This is an archive of past discussions about Death of Caylee Anthony. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Given the enormity of this ongoing saga and the media circus surrounding this trial, why on earth is there not a seperate article on Wikipedia dedicated to Casey Anthony??? Instead by typing in "Casey Anthony" into the search engine, we are re-directed to this article. Surely, there is enough biographical information about her life that would warrant an article on Anthony herself.Yoganate79 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You have two of the same paragraphs but with different reference numbers....
And see the unnecessary D on "excludeD' final sentence here.
A "June 21" entry from Casey Anthony's diary was also released in which she expressed having "no regrets" and wrote "This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time."[55] A member of Casey Anthony's defense team, spokeswoman Marti MacKenzie, contended that this entry was written in 2003 prior to Caylee's birth, citing various evidence. The prosecution acknowledged that it did not know when the entry was made.[56] An FBI report released in 2011 stated that the diary in question was not on the market until 2004. Lead attorney Jose Baez called the evidence “completely speculative" [57] and filed a motion to excluded it from evidence, whicih the judge denied.[58]
A "June 21" entry from Casey Anthony's diary was also released in which she expressed having "no regrets" and wrote "This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time."[59] A member of Casey Anthony's defense team, spokeswoman Marti MacKenzie, contended that this entry was written in 2003 prior to Caylee's birth, citing various evidence. The prosecution acknowledged that it did not know when the entry was made.[60] An FBI report released in 2011 stated that the diary in question was not on the market until 2004. Jose Baez called the evidence “completely speculative" [61] and filed a motion to excluded it from evidence, which the judge denied.[62] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.162.144 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Rather than place this on the pages of a couple editors who have clearly made more than three edits in a recent 24 hour period, I'll place this here. Yes, with quick turnover it can be frustrating, but unless it's obvious vandalism, we can't go reverting things we think are just off target. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Where has anyone recently violated the three-revert rule? Are you sure that you have read that policy correctly? And, yes, we can go reverting things "we think are just off target," especially when they actually are or contradict a reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to save myself some work and back and forth discussion here on various individuals' talk pages by making a general announcement. I'll put announcements on individual talk pages if I see it again. If people demand I do the work of debating specific diffs right now. Then I might as well just go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring if I believe there is a problem and let experts decide. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well, make sure you are accurate in your claim that someone has violated the rule. Reverting more than three different editors in a matter that is not edit warring but rather a correction of text in regards to the sources, for example, is not what I'd consider a 3RR violation. But we'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
CAROLMOOREDC - You are again being disruptive on this site. You are removing perfectly good references and inserting your own preferences, some of which are inferior to the original references. You are also trying to provoke an edit-war with warnings of 3RR when NONE have occured. You are waring editors against an edit war when NO EDIT WAR WAS SUGGESTED, EXCEPT BY YOU. Please cease and make productive edits or none at all. Thank you for your cooperation. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been following this article closely, but keep in mind that any edit past WP:BRD is an edit-war, and that WP:3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Editors can be blocked without violating 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Uh oh, it appears that the photograph of Caylee and Casey together has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that the States Attorney's office did not have the authority to release the copyright holder's permissions into the public domain. You can see that discussion taking place here. Another editor has already gone ahead and deleted the image from the lede of the article based on this non-free use rationale. In the interim, I will put in a placeholder picture from an earlier version of the article until folks here can get together and agree on the best choice for a new photo in the lede. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I placed the image in the article in proximity to where the prose describe her remains being found in a wooded area near the home per WP:BOLD. My76Strattalk05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The trees photo is very low quality, even if it is a crime scene photo. Not that it has anything educational to say. Should be removed. There must be other material of greater educational value used at trial. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that this picture could not be realeased by the States Attorney Office? Probably made by CSI - if the state made it the state can release it. Mugginsx (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree the image is low quality, when a better one becomes available I would lead the charge to replace it. Having said that, the image adds 1000 words to the prose which attempt at describing the wooded area where the remains were found. I find such an augmentation significantly educational. Not to mention that "GA" criteria suggest adding images for such purposes. My76Strattalk23:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
this should be correct name of the article: STATE OF FLORIDA V. CASEY MARIE ANTHONY
