Talk:Carlisle buried baby case

Evidence needed to allege someone is a convicted criminal
Editors need good evidence before alleging someone is a convicted criminal. That means one needs to be able to cite a source that specifically says a person was and is "convicted criminal"; otherwise editors are injecting editorial opinion into the article about how a person came to be convicted of a criminal offence. Prior to the offending detailed in this article, the subject was not a "convicted criminal" as far as I can tell from the sources. While the subject was charged with several different criminal offences, she was "only found guilty of serious mistreatment of a corpse". What little I know of US law, offences are classified in different ways and while some are considered crimes, others are only considered misdemeanors. Consequently, somebody can be convicted of an offence but if the offence is not a crime, how can the person be considered a criminal? There is also a matter of causality. A person can only become a "convicted criminal" after they have first performed a criminal act and then been convicted of that criminal act. Something to be aware of is that the lead section of an article gives a summary of the whole article. So it needs to be worded in a very specific way so that does not imply a person already was a "convicted criminal" before they had been convicted. It is unnecessary to characterize the subject as "convicted criminal" in any case because the article explains how they came to be convicted. Although, labeling a person a "convicted criminal" implies a non-neutral editorial viewpoint, so needs a specific citation that identifies who holds this opinion or is making this judgement or allegation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable for a single event
The subject of this article is notable for only one event, that of burying her baby and the subsequent consequences of that act. In such circumstances: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Aside from the act of burying her baby, and the subsequent consequences, what makes the subject notable enough to need a biography? I think both WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME apply. Also, when writing about crime, both the victim's and perpetrator's stories need to be covered, this is easier to do as an event than as a biography. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Should this article be renamed to "Death of Annabelle Richardson" and focus on the event instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usual Nicolaus (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly the article should focus on the event and its consequences. But you raise an interesting question about what the title of the article should be. I think using the words "Death of" is very problematic and there are specific guideline of what such a title means. I don't think this case fits those criteria well enough. The Baker and Schupp citation from Fox19.com (citation 4) suggests the child was prematurely stillborn. There are other sources that suggest this too. Because there are no other witnesses to the baby's birth, there is insufficient evidence that the child was born alive and then subsequently died nor is there sufficient evidence to confirm the child was stillborn. Anyway, this is a rather arcane area of criminal law and what constitutes a "live" birth can depend on the jurisdiction. Since we have an absence of evidence of the life of Annabelle Richardson, how can we then purport to write an article about her death? To say that "Annabelle died" without being open to other possibilities means Wikipedia is chooses sides, because we are indicating we believe the Police case, and it implies a biased point of view. There is a significant degree of doubtfulness that the baby was born alive in the first place. The police and prosecutors failed to prove it and the jury said the evidence was not there, so they acquitted on the charges of murder and child endangerment. Also, since the birth was not formally reported, can a name, which was not initially registered by the mother, really be attached to the article? Because that implies we might believe Richardson's evidence, instead. The only thing we know for certain is that Richardson buried the baby she gave birth to. There are several criteria for an article title, which need to be not only recognizable, but also natural, precise, concise, and consistent with the naming pattern of similar articles. Titles should also be non-judgmental and descriptive. I think we need to look at the sources for inspiration. I have seen some sources refer to this event as the "Carlisle buried baby trial" or "Carlisle buried baby case" when they are describing the event rather than referring to Richardson being on trial. I think an article title like that would be better, all things considered. We have other "cases" too, so as an an initial suggestion I would go for "Carlisle buried baby case". Can anyone come up with a better suggestion? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion "Carlisle buried baby case" sounds much better. We can probably move the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usual Nicolaus (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So I became bold and moved the page to Carlisle buried baby case. What remains to be done is some clean-up to refocus the article on the event, rather than the person. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Related articles
I have added a "See also" section for wiki-links to related Wikipedia articles. However, I cannot find many other Wikipedia examples of where the mother of a newborn or stillborn baby has buried the corpse. I have seen news reports of other examples, but none of the others appear to be notable. I am reluctant to link to an article about abuse of a corpse because this is currently a redirect to necrophilia, which I think would be inappropriate in this case. On the other hand, that also means there are few articles that link to this case, consequently the article is a near orphan, which I think can be de-orphaned, but I would welcome any reasonable suggestions. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is now linked from Kerry Babies case, a somewhat similar case from Ireland, but the list of articles linking to this one is very short. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   12:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Poor article
Something seems to be "off" about this article on WP. It seems tabloid-esque and sensationalized. If this article is solely notable for what the title presumes: "Carlisle buried baby case" why is 90% of the article focused on Skylar Richardson? This article is about the case, not Richardson. As stated above, the crime is the article, not the subject. This needs a good re-write focusing on the case only; or a separate article should be created like Diane Downs. I am seriously casting doubt if this case is even worth inclusion at WP; but I'll let that go. Certainly the content on the subject that clearly shows a BLP style article (with infobox and all) should be removed and the facts found within re-written as case relevant. Maineartists (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This statement: "Richardson attended Carlisle High School in Ohio, where she was a cheerleader" is not only unsourced but has no relevance to the article. It is trivial at best and clearly shows an attempt to make this article a BLP. Maineartists (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  21:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Carlisle buried baby case → Brooke Skylar Richardson – 'Carlisle buried baby case' is never used to describe this incident except as the title of the Wikipedia page. This title also make it unclear what the page is about; it's imprecise, as 'Carlisle' can refer to many things, and the baby having been buried isn't the most important aspect of the case. 'Brooke Skylar Richardson' (which currently exists as a redirect) should be the title of this page because the entire article is about her and her trial.&#32;Baronet13 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. C LYDE  TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 20:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not uncontroversial due to WP:BIO1E / WP:BLP1E. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP1E and also WP:CRIME, the current article could possibly be nominated for deletion. Despite some local news coverage, I don't think the incident is notable enough for an article. Regardless, if the article survives an AfD discussion, that would still indicate that only the crime is notable and the article should not be titled after Ms. Richardson. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the article's title would probably be based on the event; however, the current title of the article doesn't really make sense. I'm open to suggestions if you can think of a way to improve the title as an alternative to moving to the redirect. Baronet13 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the right forum for discussion - I'd suggest opening a WP:RM by clicking on the "discuss" link for this. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did this article get placed for AfD then immediately get proposed for merge? Isn't the correct procedure be to offer Merge as a vote at AfD instead of Delete or Keep? This is all very confusing. I have already voted at AfD. What am I supposed to do now? I gave my say over there. This seems the cart before the horse. Maineartists (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems that there were parallel discussions started at about the same time, hence current situation. In any case, this is a requested move discussion (not a merge discussion), and whatever conclusion here will only be in effect after the AfD discussion is closed as it can be confusing to any closer of either discussions when the article is being moved while AfD is ongoing. – robertsky (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The part where it says she was interviewed without her parents present should be removed
As she was already 18 when she gave birth and therefore would be 18 when she was interrogated the fact her parents were not present when she was interviewed is not a problem and therefore must be removed. It sounds like the author is trying to say her rights were violated with that but as an 18 year old you won’t have the option for parents being present in an interview. While the attorney part should definitely stay the part about the parents not being there should be removed 2601:152:C01:3F90:3485:D806:BB99:8EC0 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)