Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

am I overlooking something or?

where are the details about the suicide note written by the dad/grandfather? and where is the mention he made to his alleged mistress, that all of this was a bad mistake that spun out of control?

those two items don't support the notion that she's guilty, which I realize shatters the fantasy of most people, but still... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article's also doesn't mention the hot body contest either. (Before anyone says that this isn't encyclopedic content, keep in mind that the motive given in prosecution case was that her daughter was interfering with her partying life style. It also is relevent because it helps explain the public's reaction (her daughter had recently died; instead of grieving, she entered a hot body contest as if nothing had happened.)) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur, that if reliable sources are found that detail where, when, and how the letter was found, and when/where the hot body contest took place and/or Anthony's justification for her participation, the information and sources can be included, perhaps should be included somewhere in the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

the hot body contest was clearly relevant to the prosecution, so that too should be in the article. this article looks a lot like hyped up media, i mean look at all the space dedicated to the public reaction, you're more interested in what percent think she is guilty than the trial itself. and the father/grandfather writes a suicide note, is questioned about it under oath, the mistress he took during the trial says the father/grandfather broke down in tears when he told her it was a big mistake that spun out of control, and that's kept from the article? ridiculous. this gives the appearance that nancy grace is editing/controlling this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, her daughter was entered in a cold body event. The comments by the father/grandfather are important, especially if they caused reasonable doubt in the jury's mind as to who committed the crimes or alleged crimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be in the article. JacobTrue (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The 5th Ammendment in the Zenaida case.

Robertupland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.200.93.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since she was acquitted, she cannot hide behind the 5th Ammendment. She has to answer their questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertupland (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What case would that be? Also, what ID's have you been using since your previous edit, 2 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The civil trial against Casey Anthony, mentioned in the article. I believe Robertupland is WP:SOAPBOXING, trying to say that Anthony has to tell the world what happened to Caylee because she will be taking the stand in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the alleged babysitter. All Casey has to do is reiterate her trial argument, and add that in her panicked state she was looking for someone to blame. And in fact I wouldn't be surprised if there's a settlement before it even goes to trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used any other id's. I just haven't posted anything since then. The reason I said she can't take the fifth in this case is because that's how the law works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertupland (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your credibility in your alleged knowledge of the law might be better if you knew how to spell "amendment". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but the 5th Amendment doesn't list any exceptions. Also, I'm not sure which questions would be relevent in a defamation trial. Also, it's possible (however unlikely) she could be tried in federal court for violating Caylee's civil rights. See Double jeapordy#Separate sovereigns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but Casey claims Caylee drowned accidentally. I doubt there are any civil rights involved, once you're already dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. The douchery within Bugs is amazing. Do you offer a class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertupland (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Only to those who show some class. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What did I say that was classless? I was just trying to point out the fact that she can't plea the 5th in the Zenaida case. I wasn't trying to be a dick or anything.

Hey, thanks for giving away one of your IP's. So how are things in Winter Haven? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm in Auburndale :)

I bet there are huge climate differences in the 5 miles separating those two cities. So, while you're at it, are you also going to give us your home phone, your street address, and hours when you're not at home? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem with me? Besides the fact that I mispelled a word?--RobertUpland 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertupland (talk • contribs)

You've made a claim as regards the 5th amendment. Where's your citation to support that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, fellas, back to your corners. Look, the worst RobertUpland said was a statement that, without a reference (even if you are a lawyer), could be Original Research or POV if he wants that information entered into the article, or if not, he's opening up dialogue on the Talk page about the topic rather than on the article (also a no-no), UNLESS he was trying to open dialogue with regard to finding a referenced source and discussing whether this 5th Amendment/civil trial business belongs in this article or not. Baseball Bugs - You seem to be irritated with this guy. I don't know if you are, or if you disagree with something he said, but remember, lots of editors post lots of stuff, you don't have to reply if you don't like what's said. [Please note: Not trying to take any sides here, just pointing out some observations in the hopes of putting everything into perspective. You may now ignore me and return to your wiki-repartee.] Boneyard90 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not irritated with him. I'm just making fun of him, for being a know-it-all who can't spell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"how to make chloroform"

On their computer, did someone literally search for "how to make chloroform"? The reason why I ask is that the cited source[1] says that someone searched for "chloroform", not "how to make chloroform". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Both. Someone searched both options and more. Some sources just aren't detailed in their description. Some will simply leave it as "chloroform was entered into the search bar" and others will go into further detail...such as "how to make chloroform," "neckbreaking," etc. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, at the end of that same paragraph you were looking at, this source says "how to make chloroform." I moved it to the beginning of that paragraph just moments ago. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...actually CBS is saying that the Orlando Sentinel said that the searches also included "how to make chloroform" - as if they hadn't fact-checked it themselves. They're simply reporting what someone else is reporting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, A Quest For Knowledge. News organizations report what other news organizations are saying all the time. The point is "how to make chloroform" is backed up by a reliable source and can be backed up by other reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because news media has been heavily criticized in this case for shoddy reporting, sensationalism and creating a media circus. It seems incredibly easy for someone to say "she searched on how to make 'chloroform'" (Note the quote inside a quote.) and for that to be inadvertently turned into "she searched on 'how to make chloroform'". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

cindy--won't be charged with perjury

State attorney's office came out with this news today: http://www.newser.com/story/123276/casey-anthony-trial-cindy-anthony-wont-face-perjury-charges-say-prosecutors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.239.4 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of spam popups on that page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I updated and added that citation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox criminal

I don't think its due to have this woman in a infoboxcriminal especially when she has been found not guilty of major charges and only guilty of minor charges. I also think its a bit undue to have two extremely similar mug shots of a person in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree My76Strat ^talk 23:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

note - I removed the infobox and Flyer22 removed one of the mugshots. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I took out one and kept the preferred one -- her first mugshot. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't even see your post there, Off2riorob. Thanks, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing article title to "Casey Anthony trial"

"The Death of Caylee Anthony" is a poor title for this article. I ask, how much of this article deals with her actual "Death"? Very, very little. The rest surrounds the trial of Casey Anthony, hence why the article was renamed. I'm not sure what pertinent information people are upset about being removed due to the title change. If you feel info is notable, discuss that, don't change the title to something that is barely applicable to the content just because, "Well, it's been named this for so long, why change it?" Angryapathy (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this discussion and this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Without the death of the child, there is no story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please point to the content of the article about the "Death", and then look at how little of the article is actually about that. Angryapathy (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, it seems ot me that as questions were being asked as to the relevance of tangent content under the trial title, the death title was I think, moved to in an attempt to cover anything related in some big umbrella coverall. IMO both titles have issues when you look at the current content in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The content is relevant to either title, as stated above by myself and others. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There were two main problems with the new title. First, the article covers more than just the criminal trial which only lasted a month and half. Our article covers a 3 year-time span (and counting). Plus, there's still an upcoming civil trial and Casey Anthony will likely remain notable for the rest of her life. Second, and more problematic, editors were deleting content based on the fact it was not part of the criminal trial. I personally don't care for the current title, but it's better than Casey Anthony trial. Since yesterday, I've been thinking about what would be a better name for the article, and so far, the best I can come up with Casey Anthony controversy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Casey cases"? "The trials of Casey"? "Casey at the bar"? Hey, here's an idea: What are the sources calling this ongoing saga? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a proper noun for this topic. I suggest Casey Anthony controversy or Casey Anthony murder allegations. Unfortunately, it seems as if much of the discussion has centered around a false-dichotomy between Death of Caylee Anthony and Casey Anthony trial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that we need an article change (or separate article) such as that, A Quest For Knowledge. Not only do those proposals stray away from the death of Caylee and the trial, they would invite a lot of negativity being added to this article. But as for the title Casey Anthony trial, that actually is what reliable sources are calling it. That's the common name, and falls within WP:COMMONNAME. But I don't see the problem with either title, because as I stated above: "The two topics are intricately and substantially linked. There is no way to discuss the death without discussing the trial and impact that had on society, and there is no way to discuss the trial without discussing the child's death and impact that had on society."