Poor name. In a few years people will still remember the trial but may not remember the State of Florida being where the case was held. Most people do not think of trials by their legal name Mugginsx (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OMG for the first time ever, I am laughing so much, a link in the See also section has had to be referenced to be included. This has to be the best example of this kind of hysterical media coverage ever. Yet there are bizarrely there are an interminable numbers of people who think it can't be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.4.97 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I originally removed it, because it doesn't apply. There are no reliable sources that I have found to support that this is a case of MWWS. The google search you link to doesn't prove anything. It's full of blogs, opinions and otherwise unreliable sources. I urge you to read up on our pages for identifying reliable sources and no personal attacks. Regards, SwarmX20:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No one asked for a reference. It was merely suggested that the see also link did not add to the article and in fact detracted from it. I still think it detracts, and is misplaced, but I see it has again been added demonstrating that you really don't care to reach any consensus. Cheers My76Strattalk20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I had typed a long response, full of citations and references and a bit on the purpose of consensus. Then I realized that I don't actually give a fuck. You win. -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources referring to this event as a case of "missing white woman syndrome", perhaps it would be best to include that in the prose of the "publicity and aftermath" section, as opposed to merely linking to Missing white woman syndrome, in the "see also" section. Chickenmonkey 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I promised myself I wasn't going to shove my dick back into the coal-fired cheese grater again, but here I am. When referring to the media itself, opinion pieces and blogs HOSTED BY THOSE SAME MEDIA OUTLETS, written by the very reporters producing said material, are a reliable source on criticism of the media for which they are working. A reporter who writes an opinion column explicitly stating that the media circus around the Anthony trial is a case of MWWS is a reliable source -- regarding the media. It is not self-published. It is not even an article about other media. They are articles written by reporters themselves critiquing their own behaviour in regard to the clusterfuck which was the Anthony trial hysterics. As MugginsX pointed out earlier, references aren't necessary for "See Also" additions. I demonstrated the Google search simply to show that there are significant numbers (ie/ 10,200) people who see the Anthony feeding frenzy as a classic case of Missing White Woman Syndrome -- and hence the purpose of adding it to the article. But we all of us here know this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and everything to do with the emotional hysterics of reactionaries who view any critical analysis as equivalent to molesting the pretty little white girls whose beaming visages gaze out with beatific perfection from a million Franklin Mint mail-order dinner plates. -- SmashTheState (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If I might make a suggestion here - why can't there be some material or at least a link to the Wiki article about this? It sounds as though some of the materials are well referenced. If not, they can be searched for. The amount of material could be discussed calmly and with respect. I do not think it is anymore radical than many of the other news and media reports of this case. Mugginsx (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Surely there must be some commentary somewhere on just why this particular missing person story turned into a national media event. Missing white woman syndrome might be related, or maybe it's more like "missing cute little white girl" syndrome. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to indicate that there is more media attention given to white children who are lost or missing than non-white. I think it is significant. I also think it is probably true - but needs to be referenced carefully and as fully as possible. Perhaps more material and statistics can be found to prove this point. If it is true and properly referenced then I do not see why it cannot be in the article perhaps under the heading that refers to media attention. Heck, it's much more significant than Nancy Grace's quotes and, in my opinion, alot more important. Mugginsx (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Instead of mentioning it through text in this article, its relation to this case can also be mentioned in its own article. Then, linking it in the See also section of this article would be justified. Links are included in the See also section in this way all the time -- when the articles they are linking to are also covering the topic.
Baseball Bugs, yes, the Public and media reactions section deals with "just why this particular missing person story turned into a national media event." That section would not have been complete without such commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think what has confused or thrown most people who remove that wiki link is because they give a cursory view of the title "missing white woman" and think it doesn't apply in this case, because it was a missing toddler. But don't judge it only by its title, but by its substance. And there's a case to be made that it does in fact apply. I can see it in the See also section. I'm not strong for it either way. But I personally would NOT remove it if I saw it. And I would think it uptight if anyone did (or at the very least, lazy...in not actually understanding or reading the wiki article and see how it does in fact relate, at least in some sense.) Just my opinion. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, what this really brings up is does there need to be a controversies section? I am sure we list a few others, like feminist perspectives on why charges of manipulation by a sexually abusive father are ignored. Or civil rights views on whether law enforcement tacitly colluded with a complicit father who was a former cop and close to local law enforcement? Assuming WP:RS comment on various circulating theories like these, among other controversies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No Controversies sections are needed, especially not at this point in time (where there are no "feminist perspectives on why charges of manipulation by a sexually abusive father are ignored"). We don't need to give WP:UNDUE weight to the negative aspects of this case, as was one of the concerns expressed at the BLP Noticeboard. I believe it's clear why the judge didn't allow the sexual abuse allegations in closing arguments (though these claims were allowed pre-closing arguments) -- there was no proof, and, to many people, this has no bearing on whether or not she killed her child. It certainly does not excuse her odd behavior. It may explain it, but the jurors stated that the way she behaved had no bearing on their verdict. So... Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, yeah, I'm still not seeing any reliable sources that support the notion that the attention this case has received is a result of MWWS, apart from one claim that an opinion piece is a reliable source (which is simply not factual). In response to Flyer above, the inclusion in the MWWS article is just as debatable, and the source provided is a statement of opinon and not a "reliable source". SwarmX16:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
an opinion piece (the same one cited above) ✗ Fail,
an NPR blog that defines MWWS ✗ Fail,
an article that laments MWWS and provides several examples, not including Casey Anthony ✗ Fail,
an article accusing ABC News of MWWS due to the hiring of a kidnapping victim ✗ Fail,
and the last one, which briefly raises the question (the mention is literally in question form), not supporting the claim directly ✗ Fail.
