Talk:Amy Locane

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

Fatal collision section[edit]

One editor, User:Abrokenwing2, by all appearances a single purpose account, has for the last nine months continually removed well sourced and properly attributed information regarding the circumstances of the fatal vehicle collision involving Locane and the resulting manslaughter charges, as well as adding information not supported by cited sources. These edits have been completely unexplained, and need to be justified and reviewed by a wider audience. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is abrokenwing. I put reference for the identity of the witness from today's supported article that you keep deleting. It says it and you refuse to read the article and just personally want only content you approve. It's supported nj.com and will keep add the identity of the women chasing Amy. I will change it again. Read the reference fat and happy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The way the information is inserted – in the middle of a direct quote from Locane's attorney – is improper since the source does not say her name was part of that quote.
  2. Even if it were inserted elsewhere, the inclusion of the name is a violation of biography of living persons policy, since it violates the witness's privacy when her name is in no way necessary to the narrative of events, and she is not notable for any other reason justifying her mention in an encyclopedia.
  3. You still have not made any attempt to explain or justify your own repeated removal of pertinent and widely reported facts from the article.
You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy on edit warring. Since removing BLP violations is allowed in any case, I will continue to revert inappropriate inclusion of any non-notable names though. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once a witness' name is mentioned into open court, it is public information. That's law. It's an extremely notable name in the referenced section, fatal collision. She is a key witness that is public info now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.110 (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion on the law. Now please read Wikipedia policies, linked above. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced an article by a notable new sagency called nj.com. Just because you do not like it doesn't mean it is not fact. Did you read the article refernced by nj.com? Or are you being completely subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat and Happy is being subjective, thinks the publiclly named witness should not be named in the decription of the fatal collision and tell me what releavence a 2 and 4 year old have on this issue as well as the husband's full name? None. Deleted them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to read the policy on biographies of living persons. Spouses of notable people are considered notable enough to have their names and a general descriptive included. Children, especially minor children, are generally not. Neither are other people who are not notable in their own right but happen to have been involved with the article's subject in a noteworthy incident. The name of the other person involved in the first accident of the evening is not necessary to an understanding of the event. And in particular, the brief mention in the NJ.com story does not name anybody as "chasing Locane at high speeds and close range". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Decmember People mentions the chasing and then the next sentence is from the article yesterday from NJ.com. Read the article before you start SUBJECTIVELY putting in what ONLY you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the your opinion that the first accident had nothing to do with understanding the event. BS, buddy, she was chased and tailgated and that's why she got into another accident fleeing froma crazy wowen. I am paying people to constantly change this so have at it. Its the truth, not your verision of the truth that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other driver's presence is relevant to the story; the fact that the defense wants to call her as a witness – a fact I inserted in NPOV language which you reverted – may be relevant; her name is not. There is no source, certainly not a competent psychiatric one, cited to support the assertion she is (or was) "crazy". However, I find the statement "I am paying people to constantly change this" to be absolutely fascinating. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP states that if the person has NOTHING to do with the incident, they should be left out. I federal Judge ruled she must show up so there is a significant role this women plays in the accident. REasd the Article or are you being subjective?

Her name "has not been widely disseminated", it received only a "brief appearance" in a news story. Eliminating the name, while presenting the underlying facts, "does not result in a significant loss of context". "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong [for] loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." At the moment, she has merely been called as a witness to the defendant's demeanor. That's pretty "loosely involved", with the legal case and with the defendant herself. If things change so the witness is charged as contributory,or something like that, identifying her might be justified; under the current circumstances, it seems merely punitive. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminated Husbands name, never mentioned or is relavent in any article. Re enter Ruckelshaus due to her involvement and releavence to the case. Being the State's sole and star witness, they are a signifigant part of this case.

This is a biography, not an article solely about the case. A spouse is relevant in a biography, and his occupation (which others have been specific in including, something I consider not overly relevant) and name have been widely publicized. So far, I have not seen anybody insert content in the article regarding any alleged involvement in the collision or its aftermath. The other driver is said to have been called by the defense; no mention is made of her being the prosecution's witness, let alone their sole or star one. Being unfortunate enough to have been crashed into by a notable person is not a reason to ignore Wikipedia's presumption in favor of privacy for non-notable people. Maybe if she hits the talk show circuit... Fat&Happy (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did you become the keeper of all facts about this section. I have vaste more knowledge than yourself, Ruckelshaus name was notably mentioned, and should be in this section. the husband (I know him)does not even own a local business! The daughter (youngest) has publicly been diagnosed with a cronic disease. Do some more research and you will find out. Your subjectiviety is uncalled for and you insert stuff that only you think is reallavent. Its sad that you spend your day montintoring Amy Locane's Wikipedia account...I am someone close and know all the facts unlike yourself. Picture of car in first accident shows no damage thus is not considered an accident in NJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, your "vaste" more knowledge and your opinion of what is considered an accident in New Jersey (or, for that matter, what a picture shows) count for nothing if they're not verifiable from reliable published sources. That's the kind of stuff people post in newspaper blogs, not encyclopedias. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is "way too much detail not specifically related to the BLP". She was charged - the rest is not all that directy related to her in fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I agree; the section was taking over the page. But facing the possibility of a 30-year sentence at age 39 has the potential to consume a large chunk of one's bio. I think the actual charge, being somewhat beyond the norm, is relevant, so I added that back and, since it is unusual, also put back a short form of the attorney's reaction. Also, being shortened this much, it may not need to be a separate sub-section, so I merged it into the main Personal life section. 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, since the case is now a year old, I'm inclined to add a brief update sentence, such as

Pre-trial hearings were scheduled for summer 2011.

This mostly because of how I hate going to an article and seeing something like "In 2004, Company A was sued for $N million by Agency X, but said the allegations were baseless.[end of topic]" What are your thoughts? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The fact that so many different people keep coming here looking for info on her, and then finding info missing, and then trying to add that missing info, should show you knuckleheads just how much interest her DWI murder case is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.7.134 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sole fact that you called it a "Murder" case shows your bias. If you are going to post facts, you have to post facts in a non biased way, both good and bad. If you are unable to do that, then you should not post. Later in the court hearings, it was revealed that the officer lied about the giggling, it was never in his report and he made that info up a year later. It was inadmissable in court. Also, you did not report that she was doped up by the dotors on Adivan, and that expalained her odd behavior in the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrokenwing2 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction[edit]

She is now a convicted felon, but vehicular homicide doesnt appear to be murder. I have categorized her as an american criminal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amy Locane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was Amy Locane and Johnny Depp in love for real[edit]

Please answer me 2001:5B0:4EDB:13E8:A467:71D7:C33C:108A (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Locane&oldid=1208547817"