Regarding the Civil trial, I don't feel it will be that big, and certainly not big enough to where we have to split this article. I want to once again remind people of WP:SIZE. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think this article is named appropriately. I think that the best would be Casey Anthony trial, esp. with sources calling it that. The article doesn't say much about the death of Caylee, except really she is dead. I really think editors here should consider changing the name of this article again to the one it's been called. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By the Numbers

To exhibit my point about why this article is poorly named, I did some estimates on character count of the article. I did a character count of the article (minus the lead), and then counted the characters which pertained to "Caylee Anthony" (sections "Disappearance and discovery" and '"Caylee's Law" and "Caylee's Song"') and then counted characters of the parts of the article about the trial (which is all of the remaining sections). Of the approximately 69,800 characters, 6600 applied to Caylee and 63200 applied to the trial of Casey Anthony. To put it another way, only 9.5% of the article is about Caylee, and 90.5% is about the Casey Anthony trial. There is nearly 10 times as much content about the trial than about the death. The content of this article is about the Casey Anthony trial, and should be renamed accordingly. Angryapathy (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's called WP:RECENTISM. Also, you didn't address my points above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The 3 and a half years leading up the trial can easily be grouped into "Background", which falls into point #1. Point #2, if you feel editors are deleting relevent, sourced information, then revert and/or discuss those deletions/edits. As it stands, the content of this article is about the trial. I don't know how much more objectively I can break it down. If an article is 90% about subject A, and 10% about subject B, why should we name the article about subject B? Angryapathy (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the trial should be the focal point of the article (thus, the article should be named "Casey Anthony trial"); I don't necessarily agree because of the article's current content, though. When titling an article, we have to judge what is the notable event. Even though it may sound callous, the death of Caylee Anthony is not notable (in an encyclopedic sense); it's newsworthy, of course, but not all newsworthy events deserve an encyclopedic article. What information is there on the death? Cause of death? What led to the death? What events were occurring when the death happened? None of these things are known or encyclopedic. When this article was created, it was simply "Caylee Anthony", and it was entirely unencyclopedic. Caylee Anthony disappeared (and presumably died) in June; Casey Anthony was arrested in September, and that's the earliest point this article may have had a case for encyclopedic value (the more likely date this happened is October, when she was indicted). Even then, the article wasn't about the death of Caylee Anthony; it was about Casey Anthony. A death, in itself, is not encyclopedic, without something to make it so. Death of Ian Tomlinson is a good example of this. A good example of how this article should be is O. J. Simpson murder case; not only for its similar media attention and "public reaction", but due to its recognition that the trial is the focal point of the "event". Articles on Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman exist because the article on the trial is so large; the two of them would not warrant encyclopedic articles, otherwise.

For three years, this event has not been about the death of Caylee Anthony but about the trial of Casey Anthony. The fact that this article hasn't reflected that isn't something that should be retained; it's something that should be fixed.  Chickenmonkey  20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this earlier, but my point seems to have been lost. Casey Anthony's life will continue to be notable. Assuming she lives a normal life-span, we have 50 more years of potential content to add. Trying to rename the article to something that is done and gone is short-sighted. We need 3 articles here: an article about Casey Anthony, an article about the criminal trial, and and omnibus article about everything related to the controversy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree mostly. I do wholeheartedly agree that an article on Casey Anthony should be created. And I agree than an article should be dedicated to the trial and the events surrounding the trial. I disagree that a thrid article regarding the "controversy" should be created; all information in the controversy article could easily be added to Casey Anthony or Casey Anthony trial. Angryapathy (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that, if Casey Anthony does anything to be notable, an article should be created. Currently, however, she isn't notable for anything outside of this one event. If she goes on to be a celebrity or do something which results in another media circus, then she will be notable outside of this trial. We can't assume she'll do something notable, though. Creating an article devoted solely to her, right now, would be incorrect.  Chickenmonkey  21:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - she is a total one event otherwise not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented above why I am also against a controversy article about this. It really could not go in the Casey Anthony article either (if that's ever recreated), seeing as so many people believe that she's guilty and it would have editors citing BLP violation issues. It's already adequately covered here without giving too much weight to those who believe her to be guilty. Some of you already know this, but whether or not Casey Anthony should have an article is being discussed at Talk:Casey Anthony. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

• John Hinckley, Jr. has no notability beyond the Reagan assassination attempt. If you take another look at WP:BLP1E, it allows for articles in situations such as this. In fact, WP:BLP1E uses John Hinckley, Jr. as an example of where it's OK to have an article about a person notable for only 1 event.
• Keep in mind that one of the key goals of WP:BLP is preserving a person's privacy. Given the tremendous amount of media coverage, not to mention the fact that the criminal trial was broadcast live on national TV, preserving her privacy isn't a concern here. (Except perhaps, the diary thing, which ironically, is in the article.)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1: Articles "may" be appropriate. Just because John Hinckley, Jr. has an article doesn't mean such is the case here.

2: We observe as much privacy as possible, when dealing with biographies of living people.

 Chickenmonkey  22:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick note: I'm sure that the diary information was included because it was presented as evidence against her. Unless you mean the jailhouse letters, which I have no problem with being removed. I only included it because it was released to the public and has taken place in the aftermath of the trial. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The diary. I think it's excessive detail. If I do a Google news search on the final sentence in that quote, I only get 4 hits.[2] To me, we are violating Casey Anthony's privacy by publicizing something that has not been widely covered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, not excessive detail to me...since it was presented as evidence. Googling the diary by itself may not bring up big Google hits, but I've come across a lot of sources that talk about it in the context of evidence. And, really, we shouldn't base things on Google hits so much here at Wikipedia anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Chickenmonkey: I'm well aware of Presumption in favor of privacy and you're missing the point. Casey Anthony is famous and her life has been covered by hundreds of reliable sources. Creating an article about her is not going to preserve her privacy in the slightest. In fact, WP:BLP specifically says that when there is a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are aware of Presumption in favor of privacy; I was only reminding you, in regard to your second point, above. that doesn't address the fact that all of those sources deal with her, in relation to this trial. Creating an article about a person who is only notable for a single event places undue weight and attention on that person. Currently, she isn't notable, outside of this trial; creating an article on her, documenting her life--even though it has been reported by reliable sources--would be unencylopedic and incorrect.  Chickenmonkey  23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As if this won't be studied by psychologists for years to come. BTW, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply in the case of Hinckley. Check WP:BLP1E. It specifically uses Hinckley as an example of where you can create an article for a WP:BLP1E. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning with "As if this won't be studied by psychologists for years to come". It hasn't yet, so that doesn't matter. Even if it is, I'm not sure that would be encyclopedic, anyway. How does WP:OTHERSTUFF not apply here? You're contending that, because an article exists on Hinckley that is reason enough for there to be an article on Casey Anthony, correct? If that is what you're contending, WP:OTHERSTUFF certainly does apply. The existence of an article on Hinckley doesn't constitute the existence of an article on Casey Anthony. WP:BLP1E uses Hinckley as an example where it may be appropriate. In the instance of Casey Anthony, she doesn't warrant an individual article, in my opinion.  Chickenmonkey  01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear as if we're going to convice each other any time soon so we might as well drop it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.  Chickenmonkey  01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Caylee in bed before her death."

So will the next picture be showing her after her death, or is this the stupiestest caption possible? --79.223.20.229 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not the greatest description to use. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

name redirect again?