The closest thing to a reliable source to support this is one opinion piece from a minor newspaper. That is a problem. That is not enough. SwarmX17:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Swarm and yet the link remains. It suggests (rather teaches) this syndrome is responsible for our interest in this story. And its basis is the flimsy POV of those who support such a premise. My76Strattalk17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It's just a See also link. Not something stated (as far as I can tell) in the main body of the article. So why the big fuss? That SmashTheState wants it there. Many "See also" links in articles don't necessarily have 100% relation to the main article it's posted in. So what? As long as there is arguably SOME connection or relation, and if some news sources brought it up, whether we personally like it or not or totally agree or not, it's whatever. If SmashTheState wants to put it there, and he has made at least some case for its application or relation, I don't see the big deal. It's not like putting "serial killers" or something in the See also section. Or "Satanic ritual murders"...or something like that, that has NO real relationship to the article, at all. "MWWS" at least is SOMEWHAT pertinent or relational, in some sense. So to me it's whatever. I can see it being there. Or not. I don't think this matter is worth this much stress, energy, time, or attention. So I doubt I'll comment again on it, after this. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(←) I don't think this is a matter of great stress to anybody, and its certainly not the end of the world. However, those like SmashTheState are making a certain claim. The claim is, as Strat said, that this syndrome is responsible for society's interest in the story. This is certainly a questionable claim, and one that requires a burden of proof to be met. I've searched for reliable sources to support the claim, but I can't find any. No one else has provided any. Right now, the claim is in dispute, and no one in favor of including it has provided reliable sources. Simple as that. As to why society was so fascinated with this case, many media sources and psychologists have written about this with no mention of MWWS. SwarmX10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well that's not really true. I've heard Geraldo Rivera (and a few others) say that if this was a black woman who killed (or accidentally killed) her black child in Florida (which happens) this would NOT have gotten NEARLY as much attention, if at all. But, Geraldo and others continue, because Casey is a W-H-I-T-E woman, and the little girl was W-H-I-T-E, that that is at least PART of why the big attention and frenzy. Which, as an example, can be seen right here. Not sure how you missed that, but it's been there. Peace. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
addendum. Please see what I wrote just above, before reading this. I just noticed that the body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible."[105]" My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards... Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The quote that you're touting from the article is apparently a misquote. The source it gives (Christian Post) does not quote her as saying that, it paraphrases a quote of hers, saying, "McBride said Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman..." That's not a quote. If you look at Dr. McBride's actual quote, she says, "There are theories touted that the interest is due to Casey being a beautiful white woman ... While possibly ... true, there seems to be an underlying theme to the trial related to the concept of narcissism..." McBride has written on 'narcissistic mothers' in the past, and she speculates in the article that narcissism may play a role in the public's fascination. The McBride quote mentions her being "beautiful and white" in passing and she goes on to make a different point, that's the kind of out of context misquoting that could result in expulsion if done intentionally in a university setting. I have no idea how the hell it got worked into a quote attributed to Dr. McBride; I assume it was an honest mistake during this massive edit and Flyer22 simply didn't catch it. That needs to be fixed.
To address your first point, this is an age-old issue addressed by WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'" In other words, (consider the link you provided) you can say, "Bernard Goldberg has opined that the case would not have gotten as much media attention if it the Anthonys were black, or if there wasn't video of her before her death..."[ref] You can't use his opinion to say, "Some have theorized that this is a case of MWWS"[ref] But again, if you're going to include Goldberg's MWWS-inclined onion, you have to include those who have other theories which would most likely be done in a new section that talks about the reasons for the public fascination. The concept of such a section reeks of WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight to me, but if you think its big enough of an issue to write on the different opinions of "why we're fascinated by Casey Anthony", be my guest.
