Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Death of Caylee Anthony. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

New edit problems: DNA and Parole

This diff pairs information ref'd to the trial from a 2008 Preliminary report.] I'm sure there are trial news reports that give this level of detail, so we aren't using WP:Primary sources unduly. And finding them i on my "do list." And using 3 year old preliminary reports is really questionable, whether or not current reports are available.]
This diff adds information to the lead that others took out as not relevant. If we want to add the full story back, fine, but not in the lead. (I'll delete during some future RR if no one else wants to ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no problems:

The first question reference is the actual foresenic report used and presented at trial. *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=442684738&oldid=442683886 a verifiable reference accompanied by a second reference. Necessary especially in a BLP article. Should NOT be removed. Mugginsx (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the second reference the above editor mentions, I believe there was a discussion and a consensus that information not related to the Death of Caylee Anthony should not be in this article. But removed it per Wikipedia:Relevance of content subsection: Articles Scope Mugginsx (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lee's paternity test

The statement in the article reads:

The defense even had Lee issued with a paternity test to see if he was Caylee's father

I listened to the opening statements of Baez and he says "..it got so bad, the FBI did a paternity test..." to see if Lee was the father. However, the wording in the source is a bit ambiguous. The source doesn't explicitly state the test was issued by the defense nor does it use the words "even had" when referring to the test. Also, I reviewed testimony of FBI agent Heather Seubert who was questioned by Baez about Lee's test. During Ashton's objections to the questioning of Seubert, it can be inferred it was another agent (Nick Savage) who made the inquiry regarding paternal possibilities with Lee. The Judge ruled Baez could not ask who it was that requested the test and so Baez did not pose that particular question to Seubert when the jury was returned. At any rate, the statement in the article needs to be corrected so that it makes no claims as to who requested the test if that particular source is going to be used. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: OK I made the correction. The wording is general just like in the source. If the FBI is going to be credited for issuing the test, a different source will need to be cited other than the one currently in the article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, according to a source that Wiki considers spam - it was law enforcement who originally asked for the paternity test, (probably because Casey made the accusation at some time). Baez brought it up at trial and the trial was abruptly stopped, jury removed and the judge said to Baez: You are not to ask questions that may lead to inference that... unless you want to call the law enforcement officer to ask that he specifically asked to have something tested... you may get the results... that's a proper question,” said Judge Perry. Ashton objects to the mention, Baez give two legal precidents to the judge and finally, "After court reconvened, Seubert was allowed to testify that Caylee was not an offspring of Lee according to the DNA test results. If that indeed happen, we may never be able to tell the original source who requestd the test to source it without transcripts of that hearing without the jury and within the trial. It may be mentioned in the taped police interviews but barring all that research, the law enforcement officer could also mean FBI agent Seubert. I think a general mention by a source recpgnized by Wiki is OK since we all heard the answer in the trial that Lee was not Caylee's father. Mugginsx (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

HERE IT IS: Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qIWZIVATz4. Ashton argues to the judge that the "intent" of Baez question about the paternity questions was to throw a negative light on Lee (to shore up Baez opening statements accusations that Casey was sexually abused by father and brother (Lee). Upon resumation of the actual questioning, the FBI forensic agent states that FBI agent Savage asked FBI to look at dna tests of Caylee Anthony to determine if they could ALSO determine paternity. It goes on to say that neither George nor Lee were Caylee's father. That is all I've got right now. Mugginsx (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside: Ashton probably should not have tried to argue a "good faith" issue because in his conversation he says that "no one from the Prosecution asked if the dna could also show paternity. When testimony resumes, if fact "someone DID ask". Since the dna evidence went the Prosecutions way, he would have been better off leaving it for re-direct and just reinforced the dna results. Don't know why he did that. Mugginsx (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Test results

If the paternity test is going to be mentioned in the article, shouldn't the result of the test (as testified to by Seubert) also be mentioned? On a closely related note, Seubert said that the same report showed George wasn't the father (of Caylee) either, but the jury wasn't present when she made that particular statement. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 02:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is one of many sites that show that a regular test of dna can ALSO show incest of either father or brother. http://www.sodahead.com/living/dna-tests-may-reveal-incest-are-they-ethical/question-1513473/?page=7 If the test was done by the FBI I am sure they used the latest dna technology. Prosecution may or may not have known initially that defense was going to accused George and Lee but when Baez made the statement in court, it would have been very easy to go back at the dna for proof of incest. I can't find who ordered it either but my guess is that they are referring to the SAME mitrochronical dna test that I know was done initially to prove the bones were that of "a relative of the mother", in this case Caylee Anthony - and in the process ALSO revealed no incest. . Mitochronical dna is passed down thru the mother. To a technician in the FBI who does dna testing everyday, I would think it would have stuck out like a sore thumb if it showed incest. At some point I would think a dna test would have also been done on father and brother. This may not be much help but Yes, I agree with you that the entire story should be told if mentioned at all. Mugginsx (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As you say, Mitochondrial DNA is passed down thru the mother, so testing it cannot reveal anything about the father. --agr (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, that is why I also said: At some point I would think a dna test would have also been done on father and brother. They would then go back and compare Caylee's dna to see if it shared distinct markers with father and brother.Mugginsx (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is conjecture, but, as they would have taken Casey's dna first (to establish mother/daughter relationship) Casey's dna would also contain Cindy's and George's dna. They may not have had to take George's. If so, that is why Lee's seems to be only mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Since this converstion is in two places I will now respond at above section. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Two good reliable sources

Youtube videos, with exact minute notated are fine to back up text articles. Forums are not WP:RS except occasionally for a reprint of an article not available eslewhere if no one challenges it. So, per good research (which is not a crime :-):

KDSK NBC article 2009 The interviews come one day after a bizarre twist in the Anthony investigation after an allegation surfaced that Casey Anthony's brother, Lee Anthony, tried to pressure his sister to have sex with him. The sordid claim came after rampant rumors on the Internet that Lee Anthony was the biological father of Caylee Anthony. Evidence released earlier in the year showed the FBI found the rumors credible enough to order Lee Anthony to take a paternity test that showed he was not Caylee's father.
ABC News 2011: Baez asked FBI analyst Heather Seubert if she had conducted a paternity test to see if Lee Anthony, Casey Anthony's brother, was the father of Caylee Anthony. The prosecution immediately objected and Judge Belvin Perry quickly sent jurors to lunch. Casey Anthony's father and brother were tested by the FBI to see if they were the father of Caylee, the 2-year-old, Seubert said today. With the jury out of the room, the prosecution and defense argued over the appropriateness of this line of questioning about Caylee's paternity and whether it could continue. Seubert, a DNA analyst at the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Va., told the court that both George Anthony, Casey Anthony's father, and Lee Anthony had been tested and excluded from being Caylee's father.

signed: CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these would be very good back up sources with the video if ThisLaughingGuyRightHere has not already provided one. Perhaps the best one could be added - I would not take out any though. too easy to leave some part of the information uncited. Have done that and personally found it is unwise. (da-n, my tremor is very bad this morning). Three sources better than two? I don't know the answer to that, it is just a suggestion. Can we put all of this in one place so none of us get confused? I know I am. Mugginsx (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK Carol, your first source went to info on Cindy and Zenita when I clicked It. Recheck it. I have found that sometimes sources with same web address move. Maybe that is what happened here. Second source you mentioned looks fine but is not in and of itself complete. Definitely a good third source though. Mugginsx (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is any of this important since it wasn't allowed? Remember just because it's in the news doesn't mean it can and should be in the article. I don't think it should be. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-read the first source and there is a mention. The ABC News ref specifically says the answer - that the paternity test was negative - was in the trial and I have corrected the text. Note that according to Huffington Post what was not mentioned was that George Anthony also took the test. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, why is this important? Per WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion it isn't that important and it also is dancing too close to BLP. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Crohniegal - It was allowed and it is important because Baez made the accusation in opening statements and alluded to in other times in the case. And (to answer above) George was also mentioned. The report is wrong. I listened and watched the tape mentioned above - listen yourself and you will see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qIWZIVATz4 . Crohniegal, as to your other statement I totally agree there is starting to be too much material in the article, some of which could be a BLP issue. If you want to mention anything specifically, I will look and if I agree we can create a new section to discuss it with of course any other editors joining in with specific answers to the specific concerns. OK? Mugginsx (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This statement is not correct, neither in the words of the source nor in what was actually testified to in court. The source indicates that a paternity test was done, which were words spoken by Mr. Baez during his opening statements, but the source does not make the claim that anyone on the defense actually made the request for a paternity test to be conducted. In his opening statements, Baez only says "..it got so bad, the FBI did a paternity test..." to see if Lee was the father. Also, I went back and listened to the testimony of FBI agent Heather Seubert who was questioned by Baez about Lee's test. In her testimony, she indicates she received an inquiry by FBI Special Agent Nick Savage (who sounds like either her supervisor or someone else working on the case). During objections (out of presence of the jury), Ashton makes statements in which it could be inferred that it was Savage who initiated and made the request for a paternity test. Ashton made it clear that no one from the State Attorneys Office nor any law enforcement agency involved in the case (such as the Orange County Sheriff's office) made a request to have a paternity test done on Lee. Baez made no claims that it was him or anyone from the defense that asked for a paternity test (when he was responding to Ashton's objection). Again, it seems as though the paternity test was initiated in-house by Savage. The Judge told Baez that if he wanted to ask who it was that requested the test, he (Baez) would need to call Savage to the stand - Savage was never called - in order to allow that question to be asked (and answered) in front of the jury. The objection was settled and the Judge ruled that Baez could not ask Seubert who it was that made the request for a paternity test. Baez, in complying with the Judge's ruling, only asked Seubert if a paternity test had been done, but did not ask who made the inquiry for the test. I see that someone has again returned the article to make the claim that the defense issued the test. The paternity test, again, was not issued by the defense. Again that statement will need to be corrected in the article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 16:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who knows the evidence at what actually happened pre and at trial better than you. If it is incorrect, I agree you should change it. You are also correct that (as Judge Perry said many times at the trial) "what the lawyers say is not evidence". Opening statements are notoriously slanted and, as far as the Defense goes, are often downright concoted lies designed to stick a thought in the jurors mind without having to back them up. Mugginsx (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

First, mea culpa in not putting my edit in the Witness section. Second, I can't tell who put it back but it needs to be put in the right place with correct info. Is this correct in your view?

The defense asked an FBI analyst about the paternity test the FBI conducted to see if Lee was Caylee's father. She told the jury the test had come back negative.REf: Jessica Hopper, Casey Anthony Trial: Defense Casts Shadow on Heart Stickers Found With Caylee's Remains , ABC News, June 16, 2011. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that I touched that particular edit so I will let ThisLaughingGuyRightHere comment.

Hi Carol. Yes, that is correct to me. Although that is for witness testimony, not a source for opening statements. If you have another source for opening statements which credits the issuance of the test, then it can be used there. Otherwise, again the words in the opening statements need to be general like the source cited. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 17:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Read my "mea culpa - I did leave it in wrong place. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ROY KRONK

Will the editor please stop taking out Roy Kronk's name out of the article. He is one of the more important players in the story of Caylee Anthony since it was he that found the remains and reported it. It is NOT a NPOV issue. These facts are not is dispute. There is no controversey about those facts. It was testified to in Court by Roy Kronk and law enforcement. There is nothing there that half the U.S. does not know. Roy Kronk found the skeletal remains of Caylee Anthony after repeatedly reporting what looked like a skeleton in the wooded area. It is factual and there is nothing that even remotely applies to NPOV in it. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not including the name doesn't hinder the context of the article. I think, in the spirit of WP:BLPNAME, it might be best to leave his name out of the article. Chickenmonkey 01:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But Chickenmonkey, if you watched the trial, he was a major player. There wasn't any controversy about him. Also, he seemed to love the publicity. As you know there are many names in the article of persons less important than him. If it were not for his persistence, (because the police didn't take him seriously at first because of all of the crank calls they were getting) they might still be looking, and an even worst thought yet, poor caylee might still be those woods. Even if the entire trial was taken out of this article, I think it would still be appropriate to at least mention his name. Think about it that way won't you? Mugginsx (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think mentioning his name either helps or hinders this article. That's all I was saying. It doesn't really matter. Chickenmonkey 02:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand you. Mugginsx (talk)

It doesnt hinder the article by leaving his name out so long as the integrity of the crime scene is not questioned in the article. It sounds like, in the matter of future additions by another editor, the crime scene integrity will be referenced as it was mentioned by the defense, in which case he will certainly be brought up. The way the article reads now, I would agree it neither helps nor hinders by giving his specific name, but again, it sounds like the article isn't going to stay this way. I need to review Kronk testimony...by the way if the article is going to suggest that his repeat attempts at calling in the remains were anything to do with money or fame, it should also be mentioned, in all fairness, that the responding deputy who dismissed Kronk's efforts and "chewed out" Kronk was actually fired from his job due to the way he (mis)treated Kronk. That wasn't brought up in the trial but it's another addition I wouldn't mind seeing. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere: As to whether "his repeated attempts were about the reward money" So what if he wanted the reward? So would everyone else except perhaps a rich person. We cannot know his mind and therefore we cannot know his motivation. The defense called him as a witness and them "Ambused" him with those motivations, as well as other presumed character defects. These are unknowable accusations by the Defense, again, doing their job of deflecting guilt upon their client. We cannot print his motivation "because it is unknowable". We might think, we might presume, but we do not know. What we do know is that he found the remains, and called police numerous times before he was taken seriously. His buddied corroborated much of his testimony. What he did or did not tell his son and his son's testimony is meaningless and was put forth for same reason I indicated. Mugginsx (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Roy Kronk was a defense witness. Here is what I could find on his testimony, police phone calls, etc.:

ROY KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ppeBMx3uuY MELIK AND KRONK

ROY KRONK POLICE INTERVIEW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related

CO-WORKER OF ROY KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq5XvmfP_1w&feature=related another police call by roy kronk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f7S21U7TbQ BITS AND PIECES OF ROY KRONK

OFFICER ON THE SCENE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NvWDWjfoag&NR=1

UNCUT 911 call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCNIG-DKXcY&NR=1

Mugginsx (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Kronk was one of the main three or four points in Baez opening (which WP:RS will show if current ones do not) besides drowning and bad prosecutorial forensics. So again he's part of the case, even if one of the weaker links. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Cutting Nancy Grace response

While we're on the topic of what to cut, especially WP:Undue (and I've barely begun to look at all of that), the article currently reads:

Mason's response was especially viewed as critical of Nancy Grace, whose news program is cited as having "almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession".[ref name="yahoo.com"]ref2 Grace responded, "What does he care about what pundits are saying?" She stated that she imagines she has tried and covered as many cases as Mason, and criticized the defense attorneys for delivering media criticism before mentioning Caylee's name in their post-verdict news conference. "Caylee's death is now just a blip on the screen", she said. "It didn't mean anything. It didn't amount to a hill of beans." Grace stated that "[T]here is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth."<

[ref name="yahoo.com"/] That's one sentence for criticism and five sentences for her response. (And the names of other Grace blamers might be mentioned.) Definitely WP:Undue making the case that the verdict was BS. Let's cut it down to about 30 words, whichever you choose. Or I'll go with the first sentence and the last one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Too much in that entire area. A good place to start "cutting". We can put more simple, brief sentences in. I think we should start asking ourselves (myself included) WHO is important to the story of the Death of Caylee Anthony and who is just important to the trial of Casey Anthony. A fine distinction to be sure but not impossible to discern. Mugginsx (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism of Grace is important and was made by more than one source. It's the amount given her response that is a problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you about Nancy Grace if you are saying her response is too long, but I would go one giant step farther. Everyone's response is too long!. Mugginsx (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Nancy Grace response should be cut completely. Mason was partly responding to her, which is clear to even Grace, especially since she is the one who "put this case on the map". If we are going to include Mason's response, which I feel that we should, then we should include criticism of that response. Carol goes on about "one sentence for criticism and five sentences for her response," when, in actuality, Mason's statement counts as criticism against Grace as well. Why should Grace's response be significantly whittled down, while Mason's bashing stays perfectly intact? WP:UNDUE because so many already think Casey Anthony is guilty? Uh, again, that's not something we can help. And it's certainly no surprise that Grace disagrees with the verdict. That said, I will go ahead and whittle down Grace's response.

