Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

two iffy pieces?

1. Is a blurb for a book of sufficient direct importance to the article? (Specifically the ad for "Mommy's Little Girl"). 2. Is the comparison to the Chandlers case of sufficient direct connection to the topic of the article? At first glance, my opinion is that neither is of direct utility to the reader (unless we get a cut from Amazon for referring to the book). Collect (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Homicide is alleged, not known

At trial the defense has said that Caylee's death was an accident -- if homicide has not been proven, why is this article titled that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliza250 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been presumed to be a homicide from the very beginning. The defense's new argument just came up today. Given the strong presumption of a homicide over period since the body was discovered, the article title seems appropriate. Safiel (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. I doubt the defense attorneys even believe that it was an accident, let alone any other person on the planet. The accident idea almost borders on WP:FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The State of Florida is alleging that a homicide occurred; therefore, this is a homicide case. Whether or not the defendant actually gets convicted of homicide, proper, is not relevant. The title of the article is fine (and appropriate) as it now stands. As another example, consider the O. J. Simpson murder case. The two victims (Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman) were murdered, and it was a murder case. The fact that O. J. Simpson was eventually and ultimately acquitted of the murder does not change the fact that it was a murder case and that, factually, the two victims were indeed murdered. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

The article was named "homicide" because that was the determination of Dr. G, the medical examiner. The official cause of death at this time is still "homicide". Rhoadrunner (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why has this been renamed without a discussion? Or, more to the point, against a discussion that was settled a long time ago? Rhoadrunner (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• That is a very good question. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP

This article is shit - statements about living figures should not have "citation needed" tags used, the statement should be removed until it can sourced. --87.194.194.250 (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(WP:CIVIL). WP:BURDEN also asserts that it is a good practice to try to find sources (just) before deletion. --Lexein (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the fact is that its not badly citated it is only in need of a few extra sources. No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:BLP does require that contentious statements about living people be removed if they are not supported by a reliable source. There is no policy that requires leaving something up while searching for sources, as this would be in conflict with BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Have fixed sources for the areas of concern.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Revised my comment with (just) to better convey my meaning. --Lexein (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of reference to Steven Soderbergh's play 'Tot Mom' performed by the Sydney Theatre Company in 2010

Director Steven Soderbergh wrote and produced the play Tot Mom, based on the Caylee Anthony case. The play was performed in Australia by the Sydney Theatre Company in early 2010. It is suggested that reference to this play is made under the heading 'In Popular Culture'. There should be links to Steven Soderberg's Wikipedia page, which references the play, as well as links to publicity for the play. LMOughton (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an "In popular culture" section. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Many legal cases (i.e., crimes) have such a section. I was just reading one the other day in this article (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) about the Columbine High School massacre. As a matter of fact, there is an entire article named Columbine High School massacre in modern culture. Also, although I have not checked, I would not be surprised if certain infamous crimes/criminals (e.g., Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Leopold and Loeb, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.) have similar sections within their articles. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree with Joseph Spadaro.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Because "in popular culture" sections are discouraged because they usually become a list of unsourced trivia. If an item is notable enough for inclusion, it can generally be included in the body of the article rather then be a stand-alone section. This would be especially true with a single entry like this. If there is only one thing, there is no list and not really a need for a seciton of its own. As for the "well this article has it", I refer you to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this relevent?