As to why I won't "just let this go", read my previous comments, I've clearly outlined where I'm coming from, which is strictly the lack of reliable sources and undue weight. There's been a lot of discussion and virtually no constructive results (you've just posted the second link, in the whole discussion which is not a reliable source either.) SwarmX00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
As I originally asserted, the inclusion of this link detracts from the article. Perhaps there are some who prefer edits which diminish an articles quality. I believe they are considered trolls. To any one who thinks my opinion is derived by the reflection I see in my Franklin Mint plates, I suggest you continue scratching your lottery ticket with the case quarter that use to be your food stamp dollar and leave your divisive POV out of this article. My76Strattalk00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
To Swarm above. I think one point you're missing is that the very article MWWS itself also goes into the whole thing of THEORY and not necessarily conclusive. That's the POINT in a way. It's a notion that's out there. And McBride saying "possibly true" as far as the attention this has gotten at least partly being cuz "she's a white woman" IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. lol.... "Possibly true" is not dismissing it, and is giving it some plausibility. However "passing" the remark was. Also Geraldo and other established commentators and journalists HAVE brought this up. And again, to re-eiterate, the very article MWWS itself goes into the point about it being a possible phenomenon and theory too. So since this was raised in this Anthony case, as to why this much attention, then I see a reason to have it in the See also section. Again, to dismiss the (valid) point that if this had been a black mother with black daughter (as has happened already) this probably (not for sure, but probably) would not have received nearly this much attention, scrutiny, or hysteria. Hence SmashTheState's point about how this relates somewhat to MWWS. (By the way, as for My76Strat's comment, that's moot, as there's no need to name-call or think people as "trolls" for something like this. And it's just your opinion that this greatly uh "detracts" from this article.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course you are correct that there is no reason to name call. I almost didn't do it. And your wiki friend was perfectly cordial when he referred to me as an (emotionally hysterical reactionary who views critical analysis as equivalent to molesting the pretty little white girls). By all means if this is probably (not for sure but probably) "uh" a (valid) point then it certainly belongs. If only you had enunciated these things sooner! My76Strattalk08:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well I never said that. He may have. But I was just making the point that at least SOME case can be made for the inclusion of this link as a reference article with some pertinence. It's not like I (or SmashTheState, whom I don't even know) was just making this up or imagining it or speculating it. This matter HAS been brought up a number of times, in the news, in commentaries, in discussions, in analyses. As to why THIS much attention. As maybe PART of the reason. It's whatever... If a psychiatrist said it was "possible"...and it's in the body of the article (even if slightly mis-quoted), and it's been brought up in general, in the media, sometimes, and also common sense and vision and hearing tells us that this much media attention and frenzy does not generally happen when a young black mother (accidentally or intentionally) kills her toddler child, which may make local news or whatever, but not inter-galactic news like this Casey thing has, then I don't see THAT much of a problem with having it as a See also wiki link. That's really all I was saying. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I do believe that you are sincere and apologize for mocking you. Thanks for all of your input to this discussion, and this article. My76Strattalk16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hashem- the problem is that this is not a typical MWWS case. There are several instances that are generally considered to be textbook examples of MWWS (i.e. Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, etc.) However, this is not one of those cases. Yes, some commentators have opined that race has something to do with it, but there has been a lot of debate and discussion in the media about why the case is so popular. Dr. McBride thinks that the public can't believe and doesn't understand the alleged murder. This article opines that the people were angry at Casey Anthony and were demanding justice, or that they simply couldn't believe the blatant lies. The Miami herald says the case is a "breathless soap opera with tabloid twists and turns, characters brought to life by lies, a phantom nanny accused of kidnapping the child, incest claims, the specter of a death sentence – and a rapt American audience that can’t seem to get enough of the spectacle playing out in Orlando, land of The Mouse." This author says its because "mothers who (allegedly) kill ... are always fascinating to people ... [And that] the details of the crime are particularly lurid ... and Casey and Caylee so photogenic, that they provide endless tabloid fodder." Many blame Nancy Grace and/or HLN for hyping up the story and making Casey a celebrity. Anyway, the point is that while some commentators have speculated about a link to MWWS, that isn't necessarily a "prevailing theory". There are many different opinions being cast left and right, and MWWS is only one of those. By including the link in the 'see also' section, we imply that this is generally considered to be an example of the syndrome, when that's a debatable claim, at best.