But let me say this: All I see Carol is you defending anything by the defense, while trying to battle anything by the prosecution or anything supporting the prosecution. You should also stop demanding things be done to this article, as if you are giving us a "do this or I'll do it" warning. Such a warning doesn't faze me at all, because I will simply revert you and let you take it to some noticeboard or something, which is your way more than discussing on the talk page.

As for who is important to the Death of Caylee Anthony and who is just important to the trial of Casey Anthony, it's not easy to make that distinction, which is why I never had a problem with either title. The two topics are intricately, substantially linked. Furthermore, I don't see how or why anything needs to be cut from this article. Why do I have to keep reminding people of WP:SIZE?. Look it over, really. This article is not "too big." If you all would downsize some of those unneeded headings and extra references, which add more to the article, then perhaps this would be clear. Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I cut it down to this, which more than suffices. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably at least one quote from her would be nice, but whatever. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mason's further comments

While we're on the topic of post-trial reactions...Mason was at some local community gathering called the Tiger Bay Club meeting or something like that and he stated that he was surprised at the verdict (meaning he thought she would be convicted). Shouldn't that be added if we are mentioning his other post-trial comments? Also, there is a video on youtube of him making comments about the trial before he became part of the defense team. In those comments he talks somewhat poorly about the upcoming trial. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 16:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, since there is no more problem with article size, why not? Mugginsx (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a short video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LpF35AVhYA ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 17:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am very suprised he said those things. Going to look for the longer version if availble. That is interesting

Here's a short article, in the last paragraph: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/07/casey-anthony-how-bad-do-abc-cbs-and-nbc-want-interview.html ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 17:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the pre-trial comments before he joins the defense team where he is saying he won't know if she was murdered until he reads the medical examiner's conclusion and then also makes further pessimistic remarks at the end of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2G0OszXEk&feature=related ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 17:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, but the sections under the title During and after the trial are exactly about that. Should we include Mason's comments before the trial there? How is it relevant to include? The article not truly being too big doesn't mean we should let loose and add everything concerning this case, LOL. If ThisLaughingGuyRightHere can find some relevant way to blend it, however, I won't object...as long as it's not too much. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the full "recent" speech of Cheney Mason at Tiger Bay Club:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BZK2KL5BtQ Mugginsx (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but not important enough to add. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. I don't care if it's not added. It suggests to me that Mason didn't believe his client and thus the defense's case was insincere. The same goes for the 3 psychological evaluations the defense requested Casey be given, as well as in closing arguments when they said they didnt have the burden to prove anything, almost to make an excuse like saying 'if you can see what we are saying doesn't add up, then don't worry because we are the defense, and the defense is allowed to not make sense'...anyway, if it's too much, then leave it out...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: I found the Jury Foreman "anonymous" interview video with Greta Van Susteran. He does not make all of the statements that the article attributed to him (in this particular interview). He does seem to say them in your one of the references. I'm not saying he never said them, only that they are not all here. He does talk about the distrust of George but I don't hear him mention the remarks about "putting his signature on the same page as Casey", etc. Listen yourself and see what you hear. OK, I hear it on one of your video references. http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/juror-11-the-foreman-speaks-out-on-the-record-cheney-mason/ Mugginsx (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This LaughingGuyRightHere Why don't you put Mason's recent comments at the Tiger Bay Club in? I put the full speech in video above and there are numerous second sources. It is not any one editor's decision as to what or what not goes in. And as to what Flyer stated, she had concerns about the earlier video not the recent one. Here is the address again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BZK2KL5BtQ . It is no less important than the other comments. He was the lead in the Defense Team. If you do not want to put it in, I will. Mugginsx (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mugginsx. I believe Baez was lead for the Defense. Ok I will take a look at those videos...yes we have got too many videos going on, I've lost track which one we are talking about. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did too initially, but I have seen different articles which say either one of them was the lead. Anyway, it is not important but the point I wanted to make was that I am getting sick and tired of people telling other people what they can and cannot put in an article and "balancing" an article, etc. etc. and is and is not important. There are no experts here, myself included. I do think I am the only one with criminal legal experience and no one will convince me differently. There may another editor who did, but he is no longer editing on this article. The only thing that I fought hard for were BLP issues because I do believe there was a legal problem there and still do but I did not achieve consensus and I always obey consensus, whether or not I feel it is right or wrong. I am not worried because I will not be touching those edits. I repeat, they is no room for one editor to tell another editor what they can or cannot put in this article or any other article. They can rant and rave their cause on the Talk Page and seek consensus but that is all. I would appreciate it if a certain editor would stop commenting on how important or not important they themselves think an edit is. They don't know anymore than the rest of us. Mugginsx (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, interesting. Well if you want to add it then that's fine by me...ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(repeated below) No, I don't care about adding them, I am encouraging you to because they are important. Mugginsx (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, added. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

good article status

I think we have to start to look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria in relationship to this article. One of the problems, as I perceive the criteria, is that this article is too long - particulary in the media sections. Wikipedia:Good article criteria Section: What is a good article? subsection 3. Broad in its coverage: states that: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". It then presents a link to Wikipedia:Summary style which I think describes what has happened here. With all good intentions, articles tend to grow too big. At some point they have to be trimmed. It is almost evitable. I think we should have a discussion here on this topic and reach a CONSENSUS over what material is really unncessary to the article, particular in the media section which, it seems to me, is the best place to go. Comments please. Mugginsx (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the largest section so it makes sense to consider it first. I think the paragraph that starts "Around the time the verdict..." can be mostly removed. It mentions a lot of statistics but I think all those numbers can overload the reader with so much data. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Has the shark frenzy of this article dissipated? I was expecting a torrent of comments on this topic. I would like to commend Flyer, by the way, for the mountainous amount of work she has put into this article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 22:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the shark frenzy expected, me, too. (smile). As to Flyer, definitely did a tremendous amount of work of this article and all of it good quality, in my humble opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. I appreciate that. However, could we not even consider GA status right now, as was decided not too long ago at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 7#Article not yet ready for Good article (GA) status? This article is not close to ready for GA status, nor is it too big for GA status. Keep WP:SIZE in mind. This article looks so much bigger than it is because of the subsections, which is another reason I am against unnecessary subsection headings. I hate when articles are made to look bigger than they are. There are far bigger articles than this that have GA or FA (Featured Article) status. Avatar (2009 film), one of the articles I helped get to GA status, is one example. I kept warning people that the article was too big over and over again, but that still didn't keep it from GA status (even with the GA reviewer saying "too big"), and thus everything in it has been deemed relevant or needed (or both).

For this article, most of everything in the Public and media reactions section is relevant and needed, in my opinion, because it adequately summarizes the reactions to this case. Of course it is going to be a healthy section, considering all the reactions and the significant ones that should be covered. It's only eight paragraphs long, not much longer than what is in the Defense, prosecution, and jury section. But as for the paragraph about the case "breaking the Internet." While I did not add that paragraph and have debated trimming that information, surely that the case "broke the Internet" should be mentioned. But, yes, trimming. I don't mind that paragraph being trimmed at all, and am quite fine leaving that task to ThisLaughingGuyRightHere. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I cut down on the "Internet effect" information. The section is now only seven paragraphs.[1][2] Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Article size

I went to Wikipedia:Article size This is what I found there: It mentions but does not define, article saturation. It mentions, but does not define, redundancy. It also states under A rule of thumb, as to article size (as I read it) becomes controversial somewhere between 40 and 50 KB. I don’t know how to determine that. It seems to me that particularly when we get to the media section, there is undue weight and redundancy. That is all I am trying to say. It becomes an article about the trial of casey anthony and not the Death of Caylee Anthony. Also, it does not conform with the length of the articles I have mentioned before, O. J. Simpson murder case, Susan Smith trial, Andrea Yates trial and David Westerfield trial. All but one are child murder cases. If no one agrees, that's fine. Also, in my opinion, at some point the debate as to the title will almost certainly come up again. I agree with Flyer that I don't care either, and, at this point I am more inclined to the "trial" name. It seems that some editors want it both ways, to keep the title but to make it an article about the trial. I don't think that is going to go away. A separate issue anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the other issue. as many editors, including myself, have said before, you cannot artificially make every fact and comment and section even. I agree again with Flyer that if this goes to noticeboard I will vote against making a section "artificially balanced." This has come up roughly six times before that I can see and always by the same editor. So far, no other editor has agreed with that one editor Mugginsx (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And now, I am going to take my own advice, and not bring up the size of the article again. If it meets the criteria, it meets the criteria. I can't really tell. Mugginsx (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, my point is how does the trial have nothing to do with the death of Caylee Anthony? This is what I don't get about the argument over the title. Both are substantially, intricately linked. There is no way to discuss one without the other. And, yes, the current title was kept so that editors could have it both ways -- the article being about both the death and the trial. The article is more about the trial because there is very little to say about the death of Caylee Anthony itself...unless you count all the debate from the prosecution and defense about the way she died (which, again, shows just how much the trial has to do with her death). Not to mention, all the uproar over her death has mostly come from the trial and its verdict. To me, there is no WP:UNDUE or much redundancy in the Public and media reactions section, since it goes over different aspects as to why America was so fascinated with this case. All of those things are important to mention, in my opinion, though I agree with cutting down the information about its Internet effect. And, yes, the sections following it also speak of the trial and verdict, but that is unavoidable. As for not conforming to the size of other trial articles, that is also understandable...seeing as this case was much bigger than all of those except the O. J. Simpson murder case. The O. J. Simpson murder case article would be bigger if someone would take the time to significantly expand it. I pointed this out before, but look at how big the Avatar (2009 film) article is. It is the biggest film article on Wikipedia, understandably so since the film is the highest-grossing film ever, and it is of GA status. It's twice (maybe more than twice) as big as this article. This article only looks big due to all the unneeded subheadings and extra references. But as for determining the size of articles, that used to be able to be determined at the top of these articles when they were opened up. Not too long ago, really. I don't know why Wikipedia got rid of that feature (I'll have to look into it). However, WP:SIZE does currently say: "You can find the size of a page including the markup in kilobytes [kb] from the page history, and its size in words from search (button) results including the references. In most cases these are not reliable indications on their own of whether an article should be split."

Though I do believe that unneeded references should be cut, since they add to article size, determining an article's size should not include references and external links. For more on what I mean on that, this is what editor Tvoz once stated at the 2011 Tucson shooting article talk page: This article is not overly long - the relevant size measure is readable prose, not total number of K... There's no justification for cutting out a random percentage - what is that suggestion based on? Having too many sources is also really not a valid argument - a good edit would preserve the variety of sources, just not reference each and every point with each and every source. But retain the variety of sources, as that makes for a richer article. But I don't see what the grievance is here, and I don't agree that the piece should be cut down in such a drastic manner... There is no rush. And I totally disagree that we need to decide now whether we want an article "packed with details" or not - this is an organic process, and I've never seen decisions made in advance of events as to how they are going to be handled. We evaluate the situation at hand, see how editors write it, see what sources are available and what they say, and go from there. Not a pre-emptive "decision" as to how the article should be written. No policy or precedent for this that I know of, as several editors above have also pointed out." That is part of what I mean about article size. Article size should technically be based on readable prose, and I'm quite certain that the readable prose of this article is not too big. Even including the references, I'm sure it's not "too big." I'm familiar with "too big" articles, and this is not one of them. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: I went to your source and turned out to agree with you. I said I am not going to bring it up again and I'm not. You bring up good points and I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I have looked too for policy precedents and have not found them. As you know I do not go against consensus even if it is defacto consensus, in other words, no one agreeing with me. (smile) We do not have a problem anymore about article size. It seems I was completely wrong. I could have sworn that I read something somewhere about it but it must have been in my imagination because it is obviously not anywhere I looked. Mugginsx (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There definitely are a lot of junk references, including for not very important info. I've been taking some out of a section for another use and really it's a matter of just going through and doing the work for this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I cut down on the "Internet effect" information.[3][4] Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Psyche evals

Since I brought it up, I might as well ask, does anyone see any relevance in mentioning the defense requested a psychological evaluation of Casey to determine if she was competent to stand trial (which took place near the end of the trial, oddly enough)? ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Put it in. If another editor challenges it let them put it here on the Talk Page and give the reason. Flyer has shown where space is no problem. There is no reason why you cannot put it in. It was significant in the trial. If you have the dates, it would be good and I know you know your trial reseach, probably better than most or all of us, so I am not worried. Mugginsx (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll look at blending it....ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As to Mason's recent remarks, put them in. It is seldom that you see a Defense lawyer give provacative comments of his client. Mugginsx (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't care about adding them, I am encouraging you to because you think they are important and I agree. Mugginsx (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I wanted to see if other people agreed in order to have consensus. Yes I think it was pretty big...the Judge stopped the trial to have the evals done...of course it is WP:OR because all my posts are just from my knowledge and memory about the case. I'd have to dig up the actual date and motion, etc.. I can say now (again only from memory) that the evaluation results were sealed, so we don't know what mental problems (if any) were discovered in the process of the evals. So I guess I'll look for the motion in case others agree. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

edit 2: OK I see the motion. Here's the link: http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0627/28372398.pdf ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. Do not worry about consensus for everything. It is only when they are multiple or strong objections that you have to worry about consensus. Trust youself because you have good sense about what is important and are extremely good at finding documents, videos and other kinds of references! You seem to have a natural gift for it and I'm not just saying that to make you feel good. I had to go offline for awhile because I was getting too upset.Mugginsx (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I would say the same of you. Glad to see you back. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I found this on the Tiger Bay Club. I guess there are many. http://www.tigerbayclub.com/ Mugginsx (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, i have to go again. My dog has chewed off her bandages on her paw three times today. I am going to have to give her something to calm her down and make her a little groggy so she will leave them alone. Mugginsx (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is all peripheral stuff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Casey said to her lawyers must've made them think she was "off her rocker" (i.e. couldn't believe what she was saying) and so they stopped the trial and requested the psyche evals. It sounds pretty central to me, and at an unconventional point for such a test... ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 05:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hardly peripheral. There is a mystery about those psych evals. What was the Defense really trying to do? Was Mason afraid they were losing and tried a last minute change to an "incompetency plea"? Was there a plea deal asked for but denied behind closed doors? Might be hard to find out exact reason but there is no doubt it occurred at trial. I also saw it. As ThisLaughingGuyRightHere found, Mason, in one of his post-trial "speeches", expressed that he had a fear of losing during the trial. That is why Mason's speech and the psych eval make one wonder. There could be a connection there, but, though both facts are valid and provable in and of themselves, we may never make that nexus between the two since there (again) may be no "public" record of the discussion.http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nexus/ In other words BOTH statements are significant and can be used in the article. What do you think ThisLaughingGuyRightHere? Smell "fishy" to you? "...curiouser and curiouser". [User:Mugginsx|Mugginsx]] (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Some possible BLP issues

I think we have to start to look at some of the names of people in this article. The specific policy is at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Presumption in favor of privacy. One of the items that trouble me is found at: Publicity and aftermath - Before the trial. It states: Rusciano, a rookie Orange County deputy, was fired for lying about his sexual relationship with Casey Anthony. It is referenced to a WebBlog but that is not my concern. This man could sue and state that the ongoing publicity in this Wikipedia article is keeping him from getting a job. Even though it may be true, (the edit) we do not have any actual proof that he was fired because of his lie. We do not have his POLICE PERSONNEL RECORD. It may say something different even if what is said here is true! I think, very strongly, it should go and I hope it does not offend the editor who put it in. I have been edited here many times. It is not personal. I am going to be WP:BOLD and take it out on BLP reasons specifically stated here. Mugginsx (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also took out what Jennifer Ford said about what the other jurors said: . She said that the jurors were "sick to their stomachs" over the decision to deliver a "Not Guilty" verdict and that it overwhelmed them to the point where they did not want to talk to reporters afterwards . As I put in my edit summary: Let this juror speak for herself only - BLP issue on what SHE said THEY said. Suppose she or they deny it later? How can we prove it? Suppose they are attacked because some Nutcase read this here at some point in the future and she decides to SUE Wiki editors? We do not have same LEGAL protections that NEWSPAPERS, AND MEDIA does. They are unique to them and do NOT protect us. She may not be able to sue a newspaper or media person but she CAN sue us. It may be a remote possibility but it is a possibility. That is why there is WP:legal and WP:BLP. To protect US. I do not feel like getting sued over what some juror said that jurors said to her. Mugginsx (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is one thing to talk about famous persons, even though they can and do sue, but it is very risky when you are talking about everyday people that just happened to get caught up in some way with this case and have lives to live and people to support after the case is over. As time goes by, more people will look at sources such as Wikipedia for information on this trial and there will much more scrutiny as to the information contained herein - that is why we have to be careful. Mugginsx (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both removals. In the first case, if Rusciano was critical to the case and there were clear WP:RS on his role, it would not be a BLP issue. Here's it's more an irrelevance issue. Ford is talking about what other juror's think, and that is problematic. What she herself thinks is relevant, as long as not WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I only took out only what she said they said so I didn't just undo the edit. If I am understanding you correctly? Mugginsx (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I also took out what the Jury foreman is supposed to have said. My God - he could easily be sued by the Anthony family for these statements to the media and newspapers since what he said was not in court and is not "legally protected" as court testimony and lawyers statements are. THAT CANNOT STAY IN. By God, I'll bet their attorneys tell them to sue over that. Mugginsx (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, that is fine. Thought I just removed what she said they said, didn't I? If not, I am sorry. That was not my intent.

