Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 4

article not NPOV, reads as if Casey committed a murder
Casey Anthony was found not guilty. That is as much of an exoneration as anyone gets. She is now officially innocent of the crime, and that is what Wikipedia should reflect, not the subjective opinions of the editors. No matter how much some editors on here have tried to paint her as guilty, well before the trial started, she is and was innocent of the crime, as a matter of law. Wikipedia is not the place to carry on a personal protest of the verdict. Wikipedia is just for the facts, as established by the courts. This entire article needs to be re-written in a neutral manner. Right now, the article is overloaded with tiny details all tending to show how Anthony is or was guilty. The article is way too long to read, and is disjointed and confusing. A stripped down, crisp summary of the case would serve the readers better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackie Lstreet (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what I stated right above your section: "There is nothing POV about presenting facts. And it is fact that there was significant outcry when the verdict was rendered as "Not Guilty" and that many/most people have disagreed with the verdict. This is backed up by every reliable source out there, and should be presented in this article, which includes celebrity outrage at the verdict. If Blackie Lstree has a problem with that, which it is clear that Blackie Lstree's does, then Blackie Lstree is going to have to present reliable sources that dispute these passages. A Quest For Knowledge shouldn't have to tweak the wording to downplay the outrage. Downplaying the outage is not accurate. And there is no way to make the passages "more neutral," seeing as every source out there says that most people are against the verdict, aside from presenting the minority who are not outraged. And we do present both sides."


 * So, again, I do not understand your issue with this article. Or what you are expecting. It's not like this article can present her in a positive light in any way, except for what she may say about herself, what the defense has to say about her, or the men who think she is good-looking think about the guilty verdict. You say, "She is now officially innocent of the crime, and that is what Wikipedia should reflect, not the subjective opinions of the editors." I say, "WE ARE REFLECTING THAT SHE HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY!" But you know what the public thinks of that? That the jury got it wrong! Virtually every source reporting on this case says that. Polls show that. That is not our opinion. That is the opinion of the general public. Just because she has been found "Not Guilty, which does not mean "Innocent" by the way (as even jurors do not believe she is innocent), does not mean this article should largely reflect the opinion that she is not guilty. And there is no way this article can do that anyway, because the majority of Americans believe she is guilty. You call for WP:NPOV, but then basically state the article should reflect her as not guilty? Further, only one section is dedicated to focusing on public reaction regarding the verdict -- and that's the Public and media reactions section -- unless you count the "Caylee's law" and "Caylee's song" section. Basically, your argument makes no sense. I could see if there were reliable sources out there saying "America loves Casey Anthony" (instead of loving the trial) or that "Americans are divided on whether or not Casey Anthony is guilty." But they are not. They are virtually unanimous in their belief that she is guilty. This is not a neutral point of view issue. This not a WP:BLP issue, seeing as this is not a WP:Biography. This is a trial article, with information about the murder, arrest, evidence, trial and reactions. These reactions are mostly negative, and that cannot be helped. We shouldn't try to downplay or downsize that negativity. It is what it is. If her trial section makes her look guilty, that is even less our faults. That has to do with her own lies. This article is not "way too long to read." Check out WP:SIZE. There are Wikipedia articles much longer than this one. This article only looks long from its table of contents. But most of the sections are currently relatively small. Nothing is disjointed or confusing; you are only saying that because you want "a stripped down, crisp summary of the case" that would tell readers very little about this trial. But this is an encyclopedia; it should include all significant aspects of this trial. Your suggestion would not do that.