Now, again, I'm not against going into the different opinions that exist on the case's unusual popularity in the article. However, I am absolutely against just having it in the see also section because that makes a certain implication that isn't completely accepted. SwarmX19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That's why I myself said it was PART of the issue. Of course not the only. But it's been brought up arguably ENOUGH times by several different types (doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc) to be considered, to some extent at least. And the article that "SmashTheState" put in one of his comments above, that link, has "missing white woman" IN THE VERY TITLE OF THE ARTICLE...that deals with the Casey Anthony case. So what that it's "not prevailing". Not everything is all the time. But it's there. It's not zero. Not even close to zero. But brought up by several parties, and writers, now. That's all. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Several different types" have also said that no jury would convict a white accused into the hands of a black Judge, I forget the syndrome, but I seriously doubt it has any bearing on this article. My76Strattalk21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"it's been brought up arguably ENOUGH times ... to be considered..." ← I don't necessarily disagree with that. The only problem is, I've seen nothing convincing. One columnist from a minor newspaper explicitly opines that this is MWWS. One political commentator implies as much, and you claim to have heard a television host imply the same (which I'll take your word for, but there's no RS). And one psychologist says, "that may be true, but this is my theory..." That's all I've seen. I haven't heard television commentators say this like you apparently have (Fox bashing a competitor? :P). So I'm strongly suspicious that these opinions shouldn't be given undue weight. SwarmX00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Krystal Holloway
Your paragraph containing a statement of Krystal Holloway is factal incorrect. What she finally said on the witness stand was that George Anthony said "He thought it was an accident that snowballed out of control. At first, she told Baez that he said it was an accident that snowballed out of control, but when asked by Prosecutors on cross she said the former: He said he thought it was an accident that snowballed out of control. She maintained that under re-direct much to Baez's dismay.
There are legal issues here and you can appreciate that you must be certain before making a statement which implies someone committed a crime. The Judge told the jurors to disregard her entire testimony.
Reference are not always correct and you must search for the most accurate references in a subject such as a murder trial. Please remove the incorrect material. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this should be corrected. Right now, it makes it seem as though George knows what happened and confided in Holloway...but then denied it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I did a google news search with word "thought" in it and none of a number of WP:RS returns were that specific. I don't want to put something in that is not in a WP:RS. And it's the WP:RS butts on the lines, not ours (or mine for putting it in). Also included a ref that actually says that George denied saying it (replacing Forbes which did not and evidently only allows you one free visit.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I re-did the paragraph so that is is factual accurate to the sworn testimony. To change it back makes this article legally vulnerable. I do not care if 1000 papers said it wrong. They are legally protected in a way that we are not. It is not a wiki policy for consensus - it applies to all articles and every editor. You will have to just take my word on it or better yet read Wiki:legal and BLP - which applies to ALL articles in Wiki. I corrected it but would not be adverse to removing ANY reference to Krystal Holloway. Mugginsx (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to reach a compromise by keeping part of you paragraph in but since I do not have access to trial transcripts and because you do not seem inclined to cooperate with wiki/legal policy I am going to take it out entirely. Her testimony is totally unimportant because she changed it and the judge told the jurors to disregard it because she changed it. Understand this please. Mugginsx (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, you have yet to prove from any actual BLP or Legal policy quote that what you claim is the legal policy is it. Again, WP:RS stand the burden of proof, not us. I've done lots of BLP legal issues, so it looks to me like WP:Idontlike it and edit warring, per the note I just left on your talk page about your 6 sets of edits in 24 hours. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that, even if the judge ruled it inadmissable, that Holloway's testimony is relevant to the goings on and to Baez' claim over and over that "it was an accident that snowballed." Unless you want to delete that as well. Also note that the diary info was not in the trial but was judged relevant for this article; therefore this is as well. I'll see if there are WP:RS about what any jurors might have said about it. (Or perhaps it belongs elsewhere in the media section.) But there's no doubt it belongs somewhere. Other's thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The diary article was not incorrect, just irrelevant. This is incorrectly and incompletely stating actual testimony about a possible NEW crime, i.e., whether or not Mr. Anthony engaged in a cover-up. They are two totally different matters. Do you not see the difference? One is a legal issue and one is not. Please read the Wiki legal guidelines. Mugginsx (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
({Outdent}} Let's not compare the diary, then. You still haven't proved that bringing up her testimony in an appropriate fashion (in text or a footnote) where WP:RS support the facts is against legal guidelines.
Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material reads: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.