I disagree with the removal of Jennifer Ford's statement about what the jury felt, and have changed it to this. I don't get "BLP violation" from her saying the jury felt "sick to their stomachs" at all. It's no different than any of the jurors explaining how the jury arrived at their decision. The Jury Foreman, for example, expresses that the jury had a suspicion of both Casey and George Anthony. That should be removed? I think not. The jurors are of course going to discuss other jurors in how the jury arrived at their decision. It's not pretty, obviously. And the jury seems to be pretty unanimous that they did not believe Casey Anthony to be innocent. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, as you know, I very seldom disagree with you but the Foreman was not a juror. He does not have the same legal protections. His statements are slanderous and liableous against the Anthony family. They were not said in court and they were said in PUBLIC. We should not and cannot repeat them here. We would become a BIG target for the Anthony family and judging their behavior, I would not want to be in their "gunsite". Mugginsx (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason took out my final BLP concern - under The Anthony Family - what jail spokesman or Anthony lawyer said Casey said about cutting off all ties, etc., why she did not allow visit, etc. Do not trust Casey's supposed statements, or what Anthony's lawyer said Anthony family said about "cutting off all ties". Anthony family has numerous times changed their statements both at trial and in newspapers, etc. Left in the ONLY factual statement (that we know of) in the sentence, i.e., that the visit did not take place. Mugginsx (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you defending this? I don't understand. Just because an article is referenced does not mean it is true and you know that Flyer. Think about it. I am not trying to personally attack any particular editor. I have no idea who put that in but, in my legal opinion, and according to BLP rules, it has to go for the reasons I have stated. You say "And the jury seems to be pretty unanimous that they did not believe Casey Anthony to be innocent.". But that is not what is said here. It is giving a quote of what one juror said other jurors say. What other jurors say on there own is FINE with reference.

I see your edit Flyer on the juror and it is probably fine the way it is now stated. But, we do not want to repeat "heresay". What the jurors say on their own about Casey's guilt or innocence or the verdict in general themselves is fine. Mugginsx (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the BLP noticeboard and alert us of that here if you feel that us relaying how the jury say they arrived at their decision is a BLP issue. I do not see it that way, which is why I reverted. I added on to the information about the Jury Foreman, but I don't think I added the original material. I'd have to check in the edit history. But in any case, all of what the Jury Foreman stated should not have been cut. He is not repeating what was stated by the defense. He is explaining how he and the jury reached their decision. How they did so is not positive, but that's life. And as for him not being a juror, "A head juror is called the 'foreman' or 'presiding juror.' The foreman is often chosen before the trial begins or upon the beginning of deliberations. The role of the foreman is to ask questions on behalf of the jury, facilitate jury discussions, and sometimes to read the verdict of the jury." He was a part of the jury, as far as I can see. You say "what other jurors say on their own" is FINE with reference. I say exactly. We can report what other jurors say of how they arrived at a verdict, and that includes them saying "the jury felt this way or that." Other jurors are not denying what Jennifer Ford stated, for example. If they were, then I could see your point. Saying "I reached this decision because the jury felt this way" is not a BLP violation.

I also don't see how relaying what spokesman Allen Moore or the Anthonys attorney said about Casey Anthony not wanting visits from her parents is a BLP issue. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the fact that she will not see her parents is irrelevant unless it is directly shown to be related to Caylee's death and there is a good source, for example "Casey told NBC news she cannot see her mother for legal reasons related to the death of Caylee." (Which probably is what it is about, if she intends to eventually accuse George of sexual abuse and/or implicate George in covering up the death, per defense comments. However, this just sits there like, "Oh, that horrible Casey, how mean she is to her mother.")
First, I haven't studied juror's much and don't know how many have commented publicly. The juror's statement on George, while rather long, is certainly relevant to what he thinks. Also, I saw an interview with a female juror who also went on at length about how she (and perhaps others) didn't trust George. I think there's a difference between saying "Jurors were disgusted" which is a personal summary of feelings and "jurors said they didn't trust George" - especially when you have two jurors say they didn't trust George. I don't think we should run straight to BLP before straightening out how many jurors have said what to press. But not something I'm dealing with right now, one way or other. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Flyer: Are you really going to make me take the Foreman's remarks to a noticeboard? Will you please read them over one more time and look up slander (defamation) and libel (Links to the same although in the case of libel it must be in print somewhere - like Wikipedia) and please let me know your final decision. As to what Allen says it would be fine EXCEPT he is saying what they )the Anthony family) is saying. We are repeating something we really do not know is true. We only know that the attorney, etc., said it was true. That extends the legal liability to us. What if the family all gets warm and fuzzy again. What will be their attitude towards these comments then? Look how many times Cindy, George and Lee have gone back and forth about how they feel about Casey and what they think Casey meant by what statement, etc. etc. etc.) Perhaps I am not explaining it well. I am retired and a little rusty it is true, but I what I am saying about the Jury foreman's statements goes far beyond the pale of whether he thought she was guilty or innocent. As to what slander, defamation or liable (since it was also put in print by newspapers and now US in Wikipedia), I will say what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about "obscenity", "I know it when I see it". As yes, the Foreman is a juror of course. My apoligies on that mistatement. Mugginsx (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest before any extra remarks made about George, or anyone else by jurors are put into this article, you also study the defamation definition. It does apply to us if we repeat it. It really does. Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree the remarks about whether Casey would or would not see her parents after trial is irrelevant to the Death of Caylee Anthony. We are going wide and far beyond the Scope of this article and there will certainly be a name change if it continues, if not an argument to delete. That is my guess.

Carolmooredc, I don't feel that the fact that Casey Anthony will not see her parents is irrelevant, considering that it has to do with the aftermath of the death of Caylee Anthony. It is directly related to the section titled The Anthony family.

I obviously agree that the Jury Foreman's statements should stay, per above. Though I still don't see much of a difference in saying "jurors were disgusted" vs. the "jurors didn't trust Casey or George," since this has been stated by more than one juror. Ford says "sick to their stomachs." Foreman says "disgusted." Not much of a difference. They are only relaying how they reached the verdict.

Mugginsx, I am not making you take anything to the noticeboard. I said you can if you feel this is a violation. I don't feel that it is, per what I stated above. Also see what Carol stated about the Foreman's statements. You also corrected yourself on him being a juror. As for Allen Moore, the jail spokesman, all he is saying is that Casey Anthony was told of the visit and she declined the visit, and that Cindy Anthony would be notified of her daughter's decision. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, it is NOT defacto a BLP violation for us to repeat things that were reported by Multiple WP:RS. The only question is is it relevant, and obviously if not trusting George was a big reason she was acquitted, that's relevant.

Here’s just a small part of what I heard that Jennifer Ford said: She added that she thought Casey Anthony's father, George Anthony, was "dishonest." "I don't know if he had anything to do with it, but I think that he was there..." This from Mary Kate Burke, Jessica Hopper, Casey Anthony Juror: 'Sick to Our Stomachs' Over Not Guilty Verdict, ABC News, July 6, 2011. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: The thought of doing so is very distressing to me because we almost always agree. I think, perhaps, I will try to explain myself better. I will do more research and come back to it but what I want to say right now is this: Repeating a slanderous or libelous does NOT protect us because we are "saying" it again. If someone calls someone else a liar, thief, or a terrible mother, it is one thing - THEIR BUSINESS, THEIR LEGAL VULNERABILITY, but when we repeat here in print for millions of people to read, it makes US vulnerable. AN EXAMPLE: If a fellow worker at your job publicly tell people that one of your co-workers is any of the above things, they are legally vulnerable. If I am a co-worker and go and repeat it to millions of people, than I am legally vulnerable. It becomes my problem. Does that make sense to you? Mugginsx (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that it was said. I know it was said. please see above to Flyer. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Flyer; As to the first edit I made, it says more than that. It states: Mark Lippman told Reuters during the trial that Casey had cut off communication with her parents.[146] And how about giving me a break about the juror mistake. I don't know why I said that, it was stupid and I wasn't paying attention but it really doesn't matter if it was said by a juror or not. I don't know of any law that exempts jurors by being sued for the above. Maybe there is but that still would not affect us. As I said I will research it further. Mugginsx (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: Hey look here! I just starting researching and look what I found! http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/tag/dog-the-bounty-hunter/ AND EVEN MORE TO THE POINT LOOK HERE: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm It states: Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page'As noted in Hird v. Wood, it's been long-established that you cannot "point" readers to a defamation without sharing in the responsibility. This is especially important where the statute of limitations on a libelous web page has expired (often as little as 90 days). While the victim may not be able to file charges against the original publisher, they do have a cause of action against those who repeat the libel via hyperlinking to the false content. Also, bloggers are now being considered journalists and they now have the same fact-checking requirements as any other publisher, so ignorance of the law is not an excuse. We see this reflected in mainstream publishing where blogger Insurance now required for any responsible publisher'.Mugginsx (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I'm going by what is acceptable on Wikipedia. And I believe that it is not a BLP violation to include the fact that one of the main reasons the jury acquitted Casey Anthony is because they did not trust George Anthony. More than one juror has stated that. More than one juror has stated they did not believe Casey Anthony to be innocent. And those two views should be included, as reasons why the jury voted the way they did. The Jury Foreman is simply relaying why he and the jurors reached the decision they did. You call it slanderous and libelous, when all he is saying is that he and the jury did not find Casey or George Anthony believable. I'm not getting how that should be excluded. That section is about why the jurors voted the way they did. Well, this is why, as stated by more than one juror. Maybe a bit of what the Jury Foreman stated can be trimmed, and I'm open to you suggesting a trim of a sentence or two, but the fact that he and the jurors were suspicious of both Casey and George Anthony should remain. He is responsible for asking questions on behalf of the jury and facilitating jury discussions, so it is not at all as though he is not credible in relaying why and how the jury reached their decision.

And I know what Mark Lippman said. I feel it's relevant to include information that Casey Anthony has yet to contact her parents since the trial. It's in a section about the aftermath of the death of Caylee Anthony. And in the aftermath, Casey Antony has yet to speak to her parents. Seems relevant to me. I would be okay with Lippman's remark being removed...if we replaced it with something along the same line. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia BLP policy is Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard, instead of relying on the exemption. You are now in an edit war over this Mugginsx. To avoid a report, revert it and take it to BLP board. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I have to go the other way. I feel that strongly about the Foreman's words. I am going to first ask an administrator to look at it. Mugginsx (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking administrators does not replace the BLP board. I'm going to tweak it and add Jennifer Ford tomorrow. Don't revert it without going to the BLP board. Note that there is a LOAD of evidence and dubious responses reported regarding George that are not in this article that clearly makes these comments not just some off the wall defamation, but reasoned opinion. And we haven't even gotten around to including Krystal Holloway who the judge said the jury could look at to determine George's honesty. Added later: Per CFNews13: After Holloway left the courtroom, Perry instructed the jury that it should only use the witness' testimony regarding George's statements to her to discern whether or not they believe George's previous testimony, and not as a basis for their verdict for Casey.CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Judge determined (to repeat myself for about the 10th time) that Krystals statement were "prior inconsistent statements" and directed the jury to ignore them). That is criminal law throughout the country. Mugginsx (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

An administrator's opinion is no more valid than ours. If he or she agrees with you, it must still be taken to the wider community to solve this content dispute, since two editors disagree with you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, I don't know but I dislike noticeboards unless unavoidable. Mugginsx (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I never cherry-pick administrators. I picked him because of his intelligence and kindness. As a matter of fact this administrator did not totally agree with me on another article so please do not make such accusations. It is untrue and unkind. What makes you say things like that? Really. Mugginsx (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, Jennifer Ford saying "I don't know if he had anything to do with it, but I think that he was there..." is not needed, since her belief is covered by the Jury Foreman's statements. To add hers on to that would be overkill and somewhat WP:UNDUE. I'm fine with you adding her as a backup reference to what the Foreman states, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We are currently misquoting Ford here. She did not say she was sick to her stomach; we can't change the nature of a quote to say something we think it should say. To that end, she did not say the jury was sick to their stomach over the decision to deliver a "not guilty" verdict; she said, "Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away. It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying, and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial." Our documentation of what she said is currently, largely conjecture and should be fixed to accurately represent what was said, or it should be removed. Chickenmonkey 20:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

He is from the UK and has not made an edit since Friday. It can wait. The reason I do not like noticeboards are because they tend to become nasty and confrontational. Flyer is someone I admire and usually agree with. But some things are really important and personally, I do not want to even take a slight chance that I will be sued or that this article will be summarily deleted by some heavy handed people as sometimes, not often, but sometimes happens. I think I am through for the day. I'll look in but there is a four or five hour time difference in the summer four in other months. I look in later. Mugginsx (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Chickenmonkey will look at my websites and WP:BLP info and give an opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey, we are still accurately saying she was "sick to her stomach" if she said "we were sick to our stomachs." Not to mention, other sources have attributed her as saying "I was sick to my stomach." That said, I'm okay with changing it back to reflect that she was talking about more than just herself, since, with the current sources, I suppose it can be argued as misquoting. But how is saying "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict" any different than saying "the jury was 'sick to their stomachs' over the decision to deliver a 'not guilty' verdict"? The ABC source even interpreted it the same way, with their title "Casey Anthony Juror: 'Sick to Our Stomachs' Over Not Guilty Verdict."

Mugginsx, will you accept a compromise -- cutting a bit of what the Jury Foreman stated about George? Because like I stated, the fact that one of the main reasons the jury reached their decision is because they did not trust George Anthony belongs in this article. You even argued that what the jurors believe themselves, without speaking for others, can be mentioned. And in that case, I'm not seeing why you removed all of what the Jury Foreman stated. Including his belief is just as valid as including the others, possibly even more so because he was the lead juror. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, if we put any of his remarks in and then LINK to the site where he says the defamatory remarks we are still vulnerable. See above where the legal website says http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page. Those are not MY words. They go with the link and are repeated within the webpage. Mugginsx (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I don't know what else to say to you about this, except to take it to the BLP Noticeboard. Maybe Carol or I should, because I will not agree that jurors saying their distrust of George Anthony factored into their decision is something that should be excluded, any more than I would agree that we should exclude their comments on not believing Casey Anthony. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just wait until Monday? Nothing is being done with it now anyway. If I'm wrong you won't have to do a thing. It's up to you but let me know how long I have to stay up today if you don't mind. Mugginsx (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, saying "the jury was sick to their stomach over the decision to deliver a 'not guilty' verdict" differs from saying "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict" because it's not what she said. She didn't mention "not guilty", and she didn't say "I was sick to my stomach." It's conjecture to suggest that she did.