Casey Anthony trial? was Caylee Anthony known during her life for some acomplishment? (besides dying before age 3?) or her mother? I do not thing so. So this article should be about the medialised trial, not a person. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the reasons why the name was changed back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for keeping or removing the non-neutral tag

Can we all please come to a WP:Consensus about whether or not this article is neutral, since it seems Blackie Lstreet gets to dictate how this article should be every late night and/or early morning?

Like I stated before, I see no POV issue and I have certainly not tried to paint Casey Anthony in a guilty light. Both sides are presented in this article. I made care to do that when expanding this article from the small thing it was before I started working on it to what it is now. And that seems to have paid off, as even an IP in the #article not NPOV, reads as if Casey committed a murder section above stated:

I'm very confused by this tag, and it nearly made me shy away from the article when I came to read it. I'm glad that I didn't, as I found the article to be decidedly neutral; in fact, I was impressed that it took so much time to detail the defense's rebuttal of nearly all of the prosecution's evidence. All I knew going into the article was that there was massive public outrage over the verdict, so I wanted to see more about the case, and this helped me understand better BOTH sides of the issue, including why the jurors offered a not guilty verdict. That's just my two cents as an outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.110.200 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't always trust IPs because I am skeptical as to whether or not the IP is a Wikipedia editor. But I'm assuming good faith. And if the IP is an editor of this article, he or she would have simply commented while signed in. Like I stated, "An outside opinion, as in a person who is not an editor here at Wikipedia was definitely needed." This is the best type of opinion we can get on any Wikipedia article when it comes to the topic of what is and what is not neutral.

Further, in the #Shutting the door section above, Anthonyhcole (who had agreed with Blackie Lstreet on there possibly being some POV issues) removed the non-neutral/POV tag after doing some cleanup editing and feeling that the article was no longer a POV issue, especially in regards to the Criminal trial section (where Anthonyhcole carried out his cleanup edits). In fact, Anthonyhcole created the "Shutting the door" section just to address this. The article was even titled back to the Death of Caylee Anthony to take away most of the BLP and undue weight concerns (media reaction and Caylee's Law and Caylee's Song, seeing as these topics are mostly in response to the "Not Guilty" verdict).

So all in all, I feel that Blackie Lstreet only wants Casey Anthony portrayed in a positive light. He wants us to paint her as completely innocent (not even as "Not Guilty") and he has pretty much stated so on this talk page. However, achieving this would mean no Evidence section, which is why Blackie Lstreet once removed that entire section and is why he keeps retitling it to Potential Evidence. It's also why he once removed two paragraphs from the the Public and media reactions -- the ones showing the disagreement and agreement with the verdict -- which he was reverted on twice (by two different editors, excluding me; I wasn't here to revert that first time he showed up out of the blue). So you see, if we go by what Blackie Lstreet wants, then that means not covering this topic accurately at all. We can't include the Evidence section, or at least not all of it, because it suspects these items/actions point to Casey Anthony as the murderer. We can't include some of the prosecution's side in the Criminal trial section because it uses that evidence to point a finger at Casey Anthony. We can't include any mention of public outrage about the verdict because a good portion of the public points a finger at Casey Anthony, no matter the fact that only one paragraph in the Public and media reactions section is completely dedicated to those who believe Anthony is guilty. The next paragraph presents those who believe the verdict to be correct. And the rest goes into explaining why people feel this way (analysis) and the effects the verdict has had.

I mentioned this in the #Evidence section, but it seems even if finally satisfied with one part of the article, Blackie Lstreet will just find something else to complain about in how we are portraying Casey Anthony in a bad light. He "doesn't truly engage in discussion here at the talk page. He simply starts a section complaining about things, and then another section and another about the same thing. He has a different view of how Wikipedia works because he is a newbie and is still learning. But I don't feel he is learning at all, at least not properly, because he continues to use our guidelines and policies in ways that do not make sense when it comes to backing his editing." New editor to this article My76Strat makes this edit, because, "Casey never maintained or asserted anything throughout the trial. She did not testify. The lead is more accurate now IMO." And then Blackie Lstreet comes and adds it back, no doubt feeling that My76Strat was trying to bias the article. His POV was also made a concern in the following section: #Pretrial publicity. Really, why should we continue to go by what this user says and does when we don't see the same thing, and when we do, it's not exaggerated to the extent that he sees them? I just don't get it. We have to fix what he deems issues with the article, issues he doesn't even specifically lay out, and only then we can remove the POV tag? Why? Why should we when he sees issues that most of us don't? Flyer22 (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited this page a couples times when the verdicts came out. I don't think a blanket statement at the top of the page stating the POV is disputed is helpful - I think individual sections that need attention should be identified and tagged. As a whole, the article seems fairly balanced with some clean up still needed. Possibly the "Current Event" tag should be restored to alert readers that the article is still under development, and individual sections requiring POV balancing should be labeled. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If editors are going to add a POV tag to an article, then need to indicate specific issues to be addressed. From what I can gather, someone added the POV tag and didn't start a discussion on the talk page. I'm tempted to remove the tag now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading and keeping up with discussions and the article changes. I too have to agree that the POV notice at the top is unnecessary. The Current event one might be good because there is still going to be a lot needed to change in the coming weeks, months etc. But POV seems to be pretty balanced by the current editors here. I say remove it too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I see don't see any POV. Even the reactions section appears fairly balanced, giving both sides. It's mostly just discussion on the different things that have either upset or caused debate among people. Men finding Casey attractive should also be a part of the gender gap paragraph. I know it says that some support her, but I think it's also because they think she's good-looking. JacobTrue (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I say remove the tag. If there are POV issues, they can be discussed on this talk page. I dislike when people put a vague tag but refuse to elaborate. Angryapathy (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it's Blackie Lstreet's way or the highway. He says, "Stop removing NPOV tag. See discussion of NPOV & BLP serious issues with article at BLP Notice Board." This disregards the fact that what little BLP issues were in this article (perjury charges, porn offer inclusion) have been removed and the fact that no one at this article finds it to be non-neutral but Blackie Lstreet. Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute? clearly states:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.

Consensus is for removing the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest editor to remove the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Exonerated"?

Someone slipped that bit of editorializing into the lead, and I took it out, as it's patently untrue. First, the jurors who have spoken out have basically said they couldn't figure out who did what. That's not "exoneration". Also, to exonerate means to "lift a burden". The family in general, and Casey specifically, are nowhere near having their "burden" lifted. Just today a search team has filed a suit against Casey, to recover the money they spent looking for a daughter that Casey already knew was dead. She is nowhere near out of the woods yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That was Blackie Lstreet's editing again. I've stated enough about his POV edits above, such as in the #Evidence section and #Consensus for keeping or removing the non-neutral tag sections, so I'll just leave it at that for now. He'll most likely be back late night/early morning (at least late night/early morning for Americans) to make the same type of edits. If I see him readding his edits that others reverted today, I'll likely leave it up to others to act. If no one else reverts him after some time, I'll probably act. It would be good if he sees that it's not just me willing to revert him on the spot, but he should realize by now that it's more than just me who disagrees with his editing style and that he should start discussing things on the talk page. Not simply complaining and moving along, and then complaining again. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He's clueless. The family are all red-hot liars. That's why the jury couldn't come to a decision. They couldn't figure out what happened. She's about to be hit with a 100K suit,[3] thanks to her already knowing the kid was dead. That should make things interesting. I'd like to see Blackie explain away that bit of chicanery. That suit might put the squeeze on her a lot more than the defamation suit - because she might be able to lie her way out of that, but lying her way out of the search team's complaint won't work - she's painted herself into a corner. (Or at least it appears that way.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I had to strike my above comment. It was actually My76Strat who added it. That's what I get for assuming and not going ahead and checking the edit history. But some of Blackie Lstreet's wording in the lead was already reverted today. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who posted that bit of editorializing, I stand by my statement: "They're clueless!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, and anyway, Blackie Lstreet added back his own editorializing, as expected, despite the following edit summary: "Changed back, the woman did not testify so need sources that says this." Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with your interpretation that the term I used was overly generous to the plaintiff defendant. I rather like the current manifestation after your collaboration. I do think it is overly judgmental to suggest I am clueless. That is simply an exaggeration. Cheers - My76Strat ^talk 03:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Given your explanation, I hereby retract my "clueless" comment towards you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted again, since Casey Anthony didn't testify, I reverted back to what was there prior. Keep an eye out for this to be reverted again and also 3rr vios. This editor needs to start working with the editors here and stop the reverts. Please Blackie Lstreet, work with the good editors here. Everyone seems to be trying real hard to co-operate and come to consensus on things. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Need archiving