It does not say: "Remove something multiple WP:RS say happened because it might implicate someone in a crime." It looks like your POV is you don't want George to look bad in the article, even if means people down understand the source of Baez' "snowball" allegation, which various WP:RS thought was important to the acquittal. (Something which I guess might have to be gone into to support such an edit or footnote, given your reluctance to put in anything at all.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you say I don't want George to look bad in the article? Did you really say that? OMG that is funny. OK, this is my last try. The judge did not deem her testimony irrelevant, he deemed it untrustworthy because she changed her story. There is a big difference, legally speaking. I am not trying to interfere with your editing, just keep in mind that you are talking about living people who can and do sue Wiki editors when they think they have been defamed or accused of a crime. That is all that I am trying to say. Wikipedia tries to protect us by warning us about the legal dangers of making statements about living person in print that millions of people can see because it is the Editors that can get sued - again read Wiki legal - and on occasion do get sued. There is plenty of other material for you or anyone else to write about in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Since I can't believe you worry about me being sued, I had to wonder what motivates you. But I'll remove objected- to comment. Anyway, the relevance to Baez claim of an accident remains. The judge finding it unreliable is not terribly relevant because Baez called her to the stand and it has been widely commented upon by WP:RS as being relevant. But having noted perhaps a minor problem of relevance in there, I will rethink where and how to put the well documented information. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not trying to argumentative here really. I listened to the entire Defense trial. I have a trained ear to listen to this. That is not bragging. It is what I went to college for and what I got paid to do. No big deal. I am sure that everyone here is good at what they get paid to do as a career. It is important because of the BLP issues really. It really is legally vunerable, please trust me on this. Mugginsx (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
First, I did forget that back and forth and the judge dismissing the testimony. (Baez obviously forgot to remind her to reread her initial statement.) And the couple sources I looked at also evidently failed to mention it and remind me. Thus I have to reconsider where the info might be appropriate. Of course, it seems to me George was directly asked about it anyway and denied it, and that wasn't struck, but I'll have to review sources. In any case, you have not proved through any quote from Wiki policy that there is some legal vulnerability in using info obtained from multiple reliable sources (including trial transcript if George was asked it and WP:RS juror, attorney, pundit or other commentary afterward). CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
George's testimony on the subject of Krystal Holloway was not struck because he stated the same thing all along (to police and in trial) whether it was true or not is beside the fact. Krystal's testimony was struck because she CHANGED her statement back and forth - several times under oath - thus (hear where Ashton talks to the judge about it in that video I referenced) they were considered prior inconsistent statements. That is why her testimony was struck and the jury was told to ignore it. Remember Carol, first, she signed a sworn statement to police that George told her (I am paraphrasing because I have to go in a minute) that "He thought that it was an accident that snowballed out of control" different meaning completely - then she had sold her story to the tabloid (Inquirer) and in that story she told another version, that George said "It was an accident that snowballed out of control". Then in court she told Baez the second version and Ashton the first, only under duress because he showed her the sworn statement and warned her she had been under oath at that time and was under oath now. Big difference if you think about it Carol.
Also, it is doubtful that Baez "forgot" to remind her of her statement. The Defense has been trying to "insinuate" all along that it was an accident and George was responsible. He was no doubt hoping against hope that Ashton would overlook it. Fat Chance of that. Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that there has been notable WP:RS commentary on any shenanigans and their possible effect on the jury. But enough for now until there's actually a possible entry to discuss. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Before dismissing me, please look at JedRush's comment on BLP - it is presently at the bottom of this page. Nevermind, I will reprint the relevant part here for you: It is a BLP violation to leave in provably false statements, even in a section such as this. . . " Mugginsx (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Provably false means Holloway never made such a statement. The fact she and everyone else got confused on if George (and she) said one or two somewhat different things (per Reuters) and the judge threw it out, doesn't make it false that she said something relevant and that her statement of what George allegedly said about "snowballed out of control" was said on the stand and repeatedly by the defense witness. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is that she did not get "confused" on what he said. Yet again, you did not analize the legal data correctly. She had already taken several thousand dollars from the tabloid, as she admitted in court, for giving the more "sensationalized" version of what George said. One could easily conclude that there was a chance for more money to be made in the future. She had a personal motive to stick to what she told the tabloids. On the other hand, she also had a good reason to finally tell the truth, (as she did in her sworn police report) i.e., not going to jail for perjury. The latter proved the stronger motive. Mugginsx (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Toronto Sun (above) only says Holloway said she negotiated a deal to sell her story to the National Enquirer tabloid newspaper for $4,000. Holloway agreed with Ashton that she chose the tabloid over traditional media outlets that don't pay because she felt the Enquirer would tell her story in the most "fair, honest and non-sensational way." And even if you prove you are correct about her motivations, etc. there's no doubt she said he said "accident that went out of control" and that that was relevant to the trial. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Video as only source
