deny), but he doesn't mention a source. The forensic psychologist discusses it but only in snippets I can find. The most solid testimony thus far appears to be that of the boy's tutor, Teresa Richards, who witnessed the two showering together and was told by Sante they had a special relationship. Even so, Richards appeared to be responding to accusations of incest being raised elsewhere, confirming what other parties were saying and not initiating the accusation herself. --71.47.177.99 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I’ve watched four more documentaries (Dateline, an early 20/20 with Barbara Walters, Oxygen, and the 60 Minutes interview). At least one article suggested the source of incest accusations was 60 Minutes, but it’s not as far as I can determine. They sit hip to hip, hand in hand, much as they did in the courtroom where they were chastised by the judge who ordered them to quit touching. Kenneth told 60 Minutes he found his mother “physically attractive”, but that’s all. The Dateline documentary is titled “Wicked Attraction”, which is strongly suggestive but other than a couple of hints goes nowhere near the incest topic. My researcher’s nose says we’re missing something that brought incest to the public’s attention after their arrest but before their sentencing when CNN, Larry King, Harry Smith, Diane Dimond and CourtTV talk freely about it. Could it have arisen in the trial itself? Without a transcript, it’s impossible to tell and I have no plans to wade through newspaper articles of the era. The accusations are clearly present but the basis remains elusive. Unless something else pops up, we seem to have done all we can do. — 71.47.177.99 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

More information: José Alvarez reported the Kimes slept in the same bed even when they didn’t need to. The NYPD noted the Kimes slept in one bed in the New Jersey motel. Kimes said there was a shortage of bed space and José Alvarez slept on the floor. Presumably with the various reports including that of the tutor, sharing the same bed in New York City and in New Jersey, police saw a pattern. --71.47.177.99 (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sante Kimes. 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/20100808052822/http://www.biography.com/notorious/crimefiles.do?action=view&catName=Partners+in+Crime&profileId=259638 to http://www.biography.com/notorious/crimefiles.do?action=view&catName=Partners+in+Crime&profileId=259638

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) 02:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)