Of finished issues. I'm moving comment to right place and can't find it right now so have to save first! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving has just been set to be more robust. There should be a number of threads moved to the archives by the archive bot tonight. Safiel (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening Statements at Casey Anthony trial

I realize this articles is a work in progress, but wanted to point out, there is note of the opening statement of the prosecution for Casey Anthony's trial, however, there is nothing relating to the defense's opening statement, or how that statement laid the foundation for defense attorneys' strategy, representation, witness' testimony, and evidence presented at trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.198.193 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, IP. In the Criminal trial section, the text says: "The defense, led by Jose Baez, presented its claim that Caylee drowned accidentally in the family's pool on June 16, 2008, and was found by George Anthony, who then covered up Caylee's death and made it so that it would be a secret kept between himself and Casey, to protect her from accusations of child neglect. Baez said that it was the habit of a lifetime for Casey to hide her pain and pretend nothing was wrong, that George Anthony had sexually abused her since she was eight years old, and her brother Lee had made advances toward her and had been given a paternity test to see if he was Caylee's father."

After that, the prosecution, has a paragraph about what they claimed happened as well. And currently, two witnesses for the defense are shown in that section. What we need now is to include some witnesses for the prosecution. But I doubt we'll be listing each and every witness by name in that section.

What specific detail are you looking to be covered in regards to the defense's side? And don't forget that the Closing arguments section goes over a lot of detail. It goes over more detail than the base section, as to not repeat anything that was already stated, and because the closing arguments of both sides are naturally more detailed in driving home their points. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The current text reads like this, which I feel adequately presents the defense's opening statements: "The defense, led by Jose Baez, presented its claim that Caylee drowned accidentally in the family's pool on June 16, 2008, and was found by George Anthony, who then covered up Caylee's death and made it so that it would be a secret kept between himself and Casey, to protect her from accusations of child neglect. This, Baez argued, is why Casey Anthony went on with her life and failed to report the incident for 31 days. He claimed that it was the habit of a lifetime for Casey to hide her pain and pretend nothing was wrong, since she had been sexually abused by George Anthony since she was eight years old, and her brother Lee had also made advances toward her, but that this was also all kept secret. The defense even had Lee issued with a paternity test to see if he was Caylee's father."

Anything more you feel should be added, let me know. But more will have to be added for the prosecution's side in turn. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait...what? You're trying to keep the amount coverage perfectly balanced? Is that the only way to keep peace here? That shouldn't be necessary. What if there is nothing significant to add about the prosecution? Are we going to start embellishing significance, like: "Then one day the prosecution wore a necktie that could be construed as clashing with his socks, which alienated the jury and may have led to the verdict..." We should write what needs to be written, not worry about keeping both sides artificially "balanced". Boneyard90 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Boneyard90, I only said that "more will have to be added for the prosecution's side in turn" because there is more that can be added, and because, yes, things should be balanced. I don't mean with trivial details either, and I would certainly not make up anything (which would be quickly caught by others anyway). I don't feel that either side has significantly more to say than the other side, except for in that hour-long closing by Mason, LOL. But, yes, it seems that keeping the amount of coverage balanced is the only way to keep peace here. Not "perfectly balanced"...but balanced. And even doing that, we still have one editor constantly claiming the whole article is biased. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A Request for Comment about this article's title has already been initiated in the "RfC: Should the name of the article be changed to "Casey Anthony trial'?" section above. Please make any comments there. (And as A Quest For Knowledge mentioned, the long standing article title has been "Death of Caylee Anthony"; it was moved to "Casey Anthony trial" on 7 July[4] then reverted back on 11 July.[5] Thus any RM discussion is premature when the RFC is already ongoing.) Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Death of Caylee Anthony → Casey Anthony trial –This article has previously been named "Casey Anthony trial." A discussion about this has gone on in an earlier section in this talk page; however, after reading much of it, I believe that the move to "Death of Caylee Anthony" does not reflect consensus, and request that it be moved back. I have had no previous part in this discussion. Quinxorin (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I didn't realize it had been a non-consensed change and do oppose that sort of thing. Plus it is consistent with timeline article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Actually, the request is grossly misleading (I'm assuming good faith here). For the longest time, the article was titled the "Death of Caylee Anthony". (Please check the logs to confirm this.) I'm pretty sure that this was the title for about 3 years. It was changed to "Casey Anthony trial" for a few days last week and was reverted back per WP:BRD. Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on those who seek the change. So we then proceeded to discuss the article title and an RfC was opened.[6] Three editors were in favor of change. Four were against and 1 was neutral. Clearly, this is no consensus for change so why this move has been requested is beyond me and completely out of order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judge's words

I tried to put the exact words of the Judge in his explanation of the individual guilty counts of lying to a law enforecement officer. There are many videos of the Judge sentencing. To see the explanation you must go to the video that last 5.17 seconds. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/07/07/exp.CaseyAnthonySentenced.hln?iref=allsearch It is the ONLY one that I could find where he goes into detail of the individual guilty counts and in that video he does NOT say that she never worked at Universal Studios. Listen to it please Flyer because I know you like the informatiaon to be correct. I think if you hear his words he puts the emphasis on Count Six slightly differently. During court testimony, I thought that she actually had worked for Universal some years before taking photos or something. Regardless, the emphasis in the sentencing and the importance of the law that she broke was that she did not work there at the time she told law enforcement she did. Someone added to the Judge's sentencing words by saying that she NEVER worked there. That was NOT what the Judge said. I think you will agree with me that it is important to use his exact words in the sentencing. It might seem to be nick picking but it really isn't when you are dealing with the actual Judge's sentence. Going back to 1356 now. Godd luck the article looks great, in my opinion. You and others have done a great job. Mugginsx (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The judge's words should be in the article and should be correct. JacobTrue (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I see they are now. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP Notice Board Discussion, serious problems with article

There has been a lengthy discussion of this article on the BLP Notice Board. The NPOV and BLP problems with this article were reviewed by many capable uninvolved editors, but their advice is being ignored. Please see the discussion of this article on the BLP Notice Board. I hope that something can be done to allow a neutral presentation of this case. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the link to the Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board discussion about this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial

I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring due to your insistence on reinstating that POV tag against consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As you well know a notice like that belongs on an individual talk page not an article talk page. You already gave me such a notice on my talk page. No need for another. You placed it here for harassment purposes. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I placed it here so you would see it, as it appeared you had ignored it on your own page. P.S. What's your take on the $ 100K suit filed against her today? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie Lstreet, nothing is being ignored!! Like I made clear at the Noticeboard: If you look at the #Consensus for keeping or removing the non-neutral tag section or any other section I have created about your disruptive edits, you will get your answer. I did listen to the concerns at the Noticeboard, but the concerns there were not even mostly about BLP issues. The fact is...there were not a lot of BLP issues in the article to begin with. What little, so-called BLP issues were there have been removed. In addition, these removals (tweaks included) were done by a couple of editors from this Noticeboard, helping to address any perceived BLP issues in the article. Now it's you being disruptive again, seeing problems where there aren't any and painting all of us as Casey Anthony haters trying to bias the article. Baseball Bugs doesn't even know who he considers guilty in the Anthony case. And I have never stated my personal position on the Casey Anthony verdict. I have, however, repeatedly stated that I am only trying to present an accurate reflection of the topic as a whole (as I do for all articles I significantly work on). It is you who has stated you believe Casey Anthony to be innocent and that you want us to portray her ONLY as innocent, and it is you who is trying to remove any negative thing associated with her, such as the entire Evidence section! And when you're not doing that, you're trying to rename it to "Potential Evidence."