Mugginsx, I agree with the removal of the information on the deputy, if it was poorly sourced. I've already agreed with the removal of part of what Ford said; I'm not so sure the article even needs to say anything about them being "sick to their stomachs". As for the foreman, the only thing I see in that paragraph, that should definitely be removed, is that "suspicion" was expressed in Casey Anthony. None of the three sources on what the foreman said express suspicion in Casey Anthony. I'm no legal expert, but I don't believe anything Ford or the foreman said is libelous. It could be, perhaps, considered an invasion of presumed privacy, but I highly doubt that, as well. Furthermore, nobody is going to sue you, or any other random Wikipedia editor. If anything, someone would sue the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, however, I don't believe anything said in those two interviews were libelous. Chickenmonkey 21:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey, You may be right but my contention is a larger issue. My understanding of at least two of the websites I have mentioned is that "to even 'link' to an article that contains libelous information is to 'repeat' the liable" - in other words, even though you may actually take the libelous information out of the article - the 'link' shows the entire statement so you are still guilty of libel. Here is another link I found (though this link does not specifically say what I just said, the others do. http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/to_repeat_or_not_to_repeat_1.php I will look at the paragraph again, but it says something like "George had a very selective memory and Casey's behavior was Disgusting and there was also a suspicion of George Anthony that played a part in their deliberations. I think there is a lot there. Mugginsx (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, why should we wait for Monday, when it has already been expressed that what one outside administrator says is not law? If an outside administrator says I'm wrong, that does not mean you then get to remove the information.

Chickenmonkey, no, I'm not seeing how saying "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict" is any different than saying "the jury was 'sick to their stomachs' over the decision to deliver a 'not guilty' verdict." You say she didn't say "not guilty." But if she is speaking of the verdict, she is speaking of the "not guilty" verdict. There was no other verdict. And saying "we" includes "I," which is why sources report her as saying "I was sick to my stomach." What you are arguing are semantics. I did go ahead and put in what she said exactly, however. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey, OK, everything I just said got lost - so I will say this to start go to Wiki Subsection "Legal Environment" - it will show that editors can get sued and are responsible for their own content. Wikipedia seldoms supports legal counsel for editors, and finally, in a recent threatened lawsuit Wikipedia immediately removed all questionable content. That does not take individual editors off the hook. Will try to find that lawsuit. Linked it somewhere before for someone else. Mugginsx (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Insert: Wiki Subsection "Legal Environment" in relevant part reads: When defamation occurs on a wiki, theoretically all users of the wiki can be held liable, because any of them had the ability to remove or amend the defamatory material from the "publication." It remains to be seen whether wikis will be regarded as more akin to an internet service provider, which is generally not held liable due to its lack of control over publications' contents, than a publisher. So this is a theoretical statement about wikis in general not a specific, experienced based statement on wikipedia. Plus, if someone wants to sue for defamation they'd get a lot further suing the big newspapers that we are using as references. So get over it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, my point is that I don't believe what was said in the interviews constitutes "libel" material. Editors can get sued, but it's simply highly unlikely for a random editor to be sued. However, I'm still not a legal expert, so all I can really offer on this is my opinion.

Flyer, that's the definition of conjecture. It's a guess at what she meant when we only have the evidence of what she actually said. However, what you have now added seems fine, in my opinion, so it's a moot point. Chickenmonkey 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey You are correct. It is a longshot. But I do not trust the Anthony Family. Maybe I was in Criminal Law too long. I don't know. By the way, that Wiki Lawsuit was in Signpost. Still trying to find it. Can't remember what article I talked about it in. Could take awhile. Thought maybe it was this one because I don't usually get involved in legal articles for this reason. Much safer in medieval articles, not too many people left to sue. (smile) Mugginsx (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey, it's common sense to say "not guilty verdict" when that is the only verdict that was rendered. That is not original research, a guess, or conjecture. The title of one source and content of the two sources also make it clear that she was talking about the not-guilty verdict. But I agree to disagree.

Mugginsx, like I stated, we go by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. And I believe their rules allow us to mention the jury's suspicion of George Anthony having played a role in their deliberations. Why not argue to remove the fact that they also doubted (and still doubt) Casey Anthony's innocence? How is removing their suspicion of George Anthony any more valid than removing their distrust of Casey Anthony? We might as well remove all their comments if we supposedly cannot even mention how their opinion of George Anthony factored into their decision. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, the only stuff I am still contesting are in the Jury foreman's remarks. Mugginsx (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that what the foreman said goes way beyond the pale of anything else said here. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. We'll see. Mugginsx (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about, which is why I stated what I did above. Removing the Jury Foreman's statements is no more valid than removing the others. And I already suggested a compromise to trim what he stated. You want it all gone; I will not agree. As for "we'll see," refer to what I stated about administrators above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"I am a little behind here. Trying to look for something and keep up with the comments. To answer your next to the last question - George Anthony was not on trial. George Anthony was not officialy accused of murder. Now that Casey has been declared not guilty of murder and child neglect to call her "a disgusting mother" is, in my opinion, liable. If you want to go to a noticeboard I don't care anymore. It not that I mind being wrong. I just want a little protection if I'm correct. Mugginsx (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I will read the foreman's comments again. Only for you Flyer, only for you. Mugginsx (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested input from uninvolved editors at WP:BLPN. As there are legal concerns indicated, the more eyes, the better. Chickenmonkey 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey, I agree with more editor's comments. Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that the "interview with the foreman is by an anonymous source" http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/278258/Jury-foreman-says-two-thought-Casey-Anthony-was-guilty The reporter doesn't even want his or her name mentioned. And they have more legal protection than us! The second thing is that Casey was found not guilty even of child neglect. For us to repeat that he thinks she is a "disgusting mother" is libelous I believe. Can you see why I am concerned? Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

George Anthony was brought into this through accusations. He was made a part of the defense's case, which obviously worked for the defense, since the jury said that their distrust of George Anthony factored into their decision. That is why this information belongs in this article. The article already relays that the defense used George Anthony as part of their case. But you say we shouldn't relay what the jury thought of George Anthony? I don't understand that at all. As for the Jury Foreman saying that all of the jurors found Casey Anthony's behavior in the wake of her daughter's death "disgusting" and otherwise inappropriate, that is him explaining yet another aspect of the case that formed their decision. Casey Anthony's behavior was made a part of the case by the prosecution. The Jury Foreman is telling us that he and the jury considered this behavior disgusting...but that it did not factor into their decision. If you want the "disgusting" part removed, I don't mind. We can simply leave it as "inappropriate." But three editors have told you that there is nothing wrong with including the Jury Foreman's information. You disagree. A lone administrator's opinion is not going to settle the matter, unless if he agrees with us, you let it go. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer Don't you see that the reporter him or herself knows the danger of repeating this - it is done anonymously. I repeat - even taking out selective information BUT Linking to the source that states the liable can be construed as libel. Even though you may take out the innoculous material does not make it "legally non-libelous". I will refer you to all of the links I presented above, including the Columbia Law Review site. This is why I do not like legal articles. Maybe it's just me. I will go with the majority like I always do but I don't promise editing this article anymore. It is not personal to anyone. Mugginsx (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the "anonymous" party in the interview is the jury foreman. He chose to speak under the condition that his identity not be revealed. The person he spoke with is Greta van Susteren, of Fox News. Chickenmonkey 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If Mugginsx has some fear of being sued because of something posted here by someone else that was reported by multiple reliable sources and that other editors are fine with, you are beginning to display a WP:conflict of interest, IMHO. Add a few more WP:RS to refs if it will make you feel better.
It is Mugginsx responsibility to bring this to the Noticeboard if you feel it is such a big violation.
All quotes should be accurate. I haven't even gotten to that section to check but we should all be checking and avoiding WP:Original research which is a policy violation.
We shouldn't quote anonymous sources if we later find out who the source is but identify him with WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey Well, if that is true, how dumb is that for the jury foreman? So much for "anonymity". I did see Fox News but not Greta's name on the article though. Are you sure it wasn't her that wanted to be anonymous. She is a lawyer. She could also be sued and I am not sure what legal protection she has. Was Greta's name mentioned in another article? I don't see it here Chickenmonkey. I do see a Mark Jenkins reported at the top but is that for the photo? I am completely confused now. Who, exactly wanted to be anonymous? Mugginsx (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, you don't have to repeat. I hear you; I just disagree, and that's not going to change. But I'll repeat something in turn: I'm going by what is allowed on Wikipedia. I did change this from "disgusting," however. Chickenmonkey might call it conjecture again, since "inappropriate" is not used in the source. But to that, I point out that many words are not used in the sources when we write Wikipedia articles. It's about summarizing, using words that get across the same point. We're not supposed to copy everything word for word, per WP:COPYVIO. Simply saying "inappropriate" is enough to get across the point that the jury disapproved of Casey Anthony's actions. We could even use the words "disapproved of" or "disagreed with," but that doesn't flow right to me...considering that of course they disagree(d) with those actions. It's not like anyone expected them to say that the way she behaved was good. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, this other source in the article, identifies van Susteren and includes video of the interview. The jury foreman is the person who remained anonymous.

Flyer, when dealing with quotes from someone, we should use the actual quotes. If we do not use the actual quote, it is original research, because we are interpreting what they said. We can't say he said something, or "expressed" something, if he didn't actually say it. Where we should avoid word-for-word recreation is in the documentation of the quote; for instance, if we copied the article reporting on what he said and put it in this article, that would be a copyright violation. We should avoid excessive quotations, but if they are to be included, they should be accurate. Chickenmonkey 23:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer You may be right but I don't think so this time. I am still worried about the "linking". I see you are trying to make concessions and I know that you always edit in "good faith" . I just don't know what more I can say about this particular issue. I see it in a different context than you and when I say that, I hope you know that I am also acting in "good faith". I don't know what else to say right now. I am very tired. I'll will think about what you and Chickennmonkey have said and see what everyone else says and then decide what to do for myself. That is all that I can say for today. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chickenmonkey, I didn't say he said something he didn't. It says the jury found Casey Anthony's actions in the wake of her daughter's death inappropriate, which is true. We can substitute words for words that get across the same point. This is perfectly acceptable. When dealing with quotes from someone, we should NOT always use the actual quotes. If that were the case, most Wikipedia articles would be a WP:COPYVIO issue. Read all of that policy more carefully. I agree that we should stay away from excessive quotes. Exactly. That is why Wikipedia advises us to summarize quotes. And, yes, Wikipedia does do that. I see it all the time here, especially with GA or FA nominations. Excessive quotes are advised to be summarized. If a person explains something in detail, we are allowed to summarize their response.

Mugginsx, it is what it is. We disagree with each other. It happens. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the article says, "Though all of the jurors found Casey Anthony's behavior in the wake of her daughter's death inappropriate"; the source does not support that. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution". The source supports that the jury foreman considers her actions "disgusting"; he was speaking for himself, not the jury. The second half of that sentence, "the foreman said the jury did not factor that behavior into their verdict because it was not illegal" is the kind of thing you're talking about, and that part of the sentence is fine; it expresses what he said without having to directly quote him. Chickenmonkey 23:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it in two different ways, as seen in this link. (Also fixed the typo.[5]) Obviously, I decided on the wording "he found her behavior to be inappropriate." That's not original research or any stretch of the imagination, when considering he called her behavior disgusting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point you're asking Flyer to split herself down the middle and that is an impossibility. I see she has made agreements to change wordings and that seems very (very) fair to me. It is clear the jury had misgivings about the way she responded post death of her baby, and the quotes only reflect their feelings. It is something the jury is saying, not someone else saying different than their own sentiments. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the current state of that paragraph is a reasonable compromise. Rational discussion, without any sort of confrontation, usually results in an improvement to the article. It also makes for a much more enjoyable environment. Chickenmonkey 00:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't much like this change by Shirtwaist, since it's along the same lines as "disapproved of" or "disagreed with," and as I stated before, such words don't flow right to me because of course anyone is going to disagree with those actions. And, sure, I suppose anyone would find those actions "inappropriate" as well, but "inappropriate" fits the Jury Foreman's feelings more accurately than "objected to." Which is why I don't see how "objected to" is a "fix." But all that said, I can live with Shirtwaist's change. Flyer22 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Section break

While you all are arguing about how much juror disgust you can cram in there (from people who spoke out after they found out about all the death threats they were getting let us not forget), let's not leave out important objections to the prosecution case and witness(es). Which the article does leave out, of course, but over time that will be corrected. Hopefully it will be corrected before someone reads this article, decides she got away with something despite such a great prosecution case presented here in and deserves to die and does the deed! I'm a lot more concerned with that than someone suing a wikipedia editor instead of a big national publications used as WP:RS refs in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Umm, wow. That sounds ever so slightly skewed in wording. Actually, I think people are trying to remove what is there, not cram in more. I would be the first to say more needs to be added in order to accurately portray the abhorrent abominations, the diabolical deceptiveness, and the pure perplexing perversity that's so pervasive in the case and subsequent trial. I would love to add to the evidence and opening statement sections and perhaps also do some highlights on George's oddness, but I've held off as others have also commented because there is so much already going on with this article. I believe someone said that "everyone wants a piece" [of this article]. At any rate, if we are going to start adding things, I have no problem adding things that I think are missing. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WikiStats this article already has been viewed 13,786 times in the 8 days of August. How many of those people are unbalanced? Anyway, per your comment LaughingGuy, let's not forget the stuff that also needs to come out because it's duplicative, barely relevant (the Morales cartoon), WP:Undue, etc. But I say no more as continue research. (Except that now I know why the obsession with Roy Kronk, one more weird perambulation that will be interesting when someone writes the book, if not appropriate in full dirty detail here.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I'm finding I agree, with exception of the cartoon. Yes I think the state of the article now is more of refinement. I see duplication but it's different duplication than what you've mentioned in the past. If we start trimming things and making room, I think that will be an even greater temptation to people to start adding in things. Again, "everyone wants a piece", and I certainly am one of those people. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, I have to agree with ThisLaughingGuyRightHere that we are not trying to cram in a whole bunch of juror disgust. This entire discussion shows that is not the case. It cannot be helped that all of the jurors that have spoken out thus far do not believe Casey Anthony to be innocent. They don't all necessarily believe she is guilty either, but they do all seem to believe that she played a role in her daughter's death (such as some thinking that it might have been an accident). You say that someone might read this article and decide that "she got away with something despite such a great prosecution case presented," but I point out that most people, Americans definitely, already think that. That's clear from various polls and news reports (no matter if one wants to believe that the media played up the hatred toward Casey Anthony), the most prominent poll seeming to be this USA Today Gallop poll. So if people leave this article thinking she's guilty, I don't see how that is on us. If anything, it reflects just how this case played out to most people. The average person on the street believes that the prosecution had enough to "put her away." I mean, you keep bringing up that George needs to be implicated more in this article, but that is exactly the type of BLP issues Crohnie and Mugginsx are talking about. George was not being tried for anything, and the defense had zero evidence that he played any part in Caylee Anthony's death. As we know, the sexual abuse claims were even thrown out by the judge when it came time for closing arguments. So color me confused as to why you keep complaining that all the evidence points to Casey Anthony, when, yeah...she was the one on trial, being prosecuted. That evidence was gathered to prosecute her. Not George Anthony. Your constantly trying to implicate George Anthony in this article to "balance things out" is not the way things are supposed to be done. And while I do not object to this edit by you (though I disagree with your edit summary), it was certainly not needed. Why exactly should it be mentioned that any one individual juror did not trust George Anthony when that is already covered by the Jury Foreman? Really, he details extensively enough that he and the rest of the jury did not trust George Anthony, so much so that it can be considered a tongue-lashing.