 * You need to read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies (starting at that Welcome tag on your user page), because your editing and perception of what is going on here is "off." Wikipedia articles are not presenting the opinions of their editors; Wikipedia is reporting what reliable sources say. If reliable sources said "Everyone loves Casey Anthony," that would be in the Public and media reactions section as well. If there was a lot of positive material coming about about Casey Anthony, it would be in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I think you should read up on the guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place to try the accused. This article is a mess because it was written with the agenda of showing how guilty Casey Anthony is/was. It reads like a brief for the prosecution. The established fact forevermore is that as a matter of law Casey Anthony is innocent of murder. The article is not neutral because it is focused on presenting facts tending to show that she is guilty of murder. This is not what an encyclopedia article should be focused on. The article needs a major overhaul to present the case in a neutral manner. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing is written with an agenda in this article. We are presenting exactly what was shown by the defense team and prosecution, as well as the media outrage at the verdict. You also keep confusing "innocent" with "Not Guilty." You keep trying to remove facts so that people do not conclude she is guilty based on exactly what was presented and reported on. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in, but "not guilty" and innocent are two separate ideas. Just because someone is "not guilty" doesn't mean they didn't (actually) commit the crime. It only means the jury thought the state didn't show enough evidence, witnesses, etc. to prove the charges. Not having enough evidence doesn't mean the defendant is innocent, since the defendant could have destroyed all the incriminating evidence before it could be discovered by the police. I'm not saying that has happened in this case, but that it is certainly possible in general. Such a situation is often referred to as a Perfect Crime. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the United States, "Not Guilty" and "innocent" are in fact the same thing. However, this is not the place for this discussion. The court found that she was not guilty - the article must reflect that in a neutral manner. Quinxorin (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. I will be happy to discuss it at the proper place. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very confused by this tag, and it nearly made me shy away from the article when I came to read it. I'm glad that I didn't, as I found the article to be decidedly neutral; in fact, I was impressed that it took so much time to detail the defense's rebuttal of nearly all of the prosecution's evidence. All I knew going into the article was that there was massive public outrage over the verdict, so I wanted to see more about the case, and this helped me understand better BOTH sides of the issue, including why the jurors offered a not guilty verdict. That's just my two cents as an outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.110.200 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, IP. An outside opinion, as in a person who is not an editor here at Wikipedia was definitely needed. I have done my best to make this article neutral but also comprehensive and accurate. I did so in the Criminal trial section and in the During and after the trial sections. There was no way to have a Public and media reactions section, for example, without relaying the fact that there was such an outrage over the verdict. And that section would not be complete without showcasing all the reactions (including people agreeing with the verdict) and explaining them. So of course I did not (and still do not) understand Blackie Lstreet's non-neutral argument. The tag was placed on by another editor, too, but that editor was not too familiar with the trial and simply wondered if maybe some things were not neutral after reading the Criminal trial section. That editor also cleaned up some of the text. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit to correct error:
In the paragraph starting with this sentence: "On July 6, 2011, Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton gave his first interview about the case on The View. Ashton said of the verdict, "Obviously, it's not the outcome we wanted. But from the perspective of what we do, this was a fantastic case." He disagrees with those who state the defense overcharged the case, saying, "The facts that we had...this was first-degree murder. I think it all came down to the evidence. I think ultimately it came down to the cause of death."

the word defense (bolded by me, not in original text) obviously should have been "prosecution" or "State"

I'd have made the correction myself, but have only 9 edits accepted to date that I signed in to make. (Should have done one more sometime).

D.A.Timm (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. Please make more edits! ;) Drmies (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Heading changes and section merges
Flyer22, to avoid disputes it is best to discuss heading changes and section merges on talk pages before you make them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed no headings. I merged sections. And merging sections that are largely about the same thing is perfectly acceptable, per Talk page guidelines (Section headings). You might want to stop trying to teach me things as though I am some newbie. If you are going to be at this article to mostly hound me, then you might as well leave now (as you already stated you were done here). Because I'm not going to take it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and refactoring of talk page
Flyer22 has drastically altered this Talk page by removing sections from the bottom of the Talk page and placing them in a diferent order significantly up higher on this Talk page. Thus, someone reading this page would not be able to grasp as readily what the current content dispute is all about. The sections that were currently being discussed were about NPOV and BLP violations and issues in this article. But it is very difficult to know that since the sections discussing these crucial issues have been removed from the bottom of this Talk page. I am going to restore these improperly moved sections, so that someone reviewing this Talk page will know what the dispute is all about. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. As I stated above: I changed no headings. I merged sections. And merging sections that are largely about the same thing is perfectly acceptable, per Talk page guidelines (Section headings). You need to stop making sections about the same thing and keep your rants in one place.