Florida law states that all inmate visits and phone calls are videotaped and are public records. - OK, so that's relevant to an article about Florida and it's prisons - why is it a relevant point here? --87.194.194.250 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And the major concern is?--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to this article - that's the concern. How does this piece of information add to the reader's understanding of the subject material of this article. It seems to be generic piece of information about the prison system rather than a specific piece of information that related to this article --87.194.194.250 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see the relevance. Nor do I see the relevence of this: "In May 2011, comparison was drawn between the murder case and upcoming trial of Casey Anthony and that of convicted triple murderer Oba Chandlers case and trial in 1994, as in both cases the high amount of attention from media forced the jurors to be chosen from outside the county of the committed crime". Just because a RS says something doesn't make it relevent to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt questioning that, I was only pointing out if it is a major concern then just remove it. And you dont need to time after time mention the 1994 connection, you removed it and I havent argued against it so move on. Im over it and I hope you are too.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone says their personal opinion (like you niteshift) doesnt make it more or less relevant either. It is a matter of consensus within Wikipedia. This is my last word in this ridiculous discussion.:) Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Time after time? I mentioned it ONCE in an edit summary, then brought it up ONCE for discussion here. Now you want to talk consensus? Do you even know what it means? It means we discuss it.......but you're busy bitching about "bringing it up time after time". You know what? I'll handle it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Chill out. Just because two editors doesnt agree on a certain subject doesnt give you the right to give remarks such as "bitching about" etc etc.. it certainly doesnt give me any reason to believe we can ever have a sensible discussion. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• No sport, you chill out. First you start with this "time after time" nonsense, then you totally misrepresent the consensus process, then say that was you "last word in this ridiculous discussion" (which it obviously wasn't). You have done little to discuss and much to instigate, then want to turn around and bitch about me using the word "bitch"? Get a grip. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of you chill out and disengage over this. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Niteshift - no I can't see the relevance of that section either - since the article is currently locked to IP editors, can you remove both sections? --87.194.194.250 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Already took care of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Great that whole section is problematical - for example, the stuff on jury selection should be integrated into the sections above to provide a linear narrative not hidden in that strange pseduo-bio that sits at the bottom of the page. --87.194.194.250 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my two cents. That section that the OP cited reads: Florida law states that all inmate visits and phone calls are videotaped and are public records. That section was/is relevant. All of Casey's visits and phone calls were plastered all over the news and the media (e.g., The Nancy Grace Show, etc.). (Certainly, no other inmate's visits and phone calls were broadcast similarly.) And, one of the main legal contentions in this case is that the media became saturated with all aspects, details, and minutiae of the case (including, e.g., Casey's visits and phone calls). To the average reader, a prisoner's visits and phone calls would seem, at least somewhat, "personal and private". Under Florida law, however, they are apparently deemed to be public records. That is why, I believe, this statement was originally introduced into the article. Furthermore, I do think that it is relevant. Finally, I am not sure what the problem with it is or why it is controversial in this thread. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

Your explanation makes it clearer but seems to be original research by linking the two together - does any RS make this claim? --87.194.194.250 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph Spadaro here. It is relevant and should be put back in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Of course you agree, because he at least acted like he had a reason. It's not a good one, but at least he put effort into it. Speculation about what "the average reader" might think is the first indicator of WP:SYNTH. Again, just because a source said it, that doesn't make it relevant. If a source said she prefers bacon instead of sausage, do we put that in too? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have also reverted back so that information is visible again. As it was clearly a mistake or misjudgment.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the whole bit is trivial and adds nothing to the understanding of the case. (I got bored of waiting for this article to be unlocked so started using my account again - 87.194.194.250 is my IP address). --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Scott above here has been blocked for a week for vandalism on this article. I have now changed it back to an un-vandalised version. Just to let you all know.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Have you noticed that THREE different editors are taking out some of the same stuff and you keep putting it back. Smelling like edit-warring. I'd be concerned about my own block if I were you. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong - that block was overturned within the hour as the mistake that it was. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow hope you have learned a lesson. Anyway im pelased with the current version of the article. And I hope we can all move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no lesson to be learnt as my actions were in line with policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• How interesting that BabbaQ jumped on this "block" so fast and then reverted everything. Looks like some system gaming is afoot.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony infobox

For the trivial amount of information, birth/death dates and birth/death locations, that the infobox contains, seems like it could simply be deleted, as the dates are already in the lead and the location information appears as early as the first paragraph. Not sure the box is serving a necessary purpose in this article. No biggie, but will wait to see what the response is. Safiel (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LMOughton, 26 May 2011

Following comments on the discussion page, rather than proposing the introduction of a new section entitled 'In Popular Culture', I am proposing that the following paragraph instead be inserted at the end of Publicity. I believe this information to be of relevance and interest to those studying the Caylee Anthony case.