Like I also made clear, it's Blackie Lstreet's way or the highway. You say, "Stop removing NPOV tag. See discussion of NPOV & BLP serious issues with article at BLP Notice Board." This disregards the fact that what little BLP issues were in this article (perjury charges, porn offer inclusion) have been removed and the fact that no one at this article finds it to be non-neutral but you. Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute? clearly states:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.

Consensus is for removing the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The tag issue is just a symptom of much larger problems with this article. There were many uninvolved editors on the BLP Notice Board who see a lot of problems with this article. They are neutral and I think their advice and insights should not be ignored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Casey_Anthony_trial Blackie Lstreet (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie Lstreet: Can you please tell us a specific example of what you think is a BLP violation? I'm not reading walls and walls of text at BLPN. I've already wasted too much of my time on this article. Just give me one example and if it's a real problem, I'll fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie Lstreet: Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over again, and ignoring what has already been stated? You accuse us of ignoring the advice (yeah, that's right ADVICE) of outside editors, and yet you ignore that consensus at this article is to remove the POV tag because we don't see what you see! You ignore the very fact that "What little, so-called BLP issues were [in this article] have been removed. In addition, these removals (tweaks included) were done by a couple of editors from this Noticeboard, helping to address any perceived BLP issues in the article." This means that THINGS WERE DONE SINCE THAT DISCUSSION TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE! If there were some serious BLP issues in this article, as you claim, don't you think most editors from that Noticeboard would have removed all these perceived BLP issues by now? They do that for any other BLP emergency case.

A Quest For Knowledge, you shouldn't waste your time asking Blackie Lstreet such questions. He never specifies. And he can't because there are no such issues. The only issues he sees are things showing/discussing Casey Anthony in any negative way. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest editor to remove the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really not that complicated, but rather simple. Casey Anthony DOES NOT fall under the "Biography of Living Persons - Subjects notable for only one event" over-reactive concerns of some. Because the policy states this:

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."

Ok, listen...this does not need a "crystal ball". Casey Anthony is LIKELY TO REMAIN NOTABLE BEYOND THIS SINGLE EVENT... Remember? Book deals, her whole persona, etc. There's no way that Casey Anthony will EVER be a "low-profile individual" after this. Ever! This is not like the alleged murderer Levi Aron who (allegedly) kidnapped and killed that Hasidic boy some days ago in Brooklyn New York. That guy is likely to remain "low-profile" beyond the single event of killing that kid. But Casey Anthony is obviously (especially at this point) DIFFERENT than someone like that. The name of this article should change already, and should center more around Casey herself, not just the "death of Caylee Anthony." This is a bit silly now. Wiki-lawyering and uptightness and over-scrupulosity can be insufferable at times. NPOV should always be strived for, but let's get real about this "BLP" thing already. Casey is notable...big time now...beyond just the death of her daughter, and is very very HIGH-PROFILE IN GENERAL NOW. Just my take. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Hashem sfarim. I'm confused about your post. Did you mean to place it here? Or above where actual discussion of the article name is taking place? Flyer22 (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you responded higher too. Flyer22 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why does Casey Anthony deserve a page in Wikipedia? You should ONLY have a page for the victim...CAYLEE ANTHONY. I, for one request that you REMOVE this page or any mention of Casey Anthony.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelalanders1 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
— Angelalanders1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't understand what you mean. Casey Anthony does not have a Wikipedia article to herself yet (if ever). Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And exactly how can we remove any mention of Casey Anthony regarding the death of Caylee Anthony? Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't talk about the death, obviously :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.9 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And if we're not talking about the death, then Caylee Anthony is not Wiki-notable, and the whole article should be deleted. Like the photo just was. Which I still don't understand. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

LEGAL TERMS AND ARTICLE TITLE

I know everyone, without exception, has put their heart and soul in this article and I am not trying to denigrate or disrespect anyone's work but I feel that I have to make these points and suggestions.

I see we are back to the old title. I have heard the reasons for doing so and while I understand them, I must say that the editors who want this title are doing so out of a pure emotion and frustration over the poor child. I understand and I am sympathetic but THAT IS NOT A REASON FOR THE PRESENT TITLE TO THIS ARTICLE THAT IS 99% IS ABOUT THE TRIAL.

Another point - some people somewhere (there are so many places to look I cannot be bothered), referred to the verdict as Casey was found innocent. SEE WAS NOT FOUND INNOCENT - SHE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Very different meaning. You heard the juror who said that all of his fellow jurors thought that perhaps she had murdered Caylee but that there was not evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal case requires a guilty verdict to be beyond a reasonable doubt. it goes on (...too a moral certainty...) A Civil Case requires guilty verdict to be found by a preponderance of the evidence more evidence than not. Common Sense verdict. Usually a majority of the jurors but not always - depends upon the State, etc.

Another term misused - presumption of innocence - this refers to before the case and during the case - NOT AFTER the case. It simply means that the jurors must not have any prior personal convictions that she is guilty and that during the trial they must hear all evidence with that same presumption of innocence. Until they have all the evidence and sit down to deliberate they are supposed to have a presumption of innocence. It has nothing to do with AFTER the case has been adjudicated.

With all due respect to beautiful Caylee and the mothers like me out there that would like to see her never forgotten, I must still say the article should state what it is about: The Trial of Casey Anthony. Love to see the beautiful picture of Caylee in it and the paragraphs about Caylee's Song and Caylee's Law - but bring back the right title and the great Timeline back in that someone did such a good job on in the beginning of this article.

Why not create an article just about Caylee? There seems to be some information available and I am sure there will be more to come out in the coming weeks and months. Bifurcate the article in a way that all the editors can be heard in the facts they want to emphasize.

Going back to the Middle Ages now. (Wonder how this trial would have been handled there.) Mugginsx (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, why should we bring back the Timeline of Casey Anthony case when it now has its own article, as seen there in that link? We already link to it at the top of the Case section, and someone should probably link it again in the See also section (like I did before). While the See also section is for words/terms not already found in the body of article, the timeline link belongs there more than the defense's names do. I see no reason that it needs to be in this article (bogging it down with more information) other than as a link, when it can just exist in a separate article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the image of Caylee, that cannot exist if this article is titled the Casey Anthony trial, per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could correct errors without a lot of WP:Soapbox? Let's not even get started on the subject of witch hunts - today or 700 years ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good advice as usual flyer. I will defer to your reasoning on the Timeline. The picture might be more appropriate for the hypethethical seperate article on Caylee if ever done.