 * Again, you clearly do not understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are no NPOV or BLP issues in this article, and you can't point any out if you tried. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop being so disprutive and shrinking the print on this Talk page! Blackie Lstreet (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, according to other editors, you are the one being disruptive. And now look who is refactoring sections. You are making a mess. The sections titled "Comment on NPOV," "Trial needs overhaul,"and "BLP worries" are supposed to be higher than this. They weren't originally subsections either. In what way do they relate to the main section I am responding in now? You clearly haven't even familiarized yourself with what subheadings are. You are also quite transparent as to use any new policy or guideline violation you learn for the day to throw back at me. I warn you of 3RR; you warn me of 3RR, but quite wrongly...because you accuse me of committing it. I get addressed about talk page guidelines, wrongly I might add. Then you throw the same wrong material at me. Funny really. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yippe. You are trying to fix it. This section is still supposed to come last, however. Newest sections go last, unless an editor combines redundant sections in the way that I did. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't shrink the text! My combining the sections didn't do that. Your trying to restore them to their original state did. Why attempt something you don't know how to do? I suppose practice makes perfect. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly OK for Flyer22 to merge related sections, and it's OK for Blackie to (try to) undo it if he wants. It's best, though, to mention it beforehand to avoid this kind of reaction. I accused you of renaming sections Flyer22, I apologise for that, it was a memory slip.
 * Blackie, I left a message on your talk page. Basically, this page has been brought up at the |the administrator's incident noticeboard, the |the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and the |the law project. Engaging in arguments on those pages may be unproductive. A number of experienced editors will, hopefully, come now and look at the situation. If your and my concerns have any merit, they'll chime in. If nothing happens, then we are probably mistaken. That's how it works here. There may be something about policy we don't get, or our reading of the article may be distorted. I recommend you give it a break now, and check back tomorrow to see if anything's happened. The article isn't going anywhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on NPOV
I'd not heard of this case until today; I live in another country. This article puts the prosecution case coherently and convincingly, but presents the defense in fragments and I'm left wondering, how could the jury possibly have found Casey not guilty of murder? Obviously, I'm in no position to answer this or make the defense case clearer. Would someone be able to do so? Apologies if any of this has been addressed while I composed this. -- Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no relevance to reporting Ashton's snickering during the defense closing argument. That kind of thing is all too common to be noteworthy.
 * Indicating Cheney Mason's contribution to the defense closing argument was an hour long is also irrelevant.
 * As is: "Because the defense used up a significant amount of time in their closing argument, the judge decided to hold off on the prosecution's closing argument until the following day. He wanted the jury "fresh" when hearing the other side."
 * Reporting that the uncle of the person who put up bail stated that "if he had known before the bail was posted what he learned later, including that Anthony would not cooperate with him, he probably would not have helped get her out of jail." is irrelevant, gratuitous and prejudicial.
 * Minor point, but I don't see a need to attribute a non-controversial fact in text to WFTV.
 * Was Cindy Anthony called to the stand to counter the chloroform internet search evidence during or after the prosecution closing argument? That's how it reads here.


 * Great points Anthonyhcole. There is so much that needs to be cleaned up, clarified and summarized more succinctly. I think the trial section needs to be reworked to include the defense side of the case, with a discussion of the evidence that was actually introduced into the trial. The closing arguments section contains way to much detail and is almost too long to read Blackie Lstreet (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. It needs a lot of work on a lot of aspects. The only aspect that interests me, though, is neutrality. I'd like to see that addressed as a matter of priority. I've left a note at the NPOV noticeboard. There are WP:BLP implications too, of course, but simply addressing neutrality should resolve those. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackie Lstreet, Anthonyhcole is not saying the same things as you at all. He is speaking of minor cleanup. You are speaking of removing whole-scale sections and other such stuff to make Anthony look innocent (by your own admission). You also need to learn to discuss things first. As for your opinion on the defense side of things, the trial section does include the defense side of the case, with a discussion of the evidence that was actually introduced into the trial.


 * Anthonyhcole, that you're left wondering how could the jury possibly could have found Casey not guilty of murder is exactly what nearly all Americans think based on the evidence of both sides. This is not the fault of the wording. That is exactly the same conclusion most people came to after watching the trial live.


 * Ashton snickering is included because it significantly disrupted the trial. It was definitely seen as noteworthy by legal analysts, etc., when reporting on the case.
 * Indicating Cheney Mason's contribution to the defense closing argument was an hour long is relevant to show why the prosecution was sent home and told to continue the next day.
 * I agree with removing the uncle mention. Didn't even see it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note, what WP:BLP-implications are in this article? This is not even a biography. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I didn't make myself clear. I am saying Anthony is innocent of murder. I live in a country under the rule of law, where a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I still haven't read most of the above discussion but are you telling me it is your intention here to make her out to be guilty? Re: your side note, please read WP:BLP.
 * Ashton snickering: who cares if news outlets reported it. It was probably a slow news day. It's superficially meaningless and, given your point of view, I'm now worried it may be tendentious.
 * That Cheny Mason's closing was an hour long is utterly inconsequential. What is it? Was it given significant coverage on TV?
 * --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I didn't make myself clear. But no one knows if Anthony is innocent of murder. A "Not Guilty" verdict is not the same as "innocent," as even the jurors have made clear. It is not my intention to make her out to be guilty. I am saying that is the same conclusion that most Americans came to from the evidence and arguments presented. It's the whole reason most Americans have been outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. It's also the same reason that Blackie Lstreet wants most of the evidence and arguments downsized. He wants this article to make her out to be innocent. And I am not the one who needs to read up WP:BLP.