Following the last sentence 'He was taken to Halifax Hospital for psychiatric evaluation and later released', please include:

Following this intense media attention, Oscar winning film director Steven Soderbergh wrote and directed the play Tot Mom, which was performed by the Sydney Theatre Company between late 2009 and early 2010. Documentary in style, the play used excerpts from transcripts of Nancy Grace's show, court documents and police reports. In an interview on Australia's ABC Radio National (23 December 2009), Soderbergh stated that rather than intending a critique of the media, Grace's unremitting methods were critical in unearthing crucial evidence in the case.

LMOughton (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need a reliable source demonstrating 1) that the play is based on the event, and 2) that the play is notable/important to the ongoing legacy of this murder. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition to page

Popular culture references. The alledged crimes against of Casey Anthony have made their way from the television to children's playgrounds through the following chilling rhyme harkening back to the days of Elizabeth Borden: Casey Anthony killed her daughter In just over 12 feet of water When she saw what she had done She stashed the body and went on the run. Jbt003 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• That request is a joke, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• It should not be added to the page. ttonyb (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this as answered. It's clearly not a serious request; if, somehow, all of us are mistake, please provide a reliable source justifying this addition. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Casey Anthony's Ex-Boyfriend's Name

I believe the name of the boyfriend in this article should be "Tony Lazzaro", not "Tony Rusciano" (unless he was another ex). Tv sucks (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS to support the change/addition. ttonyb (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is new to me. Here is a link to an Orlando Sentinel article. I can provide more, if necessary: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-casey-anthony-trial-week-1-recap-20110528,0,3922598.story Tv sucks (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd page of the source for that sentence calls him, Anthony Rusciano. I suspect the source on the article and your source are tgalking about 2 different people. GB fan (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Here is an article where there are two different boyfriends with the first name Anthony/Tony. Lazzaro testified this past week. Didn't realize there was another Tony: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-casey-anthony-late-motions-20101221,0,4236817.story Tv sucks (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Father?

Why is there no mention of the child's father in this article? MPA 08:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

• Where do you think it should go? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing in the article because there is nothing to report. Any information concerning the father would be speculation. Rhoadrunner (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

About Casey?

I find it a bit suspicious that "Casey Anthony" redirects here but contains little information about Casey Anthony. Who is she? When did she get pregnant? Was it a hard pregnancy? Who is/was her husband or boyfriend? What has been his reaction to all of this? Did this information exist in earlier versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.151.50 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't Casey Anthony's bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is no article for Casey Anthony because Casey herself isn't notable outside of her ongoing legal troubles. All coverage of her so far seems to be directly related to the death of her daughter, so my understanding is that it's her daughter's death that's notable, and she's simply a part of that event. Don't worry though. At some point in the future, when the trial is over, biographies will be written and documentaries will be filmed and we'll get an article about her. Until then, information appears to be limited to the context of this case. Skiguy330 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not spam

Usertalk:Ttonyb removed a citation about the book "Mommy's Little Girl," calling it spam. It is a book about the Caylee Anthony case, and it is not spam; it is relevant to the case, just as newspaper articles are. It was removed, without explanation, so I put it back in. Should I instead add it under "External links" or "Further reading?" I'd be happy to do that. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Am adding the book, citing/sourcing the Orlando Sentinel, under External links. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding this link to the article. It adds nothing to the article other than provide a link book about the case. This book plays no significant role in the case or adds anything to the article. ttonyb (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pogowii, 2 June 2011

Casey Anthony's birthdate is March 19, 1986 not March 11, 1986 Pogowii (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 DoneI have updated the birthdate. Next time you ask for an edit to a semi-protected article, please provide a reliable source. GB fan (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 50.53.47.155, 5 June 2011

It should added under category:2010s_missing_person_cases. this isn't in this category.