Carol, as everyone (except apparently you) knew that remark to be a joke and since you, so far, have done absolutely no work on this article that I can find, I would suggest to you, that you re-read your User page and take your own advice, i.e., "... keep your temper and your testosterone under control." Also, a reading at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVILITY would not go amiss. Mugginsx (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

First, by WP:Soapbox, I was referring to unnecessary sentimentality. And making jokes that easily are misunderstood (as some sort of wishful thinking) could be considered soapbox and/or an invitation to further off topic debate. Second, this is just a reminder about policy, not an angry personal attack, so don't read more into a comment than is there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Article no longer semi-protected

Oh goodness. Keep a look out for vandalism, unsupported edits and the like, everyone. This article will most likely need semi-protection again soon, which can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest holding off on any requests for the time being. Looks like 4 IP edits have been made, of which two were vandalism and reverted, one was pointless and reverted and the last one was actually a productive edit. Lets wait to see if it actually becomes problematic. Safiel (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Caylee's Law" and "Caylee's Song"

This section should be removed it is nothing to do with the trial. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't do "memorials" anyway. Good faith, I presume, but inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Caylee's Law" part has everything to do with the trial. However, the stuff about the song is now gone. If it makes the American Top 40, maybe we could reconsider. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

LOl, I was going to have to correct some information about Caylee's song, anyway. I do feel that it relates to this trial, though, seeing as it has to do with Caylee's death. The second one that was mentioned, for example, was written due to the songwriter being upset by the verdict. But I can live without that being in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is under the title Casey Anthony trial - not all the follow ups. Perhaps a separate article but all the add ons should not be tagged on here. Its a see also - Caylee's Law. The picture has no possible fair use rationale there either. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean, Caylee's Law is pretty notable now and is included in the appropriate section -- the stuff dealing with the aftermath of the trial. And in any case, we should wait for the regular editors of this article to weigh in before removing it.

As for the picture, you see that's up for deletion and enough people are saying to keep it. We'll see if it's kept. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stay. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not with the article content, but the article title. For the longest time, this article was titled Death of Caylee Anthony. Someone recently changed the article title[7] and thereby changed the scope of the article. That's the problem. It's not these sections, it's the fact that the article name remained stable until it was renamed a few days ago.

In any case, I think we need 3 articles here:

1. One about the Casey Anthony herself
2. One about the trial itself
3. An omnibus article that covers Casey Anthony, her criminal trial, her civil trial,[8] and everything else related to the controversy. I'm not sure what you would call this article since I don't think there a proper noun for it.

In any case, this article is #3. It just has a bad name and should be moved back to it's old name at least until we can come up with a better one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The song played on Nancy Grace was another song. It was briefly called Caylee's Song by Grace, I think, but it has an official title. JacobTrue (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this information about tributes or about the people making the tributes? I think their names should not be included, as this is not about them.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline and Trial vs other "evidence"

There is a lot of confusion about the timeline in general, so including a bulleted timeline would make many things more clear. It might even be a separate article, as is sometimes done. (Though I have noted media timelines do have conflicting facts, so that might have to be accounted for.)

Also shouldn't we only present evidence presented at trial - and in that section? Was the indeterminately dated diary entry even used at trial? If not it's too speculative and even negative POV for the article.

I do think there is a bit of negative POV vs. Casey Anthony here. For example, I don't see the jury foreman's comment's about George's possible involvement mentioned, even though they got lots of press, per this recent news google search or this FoxNews interview.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a Timeline of Casey Anthony case. It was moved out of this article because some of us saw it as unencyclopedic and bogging the article down. Most of the evidence in the Evidence section was presented at trial. I'm not sure about the diary. But I don't see why it shouldn't be included. If others agree to remove the diary entry (note to Blackie Lstreet: that means WP:Consensus established on this talk page), I won't protest.

And if you see a bit of POV, you can go ahead and fix it. Maybe the Jury Foreman's comments were not immediately included, because he seems to believe that Casey Anthony is guilty, like most of the other jurors thus far. It would be more of the same, unless you add what he also thinks of George Anthony. Go ahead and add it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa, missed timeline. Will see what I want to add. Just testing the waters :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Carolmooredc: I don't know if you saw my post above, but here's a page with a scrolling timeline of the first 6 months.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Carolmooredc. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the Jury Foreman information, his suspicion of both Casey and George. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Timeline of Casey Anthony case I have put a tag on that it needs referencing. There are a few things that are questionable (most I haven't heard of them and/or overly negative) and I'll remove if not sourced soon, FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Being largely unsourced and not being willing to source it (seeing as it should not be my job when I did not add that text) is another reason I was for the Timeline being removed from this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to remove anything really from the Timeline article, as everything actually IS "sourced", but the "ref names" were just not put after every date yet. But the citation reference from timeline webpages of Casey Anthony are already in the article. In a few spots already. It just has to be placed in many more. But everything there is verifiable and verified. So that should NOT be the reason to remove any of the dated events there. It'll just be a bit tedious to one-by-one put them in each spot. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi, well I noticed the one picture of Caylee is now gone so I just did a quick look to see what's out there. This isn't a good site for sourcing but the images aren't copywritten I don't believe when posted like this. I'm not sure though so if someone understands this better than me I'd love to hear. The flyer that was handed out though, there should be an image for that which meets are copyright laws. Just thought I'd give this a look at. I have to admit looking at the 7 photos was sad (the 8th has nothing to do with this). Anyone have ideas for getting some of the images that are out there in the article? I consider having a pictures quite intersting for the reader, at least I like to see what the person(s) I'm reading about look like.  ;) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The third photo (with the coloring book) is the last photo of her taken of her alive. I have a source for this, so this should address the issues raised at the previous deletion discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, please go for it.  :) I thought the song one might possibly be sourced in the article also but I'm not sure this is the correct song or not. Flyer, you seem to know the sources and the story pretty well, thoughts please (or anyone actually). I'm just trying to get information going that hasn't actually been thought of and the images can lead to that as shown above. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

With due respect to others, I really don't see why there should not be a picture of Caylee in the article - the article, afterall, has her name in the title and it is about her. Mugginsx (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Crohnie, I'm not sure about this image issue. The section about Caylee's Song needs correcting, though. The Caylee song that was played on Nancy Grace on July 8, 2011 was "She's Going Places." Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to go ahead and thank Dream out loud for adding this image: File:Caylee and Casey Anthony.jpg. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will be adding more public domain images to the article when I get a chance. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well apparently the photo I uploaded is now nominated for deletion. Apparently some editors don't feel that the Florida State's Attorneys Office "has any right" to release those photos into the public domain. Oh the irony. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone local should attempt to get them to sent confirmation to WP:OTRS that they are indeed the owners of the copyright ot that picture. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Section name changes

I wanted to strike a balance between those who wish to retain the article name "Death of Caylee Anthony" with the fact the a substantial portion of the content focuses on the trial of Casey Anthony. Because the this article discusses a mother and daughter with the same last name, I figured that this would be an acceptable exception to the MOS policy of not copying the name of the article in subsection names. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Zfish118, I don't see why disambiguation is needed. It's clear which sections are about Caylee, since the article title makes that clear and since she is deceased. And, as you mentioned, it goes against WP:Manual of Style. I see no good reason to go against the Manual of Style in this instance or hardly ever. I'm also not understanding this edit. Merely a link to the main article is accepted all the time (in plenty of Good and Featured articles), and that edit adds information that the reader already knows from the lead of this article. I can't say these changes are improvements. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I must agree. These headings were just fine and did not need the extra words of explantion. They are self-explanatory. More words are not always better words. Mugginsx (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony article