 * As for your others points, I'm not seeing how Mason's closing argument being an hour long is utterly inconsequential. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Anthonyhcole, this article is so bad it is embarassing. It is written in a blatently one-sided manner making Casey Anthony look as guilty as possible. Now that she has been found not guilty, this state of the article is clearly unacceptable and violates BLP. Yet Flyer22 has just gone through my dozens of edits to try to clean up the article and repeatedly reverted most of them. It cannot legitimately be the case that a defendant is found to be innocent of a crime, yet the Wikipedia article on the topic makes the defendant look guilty through very one sided reporting of the information, as a type of rebuttal of the jury's verdict. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is not bad or embarrassing. You only keep saying that because you want to make Casey Anthony look as innocent as possible. We are only presenting facts in this article. Everything in this article is exactly the way everything went down in real-life. Your problem is...you can't handle that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would anybody object to me making the changes I suggested above? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. I did try to make some of them for you earlier, but I am not sure if those were reverted as well as all of the others. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I object and Blackie Lstreet has already made some of them anyway, without further discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer22's claims that most Americans reject the not guilty verdict is poppycock. There are well over 300 million Americans. Only a tiny minority have cried out against the verdict. The silent majority are apparently content to let the jury make the decision. Casey Anthony is indeed innocent as a matter of law under our Constitution, and that does not change no matter how much Flyer22 screams and stamps his feet. This article cannot legitimately be used to publicize a rebuttal of the jury's verdict. The article has to present the facts neutrally, including explaining in a rational manner just why it is that she was acquitted- i.e. lack of convincing evidence. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not poppycock when it's backed up by various reliable sources. Provide reliable sources that most or even half of Americans believe Casey Anthony to be innocent if I'm so wrong then. Your belief that "only a tiny minority have cried out against the verdict" is not backed up by any reliable source whatsoever. Your opinion that there is "a silent majority" is not backed up any reliable source. Thank you again for proving your bias. I am actually going by reliable sources. You are going by opinion, and your own personal belief that you believe Casey Anthony to be innocent of killing her daughter. Your personal opinion does belong here. This article does present both sides. You are just frustrated because most people believe her to be guilty and we are reporting on that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, you do need to read WP:BLP if you think it doesn't apply to an article that is crafted so as to make a living person appear to be guilty of an offense, when a court has found her not guilty. I would like to see the defense case reported clearly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't. Because there is no BLP violation issue here, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you said WP:BLP doesn't apply here because it's not a BLP. No matter. You appear to understand it does now. All this article is lacking is a clear exposition of the defense case. Was it based purely on the premise that there were plausible alternative explanations for each of the prosecution's proofs? I think I can infer that from the article, but it needs to be made plain. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I said there is no WP:BLP issue here because this is not a biography where we are simply presenting a lot of negativity. We are presenting the facts of a trial as they happened, including the significant outrage from the public at the verdict.


 * As for the rest, if you feel that's all this article is lacking and is the only major issue with the article, you clearly do not have the same issue as Blackie Lstreet. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's been some POV in wording and tone in SOME parts of the article. As an example, where it said that Baez "rationalized" away some evidence instead of the more neutral "explained". Which the edit warrior Blackie Lstreet correctly pointed out and fixed. But he seems to be going overboard with his contentions, seeing "POV" even when it's NOT really there. He has some kernels of truth in his position, but is exaggerated. Even neutral explaining of what happened, if it doesn't seem positive to whichever side, will be seen as POV or biased. And that view is an over-reaction. Some objective facts are just negative sometimes. That's just too bad. Deal with it. It does not mean Wikipedia itself agrees with it necessarily. All articles and editors need to be careful with tone, wording, and style, in reporting and stating things. But there's NO excuse to violate 3RR. Or to see things that just aren't there. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually your exact words were "what WP:BLP-implications are in this article? This is not even a biography." But never mind. I'm glad you understand BLP does apply to this article now. I don't think I can do any more here. I'm not familiar enough with policy or law to consider myself qualified to write such a difficult and nuanced article. Good luck all. Oh, I was being imprecise when I said "All this article needs..." What I should have said was "What this article badly needs is a clear exposition of the defense case." It needs a lot more than that, and Blackie is on the right track. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I stated that because this is not a biography, in my opinion. And it seems WikiProject Biography shares that opinion, as it says "The Biography WikiProject concerns the creation, development, and organization of Wikipedia's articles about persons (including but not limited to biographies)." While it is true that BLP aspects can apply to this article, this not a biography as far as I'm concerned. A biography would be if this article were titled Casey Anthony and had an Early life section, etc. This article is about a trial, and is only focusing on her life in that regard. And if you feel that Blackie Lstreet is "on the right track" with his editing, then we definitely have nothing more to talk about. That kind of editing is not acceptable at all on Wikipedia. You say, "What this article badly needs is a clear exposition of the defense case." And yet you just learned about this case today. Maybe that's why we don't see the exposition the same. But I will be working on that; it's not like any of us were through editing this article. You judge the article as needing "a lot more than that" when you aren't familiar with this case at all. You should have seen this article before some days ago (before I arrived here). It hardly had anything it. Not to brag extensively, but I know what it takes to get articles to good article and featured article status, so I would say (while also respecting your concerns), I feel that you and especially Blackie Lstreet are "off" if categorizing this article in any way awful. Awful and pathetic was this article some days ago when it barely had anything in it. Awful and pathetic are the many unsourced Wikipedia articles out there. We are still building this article and all it needs now is a bit more copy-editing and filling out of some sections, and it will then be GA. I know that from experience.