• Not done. The girl went missing in 2008 and mother indicted in 2008. There was no missing persons case in the 2010's. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition to page

In popular media:

The Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit episode "Selfish" in season 10 is clearly based on this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.116.16 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source that says it is based on this case it doesn't belong. Even if you can just because it is sourced, that does not mean the information belongs in the article, you would need to show why it belongs. GB fan (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Donpayette, 12 June 2011

In Investigation section, replace "... in the forested area around the corner from the Anthony's street, Suburban Drive, ..." with "... in the forested area off of Suburban Drive, around the corner from the Anthony's street, Hopespring Drive, ..." because the Anthony home was at 4937 Hopespring Drive.

Donpayette (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out which source describes this (or give a new one; a link would be fine if you do not want to mess with the formatting)? Preferably one that does not include photos, as I am already feeling a bit nauseated. I am leaving this request open for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

he made a help-me request at User talk:Donpayette providing a link. mabdul 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing this correctly, so here goes. Here is a URL - http://www.cayleedaily.com/2011/01/cindygeorge-anthony-take-up-to-80-of-foundation-donation-money/. It has Casey's parents home address as the location for their "foundation". Just search for 4937 in the page and you'll find it.Donpayette (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the Disappearance section, it mentions "Caylee had lived in her grandparents' home with her mother, Casey Anthony...". You might want to put the address there. You're call. Donpayette (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should avoid pointing out the specific address of any individual on this article for the reasons explained at the Biographies of living persons policy. Basically, adding that level of detail has very little encyclopedic merit but high potential for abuse. Even child-murdering scum deserve a fair trial, and even more do victims of a tragedy (please make sure that alleged and similar language is used throughout until there is a verdict). The neighborhood and city should be enough detail; linking to documents that include the address is fine (for instance, I assume it is in the court documents, which are directly relevant here). I changed some of the language here; please edit if the information can be expressed better.

I am not confident that cayleedaily.com meets the standards of a reliable source. It appears to be a clearinghouse for related news stories (just link the original source) with a blog/forum aspect (see self-published sources).

Anyway, you are past the WP:AUTOCONFIRM bar now, so you should be able to edit the article directly. Please read the living persons policy linked above and be careful, but otherwise good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your comments. It has been a learning experience going through this process. I now even know about the four tildes, and using colons to do indents!! Thanks again. Donpayette (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For the first paragraph under 'publicity' I searched each of the links given (3,35-41) for the phrase "the professionals, the psychics and police" given as a quote from Nancy Grace. I found no such quote in any of those links. I even did a full search (via google) on that phrase and got only three hits - one of them the wiki article itself, the other two copies of that article. I am not usually a wiki contributor, and I originally just came here to get information on the case but decided to try and confirm the quotes as it sounded fishy to me. As is, I would suggest you either confirm the quote, or remove it in a rewrite as currently it seems to lack a valid citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.4.209 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Breaking new ground?

The article said that the case broke new ground and is the first to use DNA evidence. This is obviously false. DNA evidence has been used for years even going back to the OJ Simpson trial. What's more, the cited source doesn't say anything about the case breaking new ground.[1] So I fixed it.[2] Unfortunately, for some strange reason, UnicornTapestry has restored the factually inaccurate information.[3] BTW, does anyone know if criminalbrief.com is a reliable source? It looks like a group blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it meant one of the prosecutors worked on the case which was the first to use DNA evidence, not that this was the first case to use DNA evidence. Anyway, it's gone now. -- Selket ^Talk 05:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Eikelenboom is best known in the DNA community as a pioneer in the detection of “touch DNA” – skin cells left behind by an assailant or criminal as a result of rough-handling during criminal activity." [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)