I dont know if this has been discussed already.. but wouldnt it be a good idea to have a separate Casey Anthony article especially now that she will be released and an interview and other media adventures are very likely. There is enough material to make an bio-article on Anthony and I think it would benefit the Wikipedia to have a article about her.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ, see Talk:Casey Anthony. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!. I have now supported a creation of a Casey Anthony bio.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense but I have to chuckle at the idea. I can definitely see it now - all we know about her is her arrest, trial, a few other statement about her old boyfriends which are supposition at best, her check fraud conviction (stealing from her girlfriend), and all the lies she told her family, friends and law enforcement documented in the interrogation tapes, trial and sentencing. To balance a BLP article tell me, what good could you say about her - the article is sure to give you giant BLP issues and headaches! Mugginsx (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ, you'd already weighed in there before. You must have forgotten about the discussion or thought it was over. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Atleast now I have "voted" for a creation. Anyway it is a majority decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer and everyone else, now that I have had my laugh for the day, I really must get back to 1356. The French men-at-arms are dying in droves under the Welsh archers and I need to find some references which cite how very bravely they fought and died. Mugginsx (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, BabbaQ, it's not a majority decision. For one, Wikipedia works on consensus, not voting. More importantly, though, WP:BLP (and other site-wide policies) outweigh local consensus. I don't see how we could possibly overcome WP:BLP1E for Casey Anthony, so the odds on that article being created are slim. Everything that is of interest about her is related to this one case. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Get over it. It will work out just fine either way. I have the right to my opinion an so do you. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey could have an article on the same grounds which justify an article on John Hinckley, Jr. My76Strat ^talk 00:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe an article might be appropriate in the future but it is premature now. Also, maybe we could stop making jokes about the various subjects of the article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a comparison with John Hinckley, Jr. is unwarranted. He was and has continues to be a globally known person reported on and discussed person. This person was found not guilty of all major charges against her and received a minor prison sentence after the death of her daughter - I have not seen single item in televised press here or the written press for that matter. As for long term notability - we have yet to find that out.Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To state that Casey Anthony is not a globally known person is a stretch of the imagination in my opinion. If not a completely false statement if you dont mind me saying.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

She is completely unheard of/unknown / not notable in the UK. As for your claim that I am making false statements - I can only tell you my observations if you think I am lying that is up to you. I have come to ignore/laugh out loud at such wiki ediot comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have observed several sources which originate in the UK that suggest this subject is also notable within your region. Perhaps you should reconsider stating that she is unknown when perhaps it is something you simply were not aware. My76Strat ^talk 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be a few citations, (I haven't seen any at all) but she is not generally known or reported in the televised press at all here. I read the press and watch the news in the UK and I found out about this case on wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are for example sky news mentioning Casey Anthony today. so to say that anthony is unheard of in the UK is a false statement. actually their are plenty of uk media outlets who tells about anthony today. You state that you have learned to ignore such wiki ediot comments when you yourself makes a big ediot comment. amusing to say the least. Give it a break will you and just behave, just because someone is challenging your statement.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that she is incomparable to the notability of John Hinckley, Jr. whose name and crime are known all over the world. - In comparison almost no-one has even heard of Caylee Anthony in the UK. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeals Section

There is no reason for the seperate heading and a special "Appeals" section. Appeals are decided on the "Law" not the "Facts". In other words Florida Statutes and Legal Precedents. Their may or may not be an appeal by the Defense. Even though the defense currently states they will appeal, in fact, they may never do it. It this case the verdict was based upon four different distinct statements (which turned out to be lies) told to law enforcement. That is the ONLY appeal issue the Defense has. It was mentioned in the sentencing tape and denied. The defense tried to say all of the lies were really "One" offense - claiming double jeopardy. The judge said they were four seperate and distinct lies. That is all the defense has and if they appeal it again, it will be the same words and the same denial (probably). In other words - one sentence, two at the most. "The appeal is denied. Court found double jeopardy did not attach. That does not warrant a seperate heading or section. There has been no word that the Prosecution seeks appeal and it is doubtful they will. Mugginsx (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the word "appeal" needs to be a part of Verdict and sentence heading either. The appeal has to do with the verdict, and there is not a lot to say about the appeal. But since Carolmooredc seems to want it as a heading in some way[10][11], perhaps we should compromise and keep the second version? Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, yes, I have no objection to that, but she made a further statement after that, that she would re-visit the subject of the "seperate" appeal heading at a later time, after the civil trial, (which I don't understand because it has nothing to do with the criminal appeal anyway and would not be appropriate in that section at any time). I will copy and paste it here, it was in the re-structuring discussion. Mgginsx: Re: Appeals heading. More info surely will be forthcoming (and there already is relevant WP:RS info/opinions on this re: civil cases and reducing 4 charges to one for legal reasons). Anyway, when there is more relevant info, it can be reinserted. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, Flyer, do you think we could tell editors NOT to move material around on this Talkpage? Mugginsx (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you feel is being moved around, Mugginsx? And, yes, you can ask editors not to move around things, per WP:TALK. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought there were two incidents, but I can only find one now. In the Discussion paragraph there was this: (Some comments in this section regarding Recentism was moved from "Support" to "Discussion" by Angryapathy). If you think it not important I will drop it, I tend to be a bit particular about individual editors "moving things around for "everyone's benefit". Perhaps it does not matter in this case, but I was under the impression that other than Archiving and Hatting a discussion, editors were not supposed to move around or delete comments around on Talk pages. Mugginsx (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few instances where moving comments are okay. Like I just moved this response by you because it was out of order and confusing. If you intended it to be there, then I apologize for moving it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops! No I don't mind. I am going back and forth on two articles. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed less confusing structure

Having studied the article more, it is obvious why (besides procedural issue) article should retain the title the Trial of Casey Anthony, since that is the main topic. Here are some problems, only one of which I addressed above, and an alternate structure suggestion:

• ”Disappearance and discovery” section title. Discovery of body? Why isn’t that info in that section? Confusing.
• ”Case” should be “Legal case” per relevant article; however the legal case/trial is topic of whole article so subsection really not necessary anyway
• Investigation is not necessarily a legal case. Also, that's place to put any contemporaneous "evidence" of foul play that led to indictment. If her not cooperating or even lying is considered evidence, that has to be made more clear; also connection of various arrests to the investigation
• ”Arrests and charges” section is confusing because of various arrests/charges mentioned in previous section, but only one in this section.
• Free floating "Evidence section" problematic because we need to carefully separate evidence uncovered in investigation and used in the initial indictment, from that discovered/developed/etc. after indictment, to avoid undue duplication and confusion. Highly publicized initial evidence not submitted at trial should be identified as such.
• The whole aftermath section very jumbled.

So the structure might be more like this:

• Disappearance and investigation
• Indictment
• Discovery of body
• Pre-trial publicity (including song #1 if really notable)
• Trial
  • Prosecution case
  • Defense case
  • Verdict and sentencing
• Reactions and aftermath
  • Defense and prosecution
  • Jurors
  • Media
  • Public
  • The Anthony family
• Civil cases
• "Caylee's Law"

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like one too many headings, and more confusing in some ways, which I will explain: While I like a few of your ideas, I'm not seeing why "Disappearance and discovery" needs to be titled to "Discovery of body." It just doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Further, it's more technically "the remains." Yes, I agree that the information about the body should be in that section. But the problem seems to be that the Investigation section would largely deal with that too, and it currently partly does. There needs to be some kind of merging of these two sections in some way. Or the Investigation section is going to have to exclude all mention of the body.

If we are going to disambiguate "Case," which isn't really needed since there is only one other section with the word "case" in it and that is specified as "Civil cases," I would suggest titling it Criminal case. And then leaving the Criminal trial section just tilted to Trial (as you suggested), while remaining a subsection. But I see no reason to split the Trial section up into "Prosecution case" and "Defense case." How can that be successfully divided when the teams are going back and forth at each other? Why even try to break up such a flow?

I already agreed about the Evidence section, per #Redesigning the Evidence section.