 * On a side note: I'm not sure why you had to indent so far in; it doesn't let me know that you are speaking to me any more than not being indented so far in. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, Hashem sfarim. Well said. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and just to make the point clear.  You're not really violating 3RR if you're undoing arguable VANDALISM. Which arguably is what wholesale removal of giant parts of the article that a person doesn't personally like, without first discussing it, is.   I mean, we do have to be careful what we call "vandalism".  But it seems that Blackie went a little chop chop crazy on this thing, with no discussion or sound rationale.   He did NOT, for example, have to remove the thing about Ashton smiling and the disruption that caused. That was a pertinent matter in the closing arguments situation.  And a bunch of other things he deleted because he deemed it "clutter".   A case can be made that doing that was a form of vandalism.  And undoing that does not count as "3RR".  This was relevant and sourced and notable stuff, and referenced points that were being abruptly sliced away. Obviously mainly because of personal tastes, not for reasonable or solid WP reasons. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't violate 3RR either way. Not in the sense of committing more than three reverts. But, yes, I consider this edit which I reverted to be vandalism. I have reported him at Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Others concerned with his editing may also weigh in there. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should really read the policy on vandalism. It says, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."  Since Blackie is discussing the edits and believes he is doing the right thing in his edits, the edits are not vandalism.  So undoing the edits does count as editwarring/3RR.  GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if misguided? Blackie Lstreet has been told that his are disruptive and that he is misinterpreting how Wikipedia works. But he continues to disregard that and insist that he is right. He sees POV and other such silliness where there isn't any. How many times must we say "No, your edits are not founded in any of Wikipedia's core values" before his edits can be held as vandalism? He does not listen. All he does is start section after section, then go ahead and remove large chunks of the article. He hardly engages in discussions, except to accuse Wikipedia of presenting their own opinions. There are plenty of vandals who believe they are right as well, but their edits still count as vandalism. And even if acting in good-faith, plenty of editors who are disruptive are still blocked. The same for editors going against consensus. Something needs to be done here, because Blackie Lstreet keeps removing large chunks of relevant, reliably sourced material all based on his personal opinions, and without truly discussing anything. This is not just a content issue. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right removing large chunks of information is disruptive, didn't say it wasn't. What I said was is that it is not vandalism and since it is not vandalism there is no exception to 3RR.  He should be warned for being disruptive and if he continues report to administrators for disruptive editing.  '''GB[[User talk:GB fan|fan]
 * I know what you are saying, GB fan. I was just expressing my frustration, and I cannot help but look at it as vandalism when he continues to do it. His rationales for his edits don't even make sense, except for maybe once or twice. As shown above, I did report him. I just hope they actually see that this is disruptive editing, not a simple content dispute, and that he needs a warning. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Section on Trial needs overhaul
The trial section needs to be reworked. It includes mostly the prosecution's side of the case, with just minimal info on the winning defense side. Moreover, the two sides are jumbled togther in a disorganized manner. Also, the evidence presented at trial should be included in this section. The prior evidence section was comprised of news leaks from 2008. I removed that. The evidence information needs to be about what was actually introduced at trial in 2011, not what was leaked in 2008. Also, the closing argument section is way too long and needs to be summarized more succinctly. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Edits such as this by you are unacceptable, as are your other edits. To remove the entire Evidence section, really? You have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand Wikipedia's polices or guidelines. You continue to state that article is biased and non-neutral simply because we report the facts -- the evidence, her lies, the media condemnation of her. You want us to leave all this out so that our readers don't come to the conclusion that she's guilty. Well, we are only presenting what has been reported on and shown on television through the live trial. If the evidence, her lies, and whatever makes her look guilty, that is not our problem. In fact, it's because of the evidence, her lies and behavior that most Americans believe she's guilty. So it's no wonder you don't want it in the article. I have tried to talk to you about this and how Wikipedia works, but you just keep ignoring me, doing what you want and starting new sections. I feel it's time I report this behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I think you need to stop with the personal attacks on here. This article is a mess. It needs to be cleaned up, especially since there has just been an acquittal, which casts a whole new light on the case. The evidence discussion cannot be based on leaked information included in articles written in 2008. The evidence discussion has to be based on the evidence introduced at trial, upon which the lawyers based their arguments, upon which the judge ruled, and upon which the jurors based their verdict. Since the trial section has to be rewritten, it makes sense to include the evidence within that discussion, since that is what a trial is--the presenation and analysis of evidence. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack! You have already demonstrated that you want all negativity about Casey Anthony out of this article and are intent on achieving that. You want us to present her as "innocent" when most reliable sources out there do not reflect the belief that she is innocent. And, again, "Not guilty" is not the same as "Innocent," as even stated by the jurors. This article is only "a mess" to you because it has so much detail in it about Casey Anthony's lies, etc., which do belong in this article, no matter it making her look guilty. If it makes her look guilty, that is her own fault. Removing the entire Evidence section is vandalism, because your removing it is based on your opinion and nothing in policy. Further, most of the information there was introduced at trial. You say the "The evidence discussion cannot be based on leaked information included in articles written in 2008." Uh...no. You even removed mention of the former defense team, which is relevant. Like I stated, I will be reporting your actions. You need a wake up call on how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article is not a trial. It is not part of the judicial process, and it does not need to simply repeat what can be found in trial transcripts. It presents and describes relevant, uncensored but NPOV information backed up by reliable sources. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Boneyard9, I'm not sure what you're saying. This article does not simply repeat what can be found in trial transcripts. And it does present and describe relevant, uncensored but NPOV information backed up by reliable sources. In fact, Blackie Lstreet's main issue is that this material is uncensored. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I just applied the POV template to this article and now I notice from Flyer's link earlier in this section, that another editor had already added the tag and it has been removed by Flyer. I'd appreciate it if editors could leave it in place until the NPOV discussion is resolved. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reply was toward Blackie. Notice the time stamp on my reply (07:55) and Flyer22's just above it (07:57). BlackieLstreet says the article needs to be confined to the evidence presented at trial, and I'm saying that it needs to present all available reliable information, which last time I looked over the article (the last time I reverted a 2-paragraph deletion), it did. I am concurring with Flyer22's position. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP worries
I've moved my request for input from WP:NPOVN to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as, there being a possibility this article violates WP:BLP, it's probably best that is addressed asap. Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be commenting there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, I think that there are indeed serious BLP issues in the article. Thank you for bringing this up at the appropriate board. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:BLP. "BLP issues" to you means "any type of negativity presented in this article about Casey Anthony." And, no, you don't get to remove the Evidence section simply because it regards her guilt. You don't get to remove key points made by the prosecutors simply because you don't like the bad things they are saying about your precious Casey Anthony. You don't get to remove crucial paragraphs from the Public and media response section simply because you don't like the fact that most people are upset by the "Not Guilty" verdict. READ WP:IDON'TLIKEIT The only BLP issues here are the ones you imagine or spout out to facilitate your agenda. And you do have an agenda; you've made that very clear. You are not interested in going on what reliable sources say, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You are only interested in your personal opinions about Casey Anthony. If you were not, you would not tell such a bold face lie as to say that most Americans believe that Casey Anthony is innocent. No... No, they don't. And you can't produce one reliable source stating it. I can, however, produce many reliable sources stating the opposite. And I already have -- in this very article.