Anyway, as for things being duplicated, only the things that need to be duplicated are. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer. There is a "fixation" on George by the above editor throughout the archives as well as on this Talk page. Whatever one's personal beliefs are, George Anthony was not on trial. The defense in its opening statements tried to implicate George to deflect from their client. That is what they are supposed to do and since they cannot be sued for anything they say in court "unless they are themselves under oath", they will and so say anthing on behalf of their client. http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-lawyers-lie.aspx and http://www.cobar.org/tcl/tcl_articles.cfm?articleid=802 The prosecution did not make their case to the jury. It is clear that the jurors, whatever their beliefs, did not think that the prosecution proved its case. The Judge reminded the jury (as do all judges in a criminal trial) that "what the lawyers say in Court is NOT EVIDENCE". Whatever we as editors think is immaterial. Please stop with this fixation on George Anthony (a living person) and the allegations about him. They are BLP issues. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to say, about Kronk, I don't mind adding him. I think the guy should be voted pope because he called in the remains multiple times. Most people I know would just keep walking if they saw "suspicious objects" in a wooded area. Of course, yes yes BLP policies also apply to Kronk so wording is of course a concern. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree he should be added. After all, if it wasn't for him, the police might still be looking. The guy deserved the reward (I hope he got it) and a medal for putting up with all the abuse. I mainly worry about BLP issues when very negative remarks are made. Mugginsx (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue that people don't seem to understand is that despite the prosecution and media blitz against this woman, she was found not guilty because the defense successfully challenged the forensic evidence and provided an alternate story line that actually made more sense, a drowning that an abusive father bullied her into covering up. A number of WP:RS have said that, even if it is a smaller number than blare "she got away with murder." Even if the defense merely got lucky and she's totally guilty, there defense worked. That's what happened. And protracted and unrelenting attempts to confuse, obfuscate, hide, downplay or deny that that's what happened is a serious violation of NPOV. And of BLP, if in fact she is innocent and that eventually and unequivocally comes out (like George breaks down and confesses and is given community service or whatever). But back to research so I can make my case before more NPOV editors if those currently here don't get it after I present my changes to make the article comply with the reality. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get that a reaction to sex abuse is denial once you learn that other students at school aren't doing the same thing (thus learning its not normal). I don't get how you go from abuse to deception. Perhaps I could buy denial as a coping mechanism, but full blown deception is a different story to me, and the deceptions, as Ashton pointed out, were very specific and met a specific need for a specific cover up. At any rate, it sounds like more additions are coming to the article so I am going to stop any efforts I was putting into trimming (e.g. the statistics paragraph) and switch gears and look into what additions I would make. My focus will be on additions, leaving trimming to others, so all our additions (george, kronk, etc.) are balanced. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Read about Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_harm, which should be linked from a properly phrased edit at some point. As for Kronk, I couldn't figure out why Baez was so nasty to him until I saw that an earlier re-direction of attention he was working on was allegations Kronk was physically abusive to women/wives and used duct tape to tie up one or more. I haven't read the details in articles because the judge wouldn't let that evidence in. So he was left with inferring Kronk had moved the body because searchers hadn't found it earlier. And there's a lot that wasn't let in on both sides, so probably best not to even start on it here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We already went through a round of what we can and can't let in, and I know there was at least one round of it that occurred before I read the article (in the vast archives). Some symptoms of abuse (PTSD, disassociation, suicide, criminal behavior) were never raised by the defense whereas her unique behavior was only suggested as a response to abuse in opening statements. The sex abuse was not cited in closing statements. So, the only way I see getting something like that mentioned in the article is in the witness testimony section if you want to expand that section - more additions - about the grief counselor, but again, the grief counselor didn't mention the symptoms in the WP sex abuse article. She mostly said abusers who suffer loss are reluctant grievers (e.g. Casey not sad on videos) and intentionally go to extremes (e.g. partying with alcohol). This of course, all assumes that abuse took place, which the defense never produced testimony nor evidence for. The defense requested a psychological evaluation (to determine if she was competent to stand trial), and the Judge granted 3 independent evaluations, but those were not presented in court and I assume the contents were sealed, so we don't know what, if any, psychological results were determined. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 23:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just going to copy and paste this until this editor understand why the story of sexual abuse was created in opening statements and why this is BLP material. Maybe if I do that enough times this editor will stop rehasing. Here goes: There is a "fixation" on George by the above editor throughout the archives as well as on this Talk page. Whatever one's personal beliefs are, George Anthony was not on trial. The defense in its opening statements tried to implicate George to deflect from their client. That is what they are supposed to do and since they cannot be sued for anything they say in court "unless they are themselves under oath", they will and often do say anthing on behalf of their client. http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-lawyers-lie.aspx and http://www.cobar.org/tcl/tcl_articles.cfm?articleid=802 The prosecution did not make their case to the jury. It is clear that the jurors, whatever their beliefs, did not think that the prosecution proved its case. The Judge reminded the jury (as do all judges in a criminal trial) that "what the lawyers say in Court is NOT EVIDENCE". Whatever we as editors think is immaterial. George Anthony is (a living person) and the allegations about him, even if they were true, were never proven. To give them undue weight are BLP issues. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There are at least 8 mentions of the honesty or sex abuse issues in the article, only one of which I inserted, which was relevant to a juror's decision. (The other juror comment also obviously highly relevant.) What other less important or repetitive uses could be taken out? Why not discuss that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, I don't need to be taught about child sexual abuse. I am well-informed on that subject, as well as pedophilia and rape, as my user page and contributions show. What you need to understand is that even if Casey Anthony was sexually abused by George, it does not excuse her behavior in the wake of her daughter's death at all...and certainly does not mean that her story about what happened to Caylee Anthony is true. You say "an alternate story line that actually made more sense, a drowning that an abusive father bullied her into covering up." That shows your POV right there. My POV is that the drowning story makes less sense, for all the reasons brought up by the prosecution. And either way, Mugginsx is right that what the lawyers say in court is not evidence. There was no evidence whatsoever to support the defense's case. There was evidence and testimony to support the prosecution's case. For example, a dead body being in that trunk. Everyone who was there to smell it, including the dogs, have been clear that the "smell of death" cannot be mistaken for "garbage." And the medical examiner is certain that Caylee Anthony was murdered, the duct tape evidence being her main point. The only serious BLP issue here is you continuing to try to implicate George Anthony for something that was simply a story without a bit of evidence backing it. You seem quite convinced that it will "eventually and unequivocally" come out that Casey Anthony is innocent, when she has already given her version of what happened. If that version is not true, then who is really going to believe any other version she puts forth? People can barely believe her now, considering that she has proven herself to be a compulsive liar. But go on, make your case to "more NPOV editors." I'm certain they'll see it the way Mugginsx and the rest of us do -- what the lawyers say in court is not evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the latest poll about Casey Anthony: Poll: Casey Anthony most hated person in America. But we probably shouldn't include it. This article already covers America feeling anger toward this woman well enough. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First, Flyer22, note that the article doesn't include much of the defense questioning and rebuttal witness testimony to the scientific evidence, so I think you are showing your POV. In fact, the jurors said the scientific evidence didn't prove the prosecution case.

As I said above, the fact that jurors and various pundits (not quoted in the article, but I can find pundit comments) said that George was a suspicious character and that the drowning story made more sense makes it relevant to the article. No one is saying sexual abuse excuses someone lying about the death of their child, even if their ex-police office father is telling them they'll go to prison if someone finds out they weren't watching the child. So do not assume it is some heavy personal POV of mine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, my editing this article is not about my POV on whether or not Casey Anthony is guilty. Yours seems to be, seeing as you have as much admitted that you consider her to be innocent of the crime she was accused of, and you are the one constantly trying to implicate George Anthony in this article as though there is something tying him to the death of Caylee Anthony. If you want more of the defense questioning and rebuttal witness testimony to the scientific evidence, that is a different story, and I never objected to that being included. I objected, and still object, to you trying to add artificial balance to this article. And as others have stated, this article is fairly balanced. You are the only one constantly complaining that it isn't, for reasons that make no sense to me. Really, what jurors and various pundits have said that the drowning story makes more sense? I have not heard that from any pundits and certainly not from the jurors. What most people have been saying is that Casey Anthony's story does not make sense and that the defense's version of what happened is "out there" or make-believe. Those beliefs are why most people believe Casey Anthony to be guilty of murdering her daughter. Let's not pretend that she got off because jurors believed the defense's version of what happened. Because, going by their own words, that is clearly not the case. Not trusting George Anthony does not outweigh the fact that none of them, except the alternate juror, seem to believe that Casey Anthony is innocent. I already agreed that the jurors being suspicious of George is relevant to the article. Again, what I don't agree with is you continuing to try to implicate George Anthony throughout this article for something that was simply a story without a bit of evidence backing it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22 wrote: seeing as you have as much admitted that you consider her to be innocent of the crime she was accused of, You'd have to find a quote or two proving that. What I have said is she was found "not guilty" and the article should provide actual trial testimony/evidence/etc. of why that jury came to that verdict. Do I really have to track down all the people who complained this article is unbalanced and had their opinions drowned out by an avalanche of counter-argument by a couple editors? Rather than do that, I will make my alternative available for Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions soon enough. Getting there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, you said, "she was found guilty because the defense successfully challenged the forensic evidence and provided an alternate story line that actually made more sense, a drowning that an abusive father bullied her into covering up." Your adding "A number of WP:RS have said that" does not make me think it is any less your opinion. Your actions throughout editing this article and talk page show you believe this; I don't need your confession. And while we're on the subject of just how believable Casey Anthony's story is, maybe we should include information on those jailhouse videos, which show Cindy Anthony telling Casey Anthony of the drowning theory. That bit was in the Criminal trial section before, but was misplaced and without a reliable source. We can certainly add it back, in a relevant place and with a reliable source backing it. Because watching that video, it sure seems that this is where Casey Anthony got her defense of "Caylee drowned in the pool," as has been stated by various reliable sources. Not to mention, that an inmate's life encompasses a drowning story similar to Casey Anthony's, and it is believed that this how Casey Anthony crafted details about her own story of how Caylee drowned in the pool. Those jailhouse videos show a lot, such as George Anthony not seeming to have a clue where Caylee Anthony is, and Casey calling George the best dad ever. But, hey, to believe Casey Anthony's story, I suppose we are to believe that George and Casey Anthony were acting (playing it up for the camera) all the time. Even though if Casey Anthony knew she was being taped, and her drowning story is true, one has to wonder why she acted the way she did in a lot of those videos, such as when being told of the drowning theory. As for tracking down "all the people who complained this article is unbalanced," go ahead. But let me point out there have not been a lot. In fact, I can only think of two (which includes you). The third one was unsure if the article had POV issues, and only added the POV tag (the second time it was placed) because of your or the previous one's complaint. Everyone else who has complained about this article complained about other things, not POV issues or this article being unbalanced. I can point to the archived discussions showing that there have not been a lot of people complaining that this article is unbalanced, since I've been editing it anyway, as well as to the discussion where more than just a couple of editors agreed that the article was balanced and to remove the POV tag that was placed there the first time. I can also point out that this "unbalance talk" is in the past and this article has substantially changed since then, and you are the only one still complaining about balance. You keep arguing to create artificial balance, which more than just a couple of editors have pointed out. As Mugginsx made clear, you have a clear fixation on George Anthony and seem to put him in the same category as Casey Anthony. He's not in the same category, is my point, for all the reasons stated by Mugginsx and I above. I don't care if you solicit outside opinions; WP:RfC and WP:Third opinion hardly work these days, and that goes for the other WP:Dispute resolution tactics. I should know; I've tried them on highly-watched important articles, and not so highly-watched important articles in recent times. I also doubt that any experienced editor is going to agree with you that George Anthony needs to be implicated more in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You quote me as writing:''she was found guilty because the defense successfully challenged the forensic evidence and provided an alternate story line that actually made more sense [added later to clarify: to the jury], a drowning that an abusive father bullied her into covering up.

That's my interpretation of Jennifer Ford: "I did not say she was innocent" and "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." She added "I'm not saying that I believe the defense," but that "it's easier for me logically to get from point A to point B" via the defense argument, as opposed to the prosecution argument. She also believed George Anthony was "dishonest."and jury forman: The foreman stated his work experience enabled him to read people and that George Anthony "had a very selective memory" which stayed with the jurors,[148] emphasizing that the jury was frustrated by the motive, cause of death, and George Anthony. "That a mother would want to do something like that to her child just because she wanted to go out and party," he said. "We felt that the motive that the state provided was, in our eyes, was just kind of weak."

I'll add some other pundits with similar ones if necessary, though there already may be sufficient in the aftermath section which I haven't read carefully cause still clearing up evidence mess.

I don't see any point in these general back and forths on our different nuanced interpretations, since you aren't talking about specific edits but it seems to me just venting. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to try and convince me that you don't believe Casey Anthony to be innocent. As I stated, "A number of WP:RS have said that" does not make me think it is any less your opinion. Further, as I also stated, I have not seen many, if any, reliable sources that have stated that the defense's argument was more believable. If you provide a few, then fine. But most pundits have not stated that, and have stated just the opposite of that, arguing evidence, jailhouse videos and the like. You cite Jennifer Ford and other jurors, but they do not state that Casey Anthony's story is more believable. Being logically easier "to get from point A to point B," which is what she stated, is about the jury feeling that there was a lack of evidence on the prosecution's case; it's not because they believed Casey Anthony to be more believable or innocent. If they did, they would not talk about how disgusted and upset they were at/by rendering a not-guilty verdict. Like juror number two said, "everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions, she was done". He stated that a lack of evidence was the reason for the not guilty verdict: "I just swear to God ... I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do ... But it wasn't there." He also said that Anthony was "not a good person in my opinion."