I can't agree to divide the publicity sections up like that. That information was actually jumbled before I got to it, which was only titled Publicity (dealing with initial responses, with the exception of the final line) and was placed smack-dab in between the pre-trial and post-trial information. It should all be covered in one spot...after the trial. Not in two different spots. The subsection headings "Before the trial" and "During and after the trial" make clear the time of the publicity. And the rest of your suggested structure? How does it make sense not to cover why the trial has received so much media and public attention first? We should explain what all the fuss is about before hopping right into the Defense/prosecution and jury commenting on the verdict, the public outrage and why the verdict came out the way it did. Why do the defense and prosecution responses need to be separated from the jury's? I combined those sections yesterday because they are relatively small and are dealing with the same thing -- the jury's decision on the verdict; I originally created the split, but after further reflection, I see it's not needed. And, finally, why should the Media responses be separated from the public responses when they go hand in hand as well? The Media and public reactions section showcases very well that they go hand in hand. We don't need three different spots covering publicity and public reaction, creating WP:UNDUE.

As for leaving out "Caylee's Song," it was removed before, and I don't care much either way, but it was added back once this article was titled back to the Death of Caylee Anthony. Flyer22 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, and other editors: I would not restructure as per the above suggestion. I believe that if you do, the article will lose the continuity of the events as they happened. This is a story, afterall and most readers will understand it best in that context. Further, it will lose any natural ebb and flow it now has and look like a bunch of facts rather than a readable article - the style which is overwhelmingly used in Wiki. The article has been produced by a great collaborative effort that has thus far not been in dispute by the majority of the editors. The few exceptions, the title, the photo, the timeline (now settled), are outside of the restructuring suggested here. Slight changes are one thing - a great re-structure into all of these subheadings out of time and context would be quite another thing altogether. Mugginsx (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a novel. The Lindbergh kidnapping - obviously another high profile case which it is important to organize carefully - is a good example and possible model. It has following major sections: The crime, the investigation (which includes discovery), Capture of a suspect (ie arrest/indictment),the trial, Controversy. Not that these should exactly be the same categories, but suggestive of a more rational organization. Of course, it can be done piece meal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This being an encyclopedia, not a novel, is exactly why I objected to the unnecessary heading proposals. For example, the sections you suggested be split...do not need to be split or would not make sense being split (per what I stated above). I did, however, agree with doing something about the Disappearance and discovery section because the Investigation section is what covers the remains/body. But you went ahead and tackled that with this edit. I also agreed about the Evidence section. I created a whole section on redesigning it above. I just don't agree with your other suggestions, or see how the The Lindbergh kidnapping article is that different in its structure. I don't find it a more rational organization at all, considering it pretty much follows the same format. Even if it were that different, it wouldn't mean that we should follow it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, if people don't jump up and say "Great idea," one forgets about it. Sometimes it's best to just make and explain smaller changes that solve issues people might not even notice or disagree with once made. But when entering a new article which has far more material than I really want to deal with, I'm usually more cautious. So I'll just do WP:BRD in increments that I think people will find sensible. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Work is accomplished here by consensus, not by someone who, purposes to change giant sweeps of material in a way that would make this complex article look more like a "outline for a high school composition". You have been blocked in the past for WP:HARASS. I would advise you to not try to take over and re-organize sweeping changes in an article that it seems, in this case, you do not understand. P.S. No one mentioned a novel. Another example of your insults and assumptions. You didn't understand that remark either. You keep mentioning and making comparisons to the the Lindberg kidnapping here and elsewhere. The differences between that case and this are legion. My hope is that you start working with consensus with everyone else. If you cannot work with everyone here than my advice would be to choose another article you might better understand. Mugginsx (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote "just make and explain smaller changes that solve issues people might not even notice or disagree with" and "increments that I think people will find sensible" - that doesn't sound like massive changes, does it? Please don't over react to people's comments. Also my one ill advised question on a personal talk page six months ago that led to my one and only block (mostly because I mentioned the comment on a Wikia page that I thought was part of wikipedia but actually is off wiki) is not something to blow up into a pattern of behavior. Assume good faith. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your outline is not representative of incremental changes. Nor were some of your other purposed changes. There may be some articles that you can re-organize but I do not believe this is one of them. Your comments become insulting when someone disagrees with you. It is your pattern. That is not working together for consensus but a mind-set that you and only you know what is best for the article. The editors on this project have worked hard, researched for many hours, and then discussed and discussed until they came to some kind of agreement either by enlightenment or enhaustion. The result is a good article built brick by brick, sentence by sentence. They do not insult. It is not the Wiki way. The changes you suggested here would changed the article in a fundamental way, dismantling the work of many editors. You may choose to "call them" "incremental" changes that no one will notice, but that is not what they actually are. Mugginsx (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I see allegations, but no evidence of insults. Please read WP:OWN and don't take suggestions for changes as personal attacks. Given continuing developments, the unweildiness of #3 Publicity and aftermath becomes more apparent and the need for divisions into a couple more sections #4, 5, 6, more necessary. Not necessarily the ones above, but some better organization. More on that another day. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Enough said, sorry you do not seem to get it. Mugginsx (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I don't believe any continuing developments will make the Publicity and aftermath section too much bigger. Nothing else really needs to be added to it. If there is anything, then it's the correction of what song was played on Nancy Grace on July 8, 2011...or it will be more about the Anthony family (which is something we have to wait for). But, currently, there is nothing unwieldy about the Publicity and aftermath section. And if there were, splitting it up into unnecessary subsections would not be the answer. As already mentioned, there is no reason at all to split the defense and prosecution away from the jury. There is certainly no reason to split the media away from the public; that makes no sense, given how the two go hand in hand. We should make subsections only when they are needed. The Appeal section you created for, example? That's not needed. It should should just be a sentence or paragraph of the Verdict and sentence section. I doubt it will ever be big enough to warrant its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Took out Heading for Appeal. A seperate heading for one sentence with no additional information expected except perhaps appeal was granted or appeal was denied, is unnecessary and unsightly. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: You don't address the problem of different subjects conflated in one section in a confusing manner. Re-read what I wrote. In next few days I'll just make a draft of my alternative on one of my talk pages showing what I mean and if you all still don't get it, go for an outside opinion. If necessary, also same with separating where evidence should properly go, as we both agree needs to be done in a better way. So many articles, so little time. (Way behind on 3 or 4 more of greater interest to me, but one does get caught up...)

Mgginsx: Re: Appeals heading. More info surely will be forthcoming (and there already is relevant WP:RS info/opinions on this re: civil cases and reducing 4 charges to one for legal reasons). Anyway, when there is more relevant info, it can be reinserted. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, I did address that. In fact, I specifically addressed that. There is nothing confusing about having the defense, prosecution and jury all covered in one section. There is nothing confusing about having the public and media responses covered in one spot and together. Your proposals to change that are either needless or do not make sense. Per what I stated above, for example, how does it at all make any sense to divide the Criminal trial section up into Prosecution case Defense case subheadings? It is not a matter of me "not getting it"; it is a matter me feeling that your extra headings and suggested splits are either unneeded or do not make sense. What does make sense are your concerns about the Evidence section. If you do come with a draft for restructuring, I advise that you take what I stated into consideration. If your draft looks anything like your proposal, then I can go ahead and state that I will not agree.

As for what you stated to Mgginsx, there is no need to add any opinions on the civil cases. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As I think I said elsewhere, except for obvious incremental changes, it's probably just best for me to produce a talk page version of what I am proposing since obviously it isn't clear to others. It may look more sensible then. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You can, but I'm saying, "If your draft looks anything like your proposal, then I can go ahead and state that I will not agree." You are the only one pushing for some type of drastic setup change, when others do not feel anything is wrong with the current one...aside from the Evidence section needing sorting out and more information needing to be added there and elsewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)