 * On a side note, I will be fixing these wrongly formatted sections. later The newest section should be last. If you are going to attempt to "fix" sections, then do it right. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthony was found not guilty of the homicide-related charges. This means that she is, legally speaking, innocent of the charges, as one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Unless and until the state appeals the decision and wins the appeal, she will continue to be not guilty, regardless of the opinion of the news networks and polling organizations.  Currently, the section of the article on the reaction to the verdict is approximately equal in length to the section on the trial itself.  That's undue emphasis, and it's WP:RECENTISM.  Both are improper in any article.  In an article that is essentially about a living person who was accused of a crime, WP:BLP fully applies.  Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, one must ask "whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject".


 * BLP requires us to avoid victimization: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic", and "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Spending eight paragraphs outlining how everybody and their brother think Anthony is guilty, when she has not been convicted of any crime, is "victimization" under Wikipedia's rules.  Upon looking into the issue, I'm not convinced WP:WELLKNOWN applies, because Anthony is not a public figure in the traditional sense: she did not ask for, nor cultivate, public notoriety.


 * I do not say that there should be no negative information about Anthony. However, it should not overwhelm the article, and I think that currently it does.  It is fair to mention that there are those who feel Anthony should have been convicted, so long as it's provable that such feelings are present to a greater-than-normal degree here.  (There's always people who think that someone was acquitted improperly, so the fact is not generally relevant.)


 * Wikipedia is not news, nor an indiscriminate collection of information; "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In this case, just because there's a lot of sound and fury in the media regarding the verdict, it doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic or of enduring historical interest.