And I'm mainly talking about your specific editing, as is clear. I don't have to point out your individual edits in this regard. Call it "venting" all you want, but it is no more "venting" than your constant suggestions that Casey Anthony is innocent and that the "real truth" may come out someday, and your constant complaining that we haven't vilified George Anthony enough in this article. I have to smirk that you say I'm venting...when you have done that throughout this entire discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see now where the confusion lies and have clarified the statement: The issue that people don't seem to understand is that despite the prosecution and media blitz against this woman, she was found not guilty because the defense successfully challenged the forensic evidence and provided an alternate story line that actually made more sense [added later to clarify: to the jury], a drowning that an abusive father bullied her into covering up. A number of WP:RS have said that, even if it is a smaller number than blare "she got away with murder." CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what confusion you think your missing word of "not" caused, but I'm sure that everyone familiar with this case knew you meant "not guilty," and not simply "guilty." I did. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

[added later to clarify: to the jury] is what I was referring to; my leaving it out obviously caused confusion that it was my personal opinion. Obviously if I was saying all this and the jury had found her guilty I would be expressing my personal opinion. But the article talks about what the jury found, correctly or incorrectly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but... It's still your personal opinion that the jury feels the drowning story makes more sense, and I disagree with that (per above). And, again, I haven't seen any reliable sources saying that the drowning theory makes more sense, unless those sources are speaking in terms of what they believe made more sense to the jury (pundits speculating about what they think the jury bought or didn't buy). Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Another example of over kill/redundant info

[Add later to show redundancy:On November 26, 2008, officials released 700 pages of documents related to the Anthony investigation, which included evidence of Google searches of the terms "neck breaking", "how to make chloroform", and "death" on Anthony's home computer.[55] This included evidence that someone had searched the Internet on the Anthony's family computer for the use of chloroform and how to make it.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] The best two more than enough. (I'm going through these for my final research on the trial and thus paying more attention.) (Will put in proper HTML to make sure refs only appear in relevant sections as soon as I find it.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 19:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I was so busy looking at all the refs, I didn't realize that the sentence included info included in the previous sentence. So I just deleted the whole second sentence. So many errors, so little time to correct them all. Please explain why anyone wants a redundant sentence before putting it back?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Example of reference over kill

Since Mugginsx doesn't seem to agree with the points I've made below about video referencing, and because in general this is a good example of reference overkill, detailing problems below in bold in reference section. Note that the first strike is because it's not clear which if any reference even says "protruding" (as opposed to completely outside the bag, for example.) The second strike is information that really isn't as important and unnecessarily bulks up the article, since we are talking clean up:

On December 11, 2008, Kronk again reported the sighting and police found human skeletal remains in a plastic bag.^[5] ~~The skull protruded from the bag and~~ duct tape was found on the mouth of the skull.^[6] ^[7] ^[8]^[9] ~~On December 12, the remains were tentatively identified as Caylee's.^[10]~~ On December 19, 2008, medical examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia confirmed that the remains found were those of Caylee Anthony. The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined.^[11]

References

^ "Shady Web Searches In Missing Girl Case". CBS.com. Associated Press. November 26, 2008. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
^ Considine, Bob (September 5, 2008). "Did Caylee's mom chloroform her? Evidence mounts". MSNBC.com. Retrieved July 6, 2011.
^ Pavuk, Amy (July 1, 2011). "Casey Anthony trial: Could Cindy Anthony face perjury charges?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved July 8, 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Schneider, Mike (June 8, 2011). "Internet searches focus of the day in Casey Anthony trial". news-journalonline.com/Associated Press. Retrieved July 12, 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "OCSO photos of location where remains were found set 9". Media.myfoxorlando.com. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
"OCSO photos of of location where remains were found set 9 index". Media.myfoxorlando.com. February 18, 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
"OCSO photos of of location where remains were found set 3 index". Media.myfoxorlando.com. February 18, 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2011.Photos should be after text story, not before.
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related Video should come after text references. Please provide name of video, what it is referencing, and if very specific, what time the information is on the video; make sure it is not misused copyrighted material, like ABC News on a personal web site.
^ KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ppeBMx3uuY See comment above
^ Posted: 11:52 am EST January 21, 2009 (2009-01-21). "Documents: Heart Sticker On Tape Over Caylee's Mouth - News Story - WFTV Orlando". Wftv.com. Retrieved 2011-07-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Does facebook play a role in Caylee Anthony's disappearance?, CBS12 New December 18, 2008.
"Documents: Heart Sticker On Tape Over Caylee's Mouth". WFTV. January 21, 2009. Retrieved June 1, 2011.
"Sheriff: Anthony home may be a crime scene". CNN. December 11, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2011. So which of all these refs really the best and most relevant? Why so many for so little information??
^ "Lawyer: Investigators think body is Caylee's". CNN. December 12, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2011.
^ Pacheco, Walter; Lundy, Sarah; Edwards, Amy L. (December 19, 2008). "Remains identified as missing toddler Caylee Anthony". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved December 19, 2008.

Any objections before I make changes and figure out which refs we really need? (MugginsX can verify titles of videos, importance, time stamps or whatever on his/her videos.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I listened and/or read references 2,3,4, and 5. None of them use the word "protrude". Reference 3 at time 38:49 shows mason recounting kronk's reporting of the skull in which he says the top white part of the skull is "...sticking out of a bag." Reference 3 is an edited video someone made on their computer and is not the official video feed from the courthouse, thus it wouldn't have an "official" title other than what is was given by the user (which is something like "casey anthony trial part 4"). I think we can find an actual article on Kronk instead of the video if we invest some time looking, then we don't need to worry about title name, copyright, time on video, etc. Also, I have no problem at this time with the second strike you mentioned above. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 06:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I just found this discussion. It was placed above later dated information. The original phrase concerning Roy Kronk in the article was factually incorrect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=444421401&oldid=444394949 and I changed it. In doing so I used the word "protrude" which means the exact same thing as Kronk testified to. If you want to change the word, fine, I'm not married to it -but do not change the meaning of Kronk's testimony and make sure it matches the reference or references. What the original edit said was that was that Kronk found a plastic bag closed with yellow ties. That is factually inaccurate. What Kronk actually said was that he saw from a distance a plastic bag and what "looked like a skull but he didn't know if it was a real skull or some kind of phony halloween type skull. It is the testimony and his police interviews. Common sense and his testimony shows that the skull, did, indeed "protude" because he saw it from a distance and identified it as such in his call and tstimony. He never touched the bag - no fingerprints were on it nor did Baez imply that they were. If you want to use his exact words that is fine, but you must mention that he identified it as a skull - making it impossible that the bag was closed. Here are some of the references I checked. You can do your own checking but please do not undo mine or anyone else work with good reason. I can't help believe that this is yet another attempt to dismantle this article piece by piece and redo it in your image. ROY KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ppeBMx3uuY MELIK AND KRONK ROY KRONK POLICE INTERVIEW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related CO-WORKER OF ROY KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq5XvmfP_1w&feature=related another police call by roy kronk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f7S21U7TbQ BITS AND PIECES OF ROY KRONK OFFICER ON THE SCENE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NvWDWjfoag&NR=1 UNCUT 911 call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCNIG-DKXcY&NR=1 . I forgot where it is and I am not going back to find the references.

Incidentally, I never said it was OK to use "copyrighted" videos so that remark is disingenuous. What I said during that debate was that if you use a video reference it is fine but usually requires a back up references. THAT IS WHAT I SAID. The word copyright came up while I was in the discussion that I can remember. Further, I did not object to the removal of the dead link to the forensic report and the sentence that it represented. In fact, I took it out myself! There are other examples as well. These are my exact words cut and pasted here for your memory. It can be found in Archive 8 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_8

I believe that the trial itself, can not only be used as a reference, but is the best reference if information in the article that you are editing is completely covered by the particular part of the coverage you are referencing. Also, you must make sure that, just like a book, the information is not copyrighted. Than you can pararaphrase as you would using a book reference. Just be careful that what you are paraphrasing is equally true, again just like in a book. That you for the compliment. I try very hard and I say the same about you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)'

Further in Archive 8 in referring to primary references, Shirtwaist reminded us that they can be used if and when there is a backup of another source. He quotes from Wiki Guideline as follows:

"...WP:BLPPRIMARY states - Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. When an article summarizes secondary source material which in turn refers to its primary source, a link to that primary source may be added as a reference."

As to looking for "Reference Overkill" in general, - What a colossal waste of time. If you look at the more complicated articles in Wikipedia,especially those about "living persons", you will see many references after a sentence and or a paragraph. It is because many of the facts are distributed over several references. I cannot even conceive of why it is important to look for an area where there are numerous references except to see if they are still alive and relevant which you are NOT talking about here. Please state the rule or guideline in Wikipedia that states how many references can be put in a paragraph. There is none that I know of, except, perhaps, in your mind. There should be NO references taken out just because an editor considers them "reference overkill" they should be explained here first. In doing so you must be careful that you do not ruin weeks and now months of other editor's work. If a link is dead - it should be taken out as I did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=445382436&oldid=444962070. BUT, If the situation is that there are more links than YOU think should be there, then YOU SHOULD discuss them here for everyone to look at before you change them. Mugginsx (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have any input on this discussion, but Mugginsx asked me to comment. All I can really add is that there are legitimate reasons that citation overkill can be a bad thing; there are also some good reasons why multiple sources can be a good thing. We have to be careful not to synthesize information, though. Also, to clarify, "dead links" don't have to be removed; in fact, you should "not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer."

As to this particularly case, I have not read the sources, so I don't know how the information should be written in the article. Chickenmonkey 23:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which ref is supporting your change on Kronk - three photos? Also, your misuse of "again" makes it sound like he found a skull again.

If there is a specific text reference that backs up what one says, one should put it first - like in Kronk case. It's only necessary to include additional text refs if the info is controversial or the source is a bit weak or there is a genuine non-WP:OR compilation of info from both refs. Putting in a bunch of refs that make the same general points just makes people have to check a bunch of refs to see where the info really comes from and can lead to WP:OR entering in, as pointed out above. Anyway, will soon address specifically the issues above with actual changes but just finishing off something else of relevance first.

When I wrote "make sure it is not misused copyrighted material, like ABC News on a personal web site." I was referring to: Wikipedia:Youtube#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites. Read what it says. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? You just stated: "...your misuse of 'again' makes it sound like he found a skull again." HE DID FIND THE SKULL AGAIN. He went to the site first with co-workers, then took the police to the site two more times. He called the tipline and/or police a total of THREE TIMES. http://www.wsbt.com/news/orl-dispatch-call-skullfound-121608,0,7155110.mp3file http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/28/casey-anthony-case-meter-reader-roy-kronk-explains-911-calls/?xid=rss-politics-huffpo http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/28/casey-anthony-case-meter-reader-roy-kronk-explains-911-calls/?xid=rss-politics-huffpo http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6635154&page=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEO_L-Ckjq8 If you had watched or read anything about the trial you should know that. Every other editor does. That is why it is so dangerous when you remove references and links when talking about living persons. Your statements would seem to show a basic ignorance as to the actual trial facts. Mugginsx (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Listing a bunch of refs in row is the problem we are discussing, not an explanation or a solution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I and others put the references in and YOU TAKE THEM OUT. Why don't you find them? Mugginsx (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a Talk Page I am listing references on to make a point. I am listing references I found in about 3 minutes to answer your remark when you said I made it sound like Kronk found the skull "again". The answer is YES. But you obviously did not know that so I thought to show you. Mugginsx (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You just stated: "...your misuse of 'again' makes it sound like he found a skull again." HE DID FIND THE SKULL AGAIN. He went to the site first with co-workers, then took the police to the site two more times. He called the tipline and/or police a total of THREE TIMES. http://www.wsbt.com/news/orl-dispatch-call-skullfound-121608,0,7155110.mp3file http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/28/casey-anthony-case-meter-reader-roy-kronk-explains-911-calls/?xid=rss-politics-huffpo http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/28/casey-anthony-case-meter-reader-roy-kronk-explains-911-calls/?xid=rss-politics-huffpo http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6635154&page=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEO_L-Ckjq8 This is why it is so dangerous when you remove references and links when talking about living persons. I am sorry to say this but over and over again, your statements would seem to show a basic lack of knowledge as to the actual trial facts. Mugginsx (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chickenmonkey about referencing. I often (not always) prefer to put two or three references backing up a statement. I just don't like references "going to waste." What I mean by that is...is that if the article includes references that can back the same line, I typically use those extra references to back that line. I try to keep the limit at two or three, but sometimes I'll even back it with several. And I admit "several" screams "overkill." Generally speaking, though, if it's stated in an article that "people generally like [so and so]," for example, then more than one or two sources backing the line is better than one in my opinion. But too much reference overkill can slow down articles and make them seem bigger than they are. I disagree with Carol that stacking refs "makes people have to check a bunch of refs to see where the info really comes from," because that should not be the case if the statement is covered by the first source. The statement should be covered by the first source. Unless the statement is about naming a group of people or what a group believes, which can take more than one source. The additional references are just backup. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer: What Chickenmonkey said was there were times and articles where it is not a good idea and times and articles when it is a good idea. If you check BLP policy I think you will agree that BLP articles require more rather than less references than other types of articles. My point is: If you look at what this editor states at the top of this section - untruthful statements are made about me to ThisLaughingGuyRightHere and when I go into the archives and quote my actual statements which prove her wrong, does she offer an apology? No Instead she just continues on with some about how she is going to start taking out other editor's references because she thinks there are too many of them. The editor is worried about the word "protrude" because apparently she dosn't know that Wikipedians paraphrase all of the time in articles and it is acceptable as long as the meaning does not change. She questions the "Skull" because apparently she has never read any of Roy Kronk's testimony and has absolutely no idea that he found it three times. We are all still waiting on her promises to put forth her "re-structuring proposal", which we asked to see over and over again, but to no avail. Now this editor seems to want to start changing and deleting references simply because she thinks there are "too many of them". I just do not get it. Never have I worked with an editor like this. Mugginsx (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I know what Chickenmonkey stated about referencing. That's why I agreed. I then went on to explain my feelings on referencing when it comes to providing more than one source. I'd rather not debate with Carolmooredc when I don't have to, because all it does is frustrate me and/or boggle my mind. And I don't feel I have to on this matter. Yes, like I stated, more than one or two sources backing a line is better, in my opinion, in some instances. But I don't consider this issue between you and Carol to be a big cause for alarm. I can see that it is for you, and I encourage you to keep debating it if you feel you need to. But noting more on Carol, I'm also not waiting on her re-structuring proposal. I made that clear before. I know that I will disagree with most of it and I want this article to mostly stay the way it is formatted now...give or take a few references. I'm not sure why you keep asking for her proposal, but I'd rather you not. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My one repeated point which Mugginsx keeps ignoring is that information is provided without verification. Like: On August 11, 12, and 13, 2008, tips of a suspicious object found in a forested area near the Anthony residence were called in to police by a meter reader named Roy Kronk. However, a search was not conducted at that time. On December 11, 2008, Kronk again reported seeing what looked like a skull but he didn't know if it was a real skull. Police then went to the sighting and found human skeletal remains in a plastic bag.[28] Followed by three pages of photos.

And then the next short sentence The skull protruded from the bag and duct tape was found on the mouth of the skull. has four references, which certainly is overkill for one simple sentence. Why must we have emotional outbursts and scads of accusations for pointing out simple facts that any editor, or reader, can see? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you accuse me and others of things we did not do and you do not understand the basics of this trial. I did not put in the next sentence about the duct tape. They can speak for themselves. I personally do not remember Kronk mentioning the duct tape but it is possible. Anyway, that is someone else's problem.

By the way, Your signature states it is August 18. You are off by one day unless you have set it to European time for some reason. Mugginsx (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

I can't keep track of who put what using which crappy reference. (Except that Kronk's co-worker video is surely not terribly reliable; and why single out Kronk's trial video - neither of which has a time to verify whatever you say it is veryifying.)

My main point is that the references are terrible: photographs referencing obvious textual material, video links that are not identified and without a time signatureto help find what they allegedly are referecing, 3 year old news reports of what was in early released prosecution material and are less accurate than what came out in trial, stories that have one simple factoid repeated for fourth time (Facebook article), etc. Yet you refuse to deal with those referencing issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrected content, properly referenced, and per BLP

Rather than debate this any further, I corrected the paragraph with actual facts from actual text based verifiable sources. I also did what needs doing throughout the article, corrected an initial report which made Casey Anthony look very guilty which was later shown at trial to be less of a cut and dried case. (With a brief mention in original paragraph and its own paragraph in the witness section. Obviously, this can be tweaked for consistency.) However, presenting any of this kind of exculpatory evidence remains a serious BLP issue and reverting that material will lead to an immediate report at the BLP board.

As I said before, if you want to put the Kronk testimony video link in there, that's fine, but all other testimony and attorney arguments also should be linked at trial, unless there is something in there so important and found no where else that you actually can link to specific text and mention in the references the minutes and seconds it shows up. However, I find this obsession with what Kronk did or did not do the remains in the initial section a bit weird. It becomes more relevant if one wants to dwell on the defense assertion that Kronk might have moved the remains around, but that theory seems to have figured little in the final verdict. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have managed to find and use five references that talk almost exclusively about the officer who got first accused of not doing a thorough investagation,(not a part of this trial and a violation of :

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons subsection Avoid victimization and People who are relatively unknown subsection Policy shortcut: WP:NPF Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories.

Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves

Also contained in the reference you inserted mentions this officer was "rude" and was fired with a couple of lines and, Oh yeah, about three lines at most at the bottom about Roy Kronk. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of this article. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

Ref #29 - This mentions Kronk along with a legally protected "sealed charge" against Kronk and that he owes approximately $10,000 in back child support. Also mentions police officer Caine getting fired.

Ref#30 - In this reference you talk about the heart shaped sticker after a sentence about Kronk. It has nothing to do with Kronk. The police found that that NOT Kronk. Just another error in your "re-design" of the paragraph. You have combined what others have said and attributed it to Kronk.