I noticed a couple places where video seems to be the only source. Video is a fine backup. But for ease of verifiability for readers, and just to be more encyclopedic, where there is text material (which there usually is) it should be listed as the first ref. Something to do correctly the first time and to correct in the article as we go. I corrected one so far. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Video is usually the best source in this kind of article if it is describing actual trial events because it is the indisputable record of the fact produced in the article. If the fact is not disputable that another source is OK but should not be a newspaper article - as they tend to present sensational and slanted view (to sell papers obviously). Would depend on the content in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It is our job to present text sources that comply with the facts, as shown in a trial or similar official video (which is after all a primary source). But we can't expect readers to go through reams of videos to find facts. So video supports text, unless it is the only WP:RS on a subject. It's just good encyclopedic editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Readers have no trouble finding references on the net. The Jury Videos or the Police Tapes are the best source and easy to find. If you want you can add another but leave them in. Mugginsx (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Providing a link to text or video is in itself a convenience. You do know that such a blue link is not required, and it would be entirely proper to cite the particulars without any links. The ease of verification is not at issue, but the fact that it is verifiable. My76Strattalk23:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:V: To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. And of course anything in this article is likely to be challenged. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Where in WP policy or guidelines does it say we can use copyrighted video (and audio if the police tapes are copyrighted) as refs from Youtube? As far as I know, using copyrighted videos as refs is not allowed. Shirtwaist☎13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Linking to copyrighted material is fine - after all any source material we link to is under copyright :) What is not OK is linking to copyright violations - where the material is not legitimately hosted (either by the copyright holder or under license). Which is why Youtube is such a problem because a lot of the video's have copyright issues. In principle, though, Youtube is fine as a source. --Errant(chat!)15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I meant to say "linking to copyvios". Thanks, Errant. BTW- aren't police videos/audio also considered copyvios unless they have been officially released to the public? I noticed there are a couple of those that are directly linked to in the article through Youtube. Shirtwaist☎20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Shirtwaist: that wasn't issue under discussion and frankly I don't know answer and don't feel like looking right now. Want to provide a WP policy link?
That's not exactly what I was getting at, but I love the smile face at the end of your last and trust that you are a genuinely nice person. So I'll be nice as well. Also see WP:VIDEOLINK \o/ My76Strattalk15:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If this is about the youtube.com CNN one than you can see right on it that it fails copy. It's got the copyright material at the bottom of the page. This cannot be used, sorry. Maybe there is a transcript of what it says that can be used in a different way? --CrohnieGalTalk15:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE LEAVE THE REFERENCES ALONE
Reinserted Blacksqr's reference in Investigation Section and left new one in. Carol, please stop taking out superior references and putting inferior references in. You are making everyone have to do unnecessary work to repair the article. ALL statements were in police audio. The police audio tape is an irrefutable source and therefore the better of the sources. Kept yours in as well. If I may be allowed to make a good faith suggestion, it would be more productive if you placed NEW material in the article, rather than constantly making non-consensus judgments on what to take out. Mugginsx (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The new secondary source is a lot better. The original primary source is poorly used. Using primary sources (i.e. the tape) comes with a whole host of problems - and in this case the content it supports is slightly too much of a summary to be viable. Use secondary sources where you can please. --Errant(chat!)13:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Also reinserted video which shows the Judge Perry's complete sentencing. - it is the ONLY video or source of any kind that provides the FULL explanation of the individual four guilty counts as stated by Judge Perry. This is the second or third time I have had to replace it. Please leave it alone. Also, A blog is not valid reference. Mugginsx (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Screaming CAPs section headers seem particularly inappropriate when you are not clear what ref you are talking about. Is Blacksqr an editor or a source? I'm not going to go back through diffs I just went through before, but it seems to me you put back something in that I did not remove. You also put in a second copy of something I already DID have there and I just deleted the duplicate. I also had nothing to do with Perry video. So please do not make broad generalizations on basically no evidence at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The evidence is there you just do not want to take the time and trouble to look for it - so you say it's not there. I am done with trying to be nice to you. Put something in the article for a change instead of critiquing other's people work, changin their references and replacing them with blogs and slanted newspaper articles that you must not even read because twice now your references did not cover the basic information they were supposed to be referencing. Do the work like the rest of us please. Mugginsx (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't disprove one thing I said and just made a lot of unspecified allegations. Having been a legal secretary at some big DC law firms for 20 years and personally on my own time and found representation for and aided a winning case at the Supreme Court, I have some idea of legal matters. So stop chastising me in a WP:Uncivil manner, which as others have commented repeatedly smacks of WP:OWN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Voting for Re-structuring the Article
Flyer : will you please set up a vote for re-structuring the article? I do not know how that is particularly accomplished.