 * I would also caution that accusations like "You are only interested in your personal opinions about Casey Anthony" and "The only BLP issues here are the ones you imagine or spout out to facilitate your agenda" are not productive and to be avoided. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Blackie Lstreet may be right "in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges brought against her, except for the four obstruction charges" (even though "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent"), but Blackie Lstreet has not been right in his editing (such as removing the entire Evidence section). At all. The links above clearly show his agenda. Despite what he claims, there is a careful balancing act going on. Both sides are presented in all sections. It cannot be helped that the reactions to the verdict are mostly negative. There are positive reactions in that section too. And the reactions are mostly about the significant debates. I have only kept the relevant material in. First the ratings, then the explanations as to why people have been obsessed with the trial, then reactions to the verdict, and then explanations for reactions to the verdict. All of that is relevant. To remove any of it would significantly impair that section. It would not be accurate in its reflection of the reactions to the verdict. I have done my best to accurately reflect these reactions. And that's what that section does. At eight paragraphs touching on each of the reactions and debates, it is not overly long. And I'm quite sure that all this stuff will have long-term historical relevance, similarly to the way that the O.J. Simpson murder trial has held up after all these years. But what "will have long-term historical relevance" is an opinion. And what Blackie Lstreet is asking for is to mostly portray Anthony in a positive light. He pretty much stated so on the talk page. That cannot be done. Portraying her in an equally positive light cannot even be done, considering that every reliable source out there says most people are displeased with the verdict. Asking us to make the section look as though people are divided on this issue -- half for Casey Anthony; half against would be deceptive and highly inaccurate. Some are for Casey Anthony, but not half. We must accurately report and reflect what reliable sources report on this matter. Not make the section look the way we want it to look. Just because Casey Anthony has been found "Not Guilty," it does not mean we cannot accurately report on the reaction to that verdict.


 * There is no undue emphasis or indiscriminate information going here. That is your opinion.


 * As for the accusations thrown at Blackie Lstreet, they are well-founded in my opinion, based on what he has stated. For example, he says, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." WRONG! That would mean we couldn't accurately report on this trial here at all. By his logic, we would only portray Casey Anthony as innocent. There are no trivial details in the article, and it is not overly long or anywhere close to it, per WP:SIZE. It may look overly long from the table of contents, but most of sections are relatively short. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article certainly should not "contend that she's guilty". Legally, she's not guilty. But it's certainly fair to report the public dissatisfaction with the outcome. To argue that she's absolutely innocent is a POV-push. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Baseball Bugs. Exactly what I was saying, but in less words. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This USAToday poll found that 64 percent of Americans think that Casey Anthony most likely murdered her daughter, despite the jury's finding in the matter. That article also links to some other interesting stuff, especially about Casey being "comfortable" with lying, and also an explanation of how the prosecutors failed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's already in the article, Bugs. Not the lying part, though, because that would just be viewed as more negative information about Casey being reported in this article. It's in the Public and media reactions section. I told you I covered every aspect of the public's reaction to the verdict in that section, LOL. I meant that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Caylee's Song
Caylee's song was written by Cindy Anthony (Lyrics) and Jon Whynock (Music) and performed at the her memorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrlandoGuy24 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look above. Information about Caylee's Song was removed earlier. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that it had been removed, however I found an article that added to it and I think that this is an important part as well since Cindy took part in its creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrlandoGuy24 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaching consensus for design of the Public and media reactions section
I'm starting this section because I feel that it's clear that we need to come to some sort of WP:Consensus here on the talk page about this. I ask that all editors of this article weigh in because it should be up to us. As I stated at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, I don't see how we can leave out the fact that the verdict has sparked such a national outrage and debate...and still have this section be accurate. And it should be accurate. It should accurately reflect the public's feelings about this trial. No white-washing. Or making it seem as though just as many people are pleased about the verdict as they are upset about it. Unless you have a reliable source backing that up that claim, it shouldn't be reflected in this article.

I'm going to divide this discussion up into three parts, so that we can see where everyone stands. The subsections will be easy enough for you to conclude what they are about by title, along with a brief note. But first, I want to point out that the current version is not a collection of negative reactions. It's right there, you can read it for yourself. There is no way I would create such a one-tone public reaction section. The section is carefully outlined to take on all the aspects of this trial's impact. Seeing this outline may also help some of you to rearrange or combine these paragraphs here on the talk page. This his how it goes Casey Anthony trial:


 * The first paragraph starts out with the fact that the trial became a media obsession (ratings, etc.).


 * The second paragraph goes into why.


 * The third paragraph goes into the negative response about the verdict.


 * The fourth paragraph goes into the positive response about the verdict.


 * The fifth paragraph goes into the impact it had on the Internet (that's the only paragraph I didn't add).


 * The sixth paragraph goes into why the general public has so strongly rejected the "Not Guilty" verdict.


 * The seventh paragraph talks about the gender gap, about how the trial has divided men and women.


 * The eight paragraph talks about various explanations for why the jury chose a not-guilty verdict.

All of this, I believe, is relevant to the Public and media reactions section because it covers every aspect of this trial's/verdict's impact on American society. I have done my best to accurately reflect these reactions. And that's what that section does. This is about comprehensively covering all the aspects of this trial's effect on America, and I can't see any valid reason why we shouldn't. The verdict has sparked a national debate, and, according to various reliable sources, there have been very few trials like this that have caused such an extensive debate about the jury and the jury system. The only other one has been the O. J. Simpson murder trial. These facts should reflected in this section, in my opinion. But no matter what, we should wait for all editors to achieve a consensus before any drastic changes to that section are made. So without further delay:

For the the current setup, but I may propose some aspects be changed

 * Place your reasons for why you prefer the current setup here, whether for keeping the current version in its entirety or only for partly changing it.