Ref#31 is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call. http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/

You deleted references that what were previously inserted by good editors in the paragraph. So now, as to the paragraph about Kronk that you have referenced and written, it contains multiple WP:BLP violation issue and is factually incorrect as to Kronk. I have no desire now to touch the paragraph. The way it is presently written, you, (not I or any other editors) are in violation. So when you again, use your favorite threat you use on this and many articles, that being, if I or any other editors revert that material you put in this section about Roy Kronk, you will create a report at a noticeboard you will only bring WP:BLP violation attention to yourself the way you have presently written and referenced it. You have absolutely no comprehension of WP:BLP or for that matter criminal trial law. Of that I am certain. You cannot surmise and increase your knowledge about it the way the other editors do so well. I don't even think you read your references. But, as to your most consistent threat, you do as you see fit. I repeat the paragraph is now factually inaccurate as to Kronk.

Lastly, I see that at least your signatures are reading the correct day and time this morning. How do you do that? How can someone signature dates say a different day? Does that take some special Wiki tools process? You are in the U.S. Well, anyway, they are correct today and that, at least, is an encouraging sign. Mugginsx (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, if something is wrongly attributed to Kronk, you should fix it. Do not be discouraged by threats of going to the BLP Noticeboard. I can't believe you'd even let such a BLP issue stay in, given your feelings about BLP violations. The BLP Noticeboard editors are tired of this article, that is for damn sure, especially since the reports there have barely amounted to any BLP issues. But they will still demand any BLP issue be fixed if it exists. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, she has worned me down. She has constantly harassed me, you and other editors since the beginning and will not stop until she has destroyed this article. I am not going to play her game anymore. If you want to go to an Administrator or bring her up to a noticeboard, I will help you but this is exactly what she has wanted from the beginning. The noticeboard is her own personal "soapbox". She thrives at it. I also am not in good health and instead of this becoming a welcome hobby for me such as it is on my other articles, it has become a nightmare. All because of this one editor. There is something inherently wrong here, if you know what I mean. I am sorry if I disappoint you but like I stated before, if some other editor wants to do it and informs me I will use all that I have collected against what I consider to be a subversion of this article, the likes of which I have never seem before. Mugginsx (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I clearly was talking about going to the BLP board if exculpatory info was removed. I'll look at your other points since obviously errors might have crept in since I got a bee in my bonnet about correcting the paragraph when I was rather tired last night.

However, I believe Mugginsx remains confused about what is and isn't a BLP problem. So I'll bring to the BLP board several examples from this article that he is asserting are BLP problems and compare them to a couple that I think are and see what non-involved editors think. That's the rational approach.

But just to re-state my point, it's NOT a BLP problem if negative and important info from dozens of WP:RS is included in a non-WP:Undue way. It IS a BLP problem if positive info from dozens of WP:RS is not brought in to balance out negative info, especially in a case where the positive info helped win an acquittal for someone. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Carol, it is not just the paragraph but also the references you chose. I do not want to argue with you anymore but this article is being looked at already and it MUST be as correct as we can get it. I cannot work on an article if I am going to be threatened every time you disagree. It's just not worth it. I wish you would trust me more along with the other editors. We are all outvoted from time to time and we get over it. We are really all trying to do the right thing. This article has to be 100% accurate or I really believe it will be deleted somewhere down the line. If that happens, all of our good hard work, including your own, will be for nothing. It is very legally vulnerable, I hope you will agree at least to that. Mugginsx (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in the references you provided, and I am not just talking about yours exclusively, by yours, mine and other editors there are varying points of view. We are talking about a trial here for the most part and there is only ONE point of view on a trial. The verdict. Everything else is vulnerable to BLP. We cannot talk about George Anthony, Casey Anthony, Cindy or Lee Anthony, Roy Kronk, a police officer or any or the other persons in a personal way. We can think it but we CANNOT put it into this article. That is the nature of a (trial article) and, make no mistake, the title notwithstanding, this is an article about the trial. At least that is the way it looks today. I think the title should be changed but I was outvoted so I am trying to work within the parameters that are in the article - things about the death of Caylee Anthony. Mugginsx (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just notice your remark about "going to the Board if exculpatory info was removed". What do you mean? "Exculpatory". It has one meaning and that is a legal meaning to a paralegal: "Evidence that goes to prove the innocence of a defendant". There are other meanings in patent and corporate law. Please explain what you mean? I am retiring for the evening. Mugginsx (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, it's not about me being disappointed in you. And it's not like what I personally think of you should matter in regard to what you do here. I'm not disappointed in you, by the way. I'm just saying that you shouldn't give up and let the opposition win if you are clearly right. If there is any question that you may be wrong, that is a different matter. Your statement to me above makes it seem as though you are just going to let Carol do anything she wants in regard to this article. And if that's not the case, then I have to wonder why you'd let her "get away with" something being wrongly attributed to Kronk. It makes me think it's not really a serious issue and that you may be wrong. Saying "The noticeboard is her own personal 'soapbox'. She thrives at it." also implies that you believe that you cannot battle her there, and that she is the expert in that forum. I'm saying that you can battle her there, and you should. I know you do not like Wikipedia noticeboards, but that is where you have to fight her against BLP issues when she takes them there. Unless you don't mind her saying anything she wants about you there and skewing the argument in her favor.

Carol says, "It IS a BLP problem if positive info from dozens of WP:RS is not brought in to balance out negative info..." I point out that this is not always the case. Some articles on Wikipedia about convicted criminals who are still alive are mostly negative, and there is no positive information that can be added to balance out the negative. Obviously, Casey Anthony was not convicted of murder. And I don't object to having balance in this article. As I stated before, what I object to is artificial balance. And so have other editors editing or looking after this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Mugginsx, his quotation in italics:

Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves/ Also contained in the reference you inserted mentions this officer was "rude" and was fired with a couple of lines and, Oh yeah, about three lines at most at the bottom about Roy Kronk. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of this article. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

YOu are referring to the fact that under BLP, we don't write a whole article about the officer. The notable fact that he went out there and did a cursory search can be mentioned; that he was rude isn't that important and can be taken out. The Orlando Sentinel is consider WP:RS and this is not a BLP problem. If you want another reference to the fact he went out there and didn't find anything, that can be provided.

//Ref #29 - This mentions Kronk along with a legally protected "sealed charge" against Kronk and that he owes approximately $10,000 in back child support. Also mentions police officer Caine getting fired.

Since the numbers changed, I don't know which one this is. But it's evidently either another Orlando Sentinel or WFTV. Both are WP:RS and neither fact is mentioned in the article, which would be irrelevant unless tied to, say, all Baez accusations against him, including the ones the judge didn't allow in. But again, are those important enough to detail?

Ref#30 - In this reference you talk about the heart shaped sticker after a sentence about Kronk. It has nothing to do with Kronk. The police found that that NOT Kronk. Just another error in your "re-design" of the paragraph. You have combined what others have said and attributed it to Kronk.
Ref#31 is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call. http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/

It references a factoid that is detailed later. Now the sentence technically does not have to be referenced at all, since it is explicated later in the text. But I figured you'd complain if I didn't reference it, so I did.

factually incorrect as to Kronk

I'm not a mind reader. What is the inaccuracy? I'm always for correcting those.

As for references, please tell me what is NOT Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources about these sources? If you want to talk about NON-WP:RS references, let's start with the personal blog that admits to no editorial oversight: Lundin, Leigh (June 5, 2011). "Casey Anthony Trial". Florida Crime News. Orlando: Criminal Brief. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of proper sourcing and citing

As usual Mugginsx mistates his cases against me (in green at this diff since he has deleted his original comments here) and for the umpteenth time I'll reply:

Another problem is a constant changing of references by one editor, CarolMooredc that are sometimes good but other times are inappropriate, and in any case, needlessly undos the work of other editors in particular with videos and audios of, police tapes and trial tapes which you seem to agree are valid sources in this kind of article and which many of us have maintained.
- As I have stated half a dozen times, the problem is you constantly put raw links to videos as the FIRST reference, ignoring multiple WP:RS, and then don't even bother to tell anyone at what time the info is. Finally at WP:BLPN yesterday you did that for the first time! (Added later: I notice you did it again at Kronk. Sloppy and irresponsible in my view.)
If we attempt to change them back she puts has 3RR warnings on our talk pages and here and/or threatens to go to a noticeboard.
- I put 3rr when I first got here because you were constantly reverting others recent work more than 3x a day. Yes, I have to go to noticeboards when your remove exculpatory material and make absurd claims that we can't link to a High Quality reference that has "defamatory material" - i.e. information from court documents etc. (Unless its defamatory about Casey Anthony and then any crappy source can say anything.)
She also argues for more information in the article about George Anthony and the (unproven)charges of molesting Casey and covering up Caylee's death which could cause WP:BLP problems.
- You mean Krystal Holloway. See my comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS.
When we show her the video or audio tapes to prove what actually happened she states they are inappropriate sources.
- You mean if three high quality reliable sources say one thing and YOU find something different in a 40 minute video, we are supposed to take your word for what was said at trial, without your giving us the time period it was said, or more appropriately quoting just what it is you think was said. Please reread WP:RS and WP:V Note #4: When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so. (Court proceedings are not copyrighted obviously.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
She also argues for more information in the article about George Anthony and the (unproven)charges of molesting Casey and covering up Caylee's death which could cause WP:BLP problems.
- You mean Krystal Holloway. See my comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS.
When we show her the video or audio tapes to prove what actually happened she states they are inappropriate sources.
- You mean if three high quality reliable sources say one thing and YOU find something different in a 40 minute video, we are supposed to take your word for what was said at trial, without your giving us the time period it was said, or more appropriately quoting just what it is you think was said. Please reread WP:RS and WP:V Note #4: When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so. (Court proceedings are not copyrighted obviously.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As Slim Virgin, who is a veteran of these particular type articles states: "The trial is the best evidence." Mugginsx (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarify please, since I can't disagree. Unless you mean the raw video link with no description or time period or quotation of what was said, just taking your personal word for it, as opposed to what three text WP:RS might have described?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe SlimVirgin's remark is self-explanatory. If you ever looked at or listened to the tapes or the trial you would know the dates and times. Everyone else seems to know them. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the link I should have provided a long time ago since you also seem adverse to properly formatting text sources. Wikipedia:Citing_sources. And see specifically: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings So for example you might format your video source like this: Video of George Anthony Testimony, Court TV Youtube page, at 7min 40 seconds: George Anthony said: "I did not have sex with that woman." or whatever. (The last if editors ask you to provide exact wording.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, while you are complaining about "Reference Overkill" just look at the amount of references in SlimVirgin's articles. They are like scholarly reviews there are so many of them and you have been systematically taking out editors referencing while putting your own in. That has to stop. I see where you put edit summaries like "better reference" and other statements like "fix reference" when you take out references and replace them. These are veteran editors here and they know what is or is not a good reference. I repeat. that has to stop right now. If you have a reference ADD it, do not remove other people's reference unless it really is a dead link or, if not adequate, add a reference to make it adequate. I see another statement you took out on Morales and in your edit summary you state "put in to make casey look guilty" when in fact Morales was a defense witness put on for Casey's benefit to show she did not do chlorform search. You do not have the most basic understanding of this case even after all this time. That is why I and everyone else knows you are not listening to trial tapes, and have not watched the trial. You tell SlimVirgin that people should not base there edits on emotions but I can show you where editors have told you too many times to count that "it does not matter what you think of George Anthony, Lee Anthony or anyone else. You have to report the facts." You are the only one who seems to be emotionally involved in this case. Look at your edit summarys. Look at your talk page discussions. High Quality References indeed! Mugginsx (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin specifically said to keep references next to where they are relevant. That's been one of my complaints. As for your usual flood of accusations, I don't see any diffs to discuss. Everyone makes occasional mistakes. However, if you are talking about my removing your links to videos that are improperly cited and look like raw and not easily verifiable junk references fraught with WP:OR, please read: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings. Neither readers nor other editors have to assume because you have an interpretation of a video it is the correct one and there is no need for you to prove it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am through arguing with you. If you replace another reference, instead of adding yours, unless it is a dead link, I will report you to every administratior I can for WP:HARASS. You have done it before as your talk and other pages show and you are doing it here. It is like daily torture having to come to this article everyday and see this nonsense. And by the way, It would not go amiss here if some other editors would take my part on this. There is not one of you that has not had edits and references changed. It is like trying to roll a boulder uphill to keep this article intact and as for trying to get a good article status, it will take more years than I am probably going to live. It is being systemically dismantled. I had to spend one hour trying to repair what you did to the Roy Kronk paragraph yet again. You entered two wrong dates and one wrong month as to Kronk's calls and contacts You had August on all three dates when it was August and December. Check the diffs You mistated again what he saw (the skull not the skull and the bones), you mentioned the heart-shaped sticker which was not attributed to the police but forensics and your references are 99% about something else and 1% about Roy Kronk or the police. You take me to a noticeboard and then attack me there and at the same time on my Talk Page accusing me of a Conflict of Interest when you knew I was retired. Then you start subheading the Noticeboard discussion and misquoting over and over again. I believe that you have singled me out and I've got a list of harassing things you have done and it just keeps getting longer and longer. Mugginsx (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to complain to WP:RSN or WP:ANI which would be the correct place. But be prepared with diffs to show what I replaced and what you replaced it with. Asking people to comply with policies like Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings is hardly harassment and frankly if you continue doing it after we finish the WP:BLP discussion, I shall have to ask assistance as to what is the proper recourse.

Meanwhile, I haven't looked too carefully at what you did with Kronk, except as usual to throw in a raw video link as the first reference, despite perfectly good WP:RS. Maybe we'll just have to all work out that paragraph on this talk page. Stay tuned. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the diffs. Why don't you look at what you did there in that paragraph? You put all three dates of Kronk's calls to the police in August. You had the day of the month wrong. You misstated that Kronk saw the skull and the bones. You have the police finding the body in august rather than December. The police tapes are complete and tell you that but what I also did was add another link with it that is not video. That is what I am supposed to do. You even said it yourself. You also talked about the heart shaped stickers. Kronk and the police did not see them. They were seen in foresenics. Perhaps you meant to put it in the next paragraph but I wasn't going to spend another hour trying to find out where it went. I have saved all of the diffs but since you do not show them to me or anyone else when you change things, you can easily find them for yourself and I am leaving the computer for now. Mugginsx (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[Added later: you misrepresent some things up here but I can't spend my life responding to every questionable (to be kind) accusation you throw against me.] Considering you went back and forth on the dates so many times, you've gotten me confused. But I will compare the two versions soon, check all the references and see where any problems may be. I may have erred since I was rather annoyed by your refusal to properly cite things and did the edits when I was tired. I'm not perfect. But at least I try to comply with Wikipedia:Citing_sources whereas you expect others evidently to fill out all your raw links. And, as I said at WP:BLP, I guess I'll have to listen to Holloway testimony and what judge said about using it to see if 3 WP:RS are wrong or you are. (Once I get my computer's sound working or my roommate off his computer for an hour.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a laugh for the day. When I make a mistake it is my fault, but when you make a mistake it is also my fault. Can't stop laughing. Mugginsx (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Roy Kronk's testimony re-visited

Found one source where he states that he did not know if the skull was a "real" skull or not. He states he thought it might be a "Holloween mask". I will check for copyright. Since newspapers are also ALWAYS copyrighted, It will have to be paraphrased AGAIN which is why it was worded in the way it was in that section in the first place. This is what happens when you just go and remove sources without a care for what references you are putting it. The LINKS you used, which I explained above in detail, contain information that is private in nature to otherwise unknown individuals and should not be used. Linking to a libelous source could be libeous in and of itself. I believe that is one of the reasons for the Wiki spam filter. I also quoted the WP:BLP section information if you had looked at it.