My vote is NO - do not restructure. Continue with the incremental changes that have been done by consensus. Basic sections are fine the way the are. Mugginsx (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Mugginsx, I see no need. I'd rather wait until Carolmooredc presents her proposal in a draft. I've already disagreed with most of her changes above. It may be possible to work with Carolmooredc's on that proposal once presented in sandbox. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have to see the proposed "reconstruction" to vote either way. But as it stands now, I think the overall "structure" of this article is fine. Logical, chronological, topical, and informative... Though some things might be in wrong sections, or may need a bit of tweaking and improving, I'm not decided right now on any big restructuring. I'd like to see Carol's proposed new outline or re-design first. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Flyer, thanks, but I saw that already, before writing the comment. That was too general. I meant I'd like to see THE WHOLE THING written out. Not just general proposals. But like I said, I agree that there may be some wrong words in wrong sections, and need of tweaking here and there. But what I meant was to see Carol's whole new article basically. lol Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't wait to see her complete article proposal myself now. But just not in the present article. Mugginsx (talk)
As I've said one or more time, that was a draft proposal for comment. I got comments and responded and said I'd have to rethink. I've also said I'll present a sample on my talk page of what I think needs changing, a section at a time. Read more carefully and you will not have to create irrelevant discussion sections. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, we are still waiting since you stated that some time ago. You neglect to mention is what you have also said and are currently attempting to do, is that if noone would agree to your restructuring you will go ahead and do it anyway, but in small increments so that no one would even notice. What does that remark mean? That we are all too stupid to see it. Look at your own words. You do not understand. This is not a "knitting" article or some innocuous subject matter article. It is about a legal case involving living persons. You think that because something appears in a newspaper, you can use it. That is only true if the newspaper article is also true. You refuse to either read or understand WP:legal or WP:BLP. You change references and replace them with inferior references that sometimes do not even address entirely the subject matter in the particular text you are "referencing". You have to work hard to make an article like this correct, but I am beginning to believe that you do not have the particular grasp for a legal article as you may have for other articles. It is alot of work to keep this article correct and it seems that you have unintentional underminded that because you refused to believe others. I and other editors have tried to take time and pains and the benefit of our knowledge to direct you to correct editing in this article in a friendly way.Then, similar to what you did for being blocked for WP:HARASS, you have the audacity to constantly reprimand the veteran editors here and we are supposed to be friendly to you and try again for your sake and the sake of the article. It is all too much for this editor.
If changes I think need doing are made in small increments, that is WP:BRD, as I also said. Your constant attacks with vague accusations are harassment; your continuing to bring up one incident where I asked an inappropriate question once to someone is harassment; your repeatedly reverting my edits, wasting my time defending myself in talk and then complaining I don't edit enough!! is harassment. Do I need to find outside editors to explain all that to you? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not repeatedly revert your edits Carol. The evidence shows quite a different story. I tried to reach a consensus with you on Krystal Holloways accusations which you wanted to put in - by explaining to you at length and using the benefit of my legal knowledge and experience in showing you where the information was incorrect and a violation BLP. I showed you in detail and in a friendly way, where and how she "recanted" this testimony and why you could not use the source as the source was not correct. I took a long time away from something I would rather have been doing to explain that you cannot reprint someone's accusation that someone committed a grave crime of a "cover-up", because of her recantation. I tried to rehabilitate the paragraph but, you took offense, as you sometimes do, and finally, I had to remove the paragraph or the article would have been a BLP violation and everyone else would have suffered. That was the only removal of material of yours I did. In fact, I even left in your inferior references that you inserted, while you took out mine and another editor perfectly good references, just to avoid conflict. But the Krystal Holloway material had to go the way you edited it. When I tried to correct it, you again found fault and so I deleted it, which is what I am supposed to do in such a grave matter as a BLP violation, i.e., basically accusing someone living of a grave crime. Mugginsx (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You have a shaded version of your comments on just one of several topics, but if you refrain from attacks, I won't have to go to bother to validate with diffs everything I complained about in appropriate forum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