To anticipate your next comment, why do newspapers get away with putting in it? Because as I have said numerous times before, newspapers have LEGAL protections that other persons, including Wikipedia, and us, do NOT HAVE. Mugginsx (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On looking at what you did last night after I retired, the Kronk testimony is now accurate. You have severed the connection as to what he saw and what the police officers saw. It is almost the same as what was originall inserted there. I do not know why you touched it in the first place, but anyway... The links are still a problem. See above about linking to an article which contains otherwise personal information about a WP:Non Notable Person. Now, all you have to do is find new links which do not mention "Personal information about a police officer getting fired doing a bad job previous problems on the police force, or Mr. Kronk's sealed police record, or his being behind in his child suppot. That should not be difficult since there are probably thousands of them. OK? Mugginsx (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Since you haven't told me what sources or what sentences in the article you are talking about I can't reply. However, I have filed this Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS for clarification from the community. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have told you three times. You haven't read the paragraphs apparently. Mugginsx (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's something I've already replied to? In which case I won't reply again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Five WP:RS say Kronk calls were August 11, 12, 13

RE this section, including the 3 raw URLs allegedly referencing it:

In police interviews, Roy Kronk, a meter reader for the City of Orlando, describes that on August 11, 13, and December 11, 2008, he called the police about a suspicious object found in a forested area near the Anthony residence. In the first instance he was directed by the sheriff's office to call the Tip line which he did but received no return call. On the second instance, he again called the sheriff's office and eventually was met by two police officers and he reported to them that he had seen what appeared to be a skull near a gray bag. REF: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28379304/detail.html REF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEO_L-Ckjq8 REF: http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-testimonies/roy-kronk/

One one of the above is easily verifiable, the ClickOrlando reference, where reporter evidently just failed to notice all three dates. Contrast this with these five references for August 11, 12 and 13 easily found through a news.google.com search:

My original Orlando Sentinal reference which reads: Kronk made reports Aug. 11, 12 and 13, less than a month after the girl's grandmother had reported her missing from the Chickasaw Oaks subdivision.
Central Florida News 13 which reads: Kronk then said he called authorities three times, on Aug. 11, 12 and 13. The jury heard all three calls.
Fox news which reads: Roy Kronk found Caylee's duct taped skull on December 11, but Kronk called in to investigators on August 11, 12, and 13.
CBS News write reads: Kronk acknowledged making three phone calls to authorities in August 2008 in an attempt to report something he saw in the woods. "I was trying to do the right thing," he said, but on August 13, a deputy responded to the area and "chewed me out," saying Kronk was wasting county time. Kronk said he went into the woods to relieve himself on August 11 and saw "something that looks white" and a gray bag, according to his testimony and a transcript of the call. He called authorities again on August 12 and 13. Court documents show the deputy who responded August 13 told Kronk the area had already been searched.
Reuters via the Toronto Sun which reads: Kronk testified he first spotted what looked like a skull on August 11, 2008 while taking a break with two co-workers, and called a crime tip line later that night to report the object. Kronk said he called the Orange County Sheriff's Office again on the evening of August 12 and the morning of August 13 before finally getting deputies to meet him at the location.

So why are we accepting one partial report from a text URL and some bare URL's of a video? Please explain. Is there consensus to correct the dates with actual verifiable references? Alright, I'm being a big facetious. Inaccurate references should be changed, even if everyone ignores that they've been proved inaccurate. Hopefully we can at least end the edit war on that factoid! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion and ad hoc consensus vote re: Proposal #3 Outline for Death of Caylee Article

I vote NO as proposed to CarolMooredc's "proposed re-structure outline'. Her outline and remarks and the list of trial evidence she proposes is a reflection of her prejudice about George Anthony, her refusal to understand that

Morales testimony was presented by DEFENSE to exonerate Casey of choloform accusatiion, her refusal to accept that Krystal Holloways testimony was struck and considered prior inconsistent statements because she told two different versions, only admitting to the first version when shown her sworn statement. By her outlines, it is obvious that many of Carol's interpretation are factually incorrect and are refuted by actual trial footage which because Carol does not have sound on her computer she still hasn't listened to (her own admission as of last evening) as she states here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS. In addition, her personal interpretation above: Prosecution and defense (" With introduction something like: Below are the main witnesses called by the prosecution and the evidence they presented. The defense challenged these both during the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and during their own defense presentation when they re-called prosecution witnesses or called their own witnesses. Perhaps here briefly describe hostility between Ashton/Baez, this laughing guy incident, etc?) is a personal commentary on what she has been stating since she first began editing on this article. In her proposed re-structure outline she accuses Cindy Anthony of "denying to tell detectives where to search for the body and "links" it with Caylee's drowning, (a fact that was never proved at trial another figment of imagination and not factually. I could go on but basically, she wants to re-create what she "thinks" the trial should have been and take out what she does not like. I would have to be crazy to vote on that proposal the way it is presented shown. ::Oh yeah, and she also states: "finding of homicide due to delay in the finding of the body". The Coroner did not call it a homicide because it took so long to find the body. She determined that the way the body was disposed of, and the duct tape on the face was an indication of homicide. CarolMooredc has completely turned the evidence around to affirm her obsession about the crime. Mugginsx (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I also vote 'no' based on the way the proposal is worded. By labeling certain sections a certain way it paves the road for presenting statements in a way so as to persuade

the reader. I did read the proposal, Mugginsx, and so I would have to vote 'no'. I can see that some of the structure of the overall design is sensible but the particular wording is what I would have to disagree with. I think there is an agenda to misrepresent the facts in the case and re-word testimony to make things more favorable for the defense. This is something I disagree with. It was stated that a given testimony makes someone look guilty, but it is the purpose of the prosecution and the evidence they present to demonstrate guilt. Trying to make it prove she is not guilty is like trying to change the evidence itself. We can argue over what sources say, but then we will argue over which sources to pick and use in the article. That has already started. I think we will start trying to rate and rank sources by some artificial means so that it looks good for the defense or prosecution, depending on which side you favor in the article, and then argue to include or exclude those sources. For example, I'm sure people will argue that sources coming from Florida, e.g. the Orlando Sentinel, should rank higher than others. I guess that's a debate to start next. Also, my counter-statement to things that make her look guilty is to say that the verdict, which carries the most weight of all, is that of not guilty, and it's the verdict that trumps whatever one witness says or doesn't say, and so it is not worth proper effort to try to re-word or re-phrase. Basically I say pick the source you want, as long as it meets the requirements of WP and make that statement in the article. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 20:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

[Insert:] Stating the prosecution case and the defense objections and counter-evidence in an NPOV way is not an agenda to misrepresent the facts. Putting a whole section of evidence against an individual and then having a repeat of all that same evidence and only then stating the defense ojections and counter-evidenceIS an agenda to put WP:UNDUE emphasis on the the prosecutions case. Think about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat this is an ad hoc consensus vote. All the proposals are being discussed and will be voted on. You are not being singled out in that way. You are simply the first Mugginsx (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just making clear that this is one thing Carol and I disagree on. We went over this in the #Problems with August 18 edits section. But I am now okay with not having a section titled "Evidence," as can be seen above and below. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, do not take this as me trying to own the article again, but I feel this discussion would fit best in the section about Carol's proposal. Or that this section should at least be a generic section for voting on all three of the proposals. I don't feel that we need different sections to vote on all three proposals.

About Carol's proposal... Again, I did not agree with all of it. I disagree with all her unneeded subheadings, just as I disagree with all of SlimVirgin's unneeded headings and subheadings. And while we're on that topic, I don't see much difference between their unneeded subheadings. Both of them single out George Anthony and Cindy Anthony, for example. It's just that Carol also singles out Krystal Holloway in her proposal. I'm judging Carol's proposal on the bolded aspects of her outline. I agree with the bolded aspects of her outline, with the exception of what she did with the public and media responses. Just look at the bolded parts of her outline -- not the stuff in italics or her suggestions. With the basic setup of what she has bolded, excluding what she did with the public and media responses, we can work together on how to fill those sections in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How are we going to discuss and vote on all three proposals at once and in one spot. It would be chaotic and confusing. Wouldn't it better to leave it here and have a seperate section for each proposal so that individual discussion can be had? I not trying to be argumentative on this but it seems that something as important as a new re-structure of the article (which it basically is) should have more space. So I am going to leave it here and we can create sections for each proposal so they can be discussed (if anyone wants to) and voted on seperately. You, above all people, should know (because you have had almost as many runins with her as I), that once you allow her outline in she will use not only what is in the bold headlines but what she puts in parenthesis too. If we will then object after the vote, she will hold the vote over our head like a hammer and insist she has consensus and if anyone objects she will say her usual thing: Take it to a noticeboard which, incidentally, thanks to you, I am not longer hesitate to engage in a noticeboard. But, based on past experience, I believe that is exactly what she will do. If you give her an inch she will take a mile. She will hold us to each and every word in that outline! Mugginsx (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, it's simple. Just state in one section which proposal you prefer or if it's a combination of two or all three. All people have to do is look above to see the proposal, then you have one section where you vote. It's not like I have to cast a vote for each of the proposals. If I prefer one over the others, then that is my vote. I'm not understanding what you mean about "How are we going to discuss and vote on all three proposals at once and in one spot?" or how that is difficult. We use subheadings and section breaks when discussions get long. But we don't need an extra section for discussion of these proposals anyway. We have the above sections for that, which clearly have "and discussion" in their titles. This section could be simply for voting, while the discussions take place above.

I don't mind much either way. I can't say I prefer any proposal except for my own, and it seems we all have problems with all three. I only agree with a basic outline. Meaning no unnecessary subheadings. That is why I'm trying to compromise. It seems only a compromise will work. And Carol cannot use what is italics and parenthesis too, unless WP:Consensus is for it. WP:Consensus is a policy, not a guideline, and she cannot get around that...no matter how many times it is brought up.

I'm leaving for several hours now; I have other things to do at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus reads: Many of these broader discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting.Since this section title looks like a personal attack I have retitled it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am telling the truth and you know it. You should look at the numerous remarks you have made to CarolMooredc - they mirror mine completely. I think you are tired and maybe a little upset that I did not automatically vote for your version like I have numerous times before, except on 2 occasions I have previously mnentioned. User:Mugginsx|Mugginsx]] (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, I don't know what you mean. And I ask that you stop attacking me. I am not upset with you. I am telling you what parts of Carol's outline I agree with, that I am trying to compromise, and that Carol cannot violate consensus. Like I stated, I'll be back several hours later. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just don't forget: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions, though I'm not calling for that right now because I think we have a good chance to put something here together, especially if we get a level headed editor like Slim Virgin throwing in her two cents from time to time :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I read about a this kind of vote: Wikipedia:Voting is not evil Voting vs. consensus board Each article has a built-in talk page. In the event of a dispute over how something should be done, it may be brought up, in one of two forms, on the talk page. The most common form is an ad hoc consensus board, which will materialize around the catalyst issue, debate it, and, hopefully, bring it to a resolution. This is the "community" approach, and in most cases it is the best option for a mutually amicable solution. Voting is a vaguely more formalized process. It should be advertised, and a vote should not be sprung on a topic at any time. Each user gets one vote, and when the voting closes (a predetermined time limit is strongly advised, one week is reasonable) the side with majority votes is the "winner". The terms having now been defined, the rest of this article will be dedicated to helping you choose the right times and places to stage or participate in a vote. That settles this section. It also states: "it should be advertised". It is a discussion with an ad hoc consensus vote. Mugginsx (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx - It's against talk page guidelines to use another editor's name in a section heading as you did here. Editors can use their own name in headings if they choose, but naming someone else is not done, and might be seen as an attack. See this guideline on the subject. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did not know that. Will identify proposals by number. There are three. Is that permitted? Mugginsx (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that note, Shirtwaist. I actually did identify it as an attack. Please read WP:NPA. I think I had a right to change it to something that reflects what most of discussion is about. I do request that Mugginsx change it to something that is neutral and descriptive of what other editors think this section is about: best way to consense on outline. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The heading no longer identifies you by name. I apologize for putting it in the heading. You presented a proposal. There are three proposals. We cannot have a clear discussion and coherent discussion and an ad hoc consensus on all three proposals in one section. It will be a confusing mess. Mugginsx (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think people have rejected the idea of doing it this way and again it's not a vote anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wherever did you get that idea. Two have voted. The discussion has no time limit and other editors have yet to join the discussion and vote.

Flyer: I revised my heading to say "ad hoc consensus" as per the guildlines at Wikipedia:Voting is not evil that I quoted above. I did note where you asked for a consensus in Archive #5 "Consensus for keeping or removing the non-neutral tag" - so I really do not understand what the difference is here but I changed it anyway to ad hoc consenus guidelines. I don't know how we can discuss and vote on three separate proposals in one area. Mugginsx (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

To state what I thought was obvious, but evidently was not to at least one person: Consensus means you work together to try to bring together the positive elements of all proposals. This is not three different people saying TAKE ME, REJECT HER! It's a process of trying to see what we agree works. Which is why I said I was working from SlimVirgin's version. Flyer22's was not quite different enough from the original, though I might have incorporated some aspects without mentioning. Frankly, I can't remember that far back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems that at least two editors have finished discussion and have voted, another has some reservations, and other regular editors have not had a chance to discuss and vote on proposal#3, so the discussion does not seem to be over yet. Mugginsx (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still working through proposal 1 and similarities to proposal 3. I guess I should post in the proposal 1 section then. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere 01:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ThisLaughingGuyRightHere -If you like for example: elements of 2 and 3 then put them together and call them Proposal #4 (combination of the two) and we can discuss that. Or any other combination of 1 and 2 etc. It seems to me to be the only orderly way to have the discussions and keep track of both the discussion and the votes. Otherwise, we will go around in circles forever. Mugginsx (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx, see RfC: Should the name of the article be changed to "Casey Anthony trial'? for how voting and discussion can happen all in one section. That is what I was talking about in using subheadings and the like. We already have this above. A subsection heading for voting, or a new one for separate discussion, could have been created there...if needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point now. Mugginsx (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[searches-1] "Shady Web Searches In Missing Girl Case". CBS.com. Associated Press. November 26, 2008. Retrieved May 11, 2011.

[2] Considine, Bob (September 5, 2008). "Did Caylee's mom chloroform her? Evidence mounts". MSNBC.com. Retrieved July 6, 2011.

[Pavuk-3] Pavuk, Amy (July 1, 2011). "Casey Anthony trial: Could Cindy Anthony face perjury charges?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved July 8, 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Schneider-4] Schneider, Mike (June 8, 2011). "Internet searches focus of the day in Casey Anthony trial". news-journalonline.com/Associated Press. Retrieved July 12, 2011. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[5] "OCSO photos of location where remains were found set 9". Media.myfoxorlando.com. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
"OCSO photos of of location where remains were found set 9 index". Media.myfoxorlando.com. February 18, 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
"OCSO photos of of location where remains were found set 3 index". Media.myfoxorlando.com. February 18, 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2011.Photos should be after text story, not before.

[6] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaA-IW8TpJI&feature=related Video should come after text references. Please provide name of video, what it is referencing, and if very specific, what time the information is on the video; make sure it is not misused copyrighted material, like ABC News on a personal web site.

[7] KRONK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ppeBMx3uuY See comment above

[8] Posted: 11:52 am EST January 21, 2009 (2009-01-21). "Documents: Heart Sticker On Tape Over Caylee's Mouth - News Story - WFTV Orlando". Wftv.com. Retrieved 2011-07-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[9] Does facebook play a role in Caylee Anthony's disappearance?, CBS12 New December 18, 2008.
"Documents: Heart Sticker On Tape Over Caylee's Mouth". WFTV. January 21, 2009. Retrieved June 1, 2011.
"Sheriff: Anthony home may be a crime scene". CNN. December 11, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2011. So which of all these refs really the best and most relevant? Why so many for so little information??

[10] "Lawyer: Investigators think body is Caylee's". CNN. December 12, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2011.

[11] Pacheco, Walter; Lundy, Sarah; Edwards, Amy L. (December 19, 2008). "Remains identified as missing toddler Caylee Anthony". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved December 19, 2008.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]