 * For. I like the current setup (obviously), but it probably could use a trim on the quoting. Other than that, I like how it touches on the most significant aspects of the public/media response. Whether it needs eight paragraphs to do that is another story. But I wouldn't want anything less than five paragraphs. We don't have be stingy with the information regarding the public's reactions. It's not like this article is extremely huge. I am especially for keeping the first paragraph in its entirety. And I definitely wouldn't be opposed to the Internet paragraph (number 5) getting a trim. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Against the current setup, but I may propose some aspects be kept

 * Place your reasons for why do not prefer the current setup here, whether for changing the current version in its entirety or only for partly changing it.

Proposals

 * Place your new versions of the section here (meaning the version showcasing what you want the Public and media reactions section to look like it).

Shutting the door
after the horse has bolted, I've removed the POV tag which I had restored yesterday, based on the current state of the article. I didn't review the Publicity and aftermath section. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"beyond a reasonable doubt" is a copyright violation?
Huh? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC) I asked this to Dr.K. on his talk page: Dr.K., hello. I'm not completely understanding your interpretation of copyvio. We should remove the complete text when a few things are worded the same? A few things being worded the same is not considered a copyvio, at least that's what I was told by User:Moonriddengirl, who deals with copyvio issues all the time. For example, when there is nothing too unique about the way a line is worded. Such as "the elephant was reported as big." If the source says that, and we also say that here at Wikipedia, it's not considered copyvio. I understand why you removed this, since it was a complete copy before I reworded it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legalistic term and is in the public domain. I have to say that the previous wording was awkward, but it's not a "copyright violation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone asks any rhetorical questions based on incomplete information the issue here is not the string "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the whole phrase: "did not have enough evidence to determine guilt based on beyond a reasonable doubt"  which closely resembles the Star's there clearly wasn’t enough evidence to determine guilt based on beyond a reasonable doubt. In my book this sequence is a copyvio. So, please leave the simplistic arguments and misleading section titles. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my book, it's a poorly-worded sentence. "...based on beyond..."? I don't think so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed Bugs. Poorly worded and a copyvio. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about"Others believed the verdict was fair because there was insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's definitely better wording. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretrial publicity
To say this case was an example of impact of pretrial publicity, is a bit misleading. That would only be true if she were found guilty. It's at best an example of potential impact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Jurors Speak Out
On July 6th, the day following the "Not Guilty" verdict, two jurors--numbers 2 and 3--spoke out concerning their decisions to acquit Casey Anthony all felon charges related to the murder. Juror number 2, who chose to keep his name private "to keep his family safe", according to The St. Petersberg Times, has told the Tampa Bay newspaper that "we just wanted to go on the evidence that was presented to us" and not base the verdict on "emotions"; feelings, he says, that would have brought the guilty verdict.

On the same day, juror number 3, who identified herself as Jennifer Ford, told ABCNews a sentiment that echoed juror number 2's feelings. She stated giving that verdict made herself and her fellow jurors "sick to our stomachs" and that she "never said that she was innocent". She gave reason to the 12 person jury's final ruling; "there was not enough evidence" to convict someone of crime of this magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.85.96 (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Here is a source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece anyone up for selecting the pieces to include? KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another juror has spoken out, saying he is disgusted with the verdict. JacobTrue (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that says they're disgusted with the verdict as such; they're disgusted with the lack of evidence to convict. The state failed to make the case, in the jury's opinion, and they went by law instead of emotions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs, this source and others say that the Jury Foreman had feelings of disgust at "having to" to deliver a not-guilty verdict. Right now, it seems most of the jurors didn't want to deliver the not-guilty verdict...but felt they had to because they feel that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a different twist from what the red-link said. They feel like they did their job and the state didn't. In that way, it's similar to the O.J. verdict, in that they did the best they could with what the state gave them, which wasn't enough. Much of the circumstances that suggested O.J.'s guilt were not admitted at trial, and legally speaking it's as if it didn't happen. It's interesting that the jury felt Casey's father had no credibility, and it leaves the door open to the possibily that he is the one the state should be looking at. However, as I've said (as have other reports), neither Casey nor her father are believable, and that pretty much put the jurors in a bind. The blame for the verdict needs to be directed at the prosecutors, not the jury. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how what is stated in that link is different than saying "the Jury Foreman was disgusted by the verdict." It definitely sounds like most of these jurors believe Casey Anthony to be guilty, but also suspect George Anthony of something (whatever that is). Because if you feel that the verdict is fine, then why feel "sick to your stomach" or "disgusted" by having rendered it? It sounds like while they felt the verdict was fair, it was not fine. As for O.J., I felt there was more than enough evidence to convict him. It's weird, because with the Scott Peterson case, they convicted Peterson on far less circumstantial evidence. But here with the Anthony case, they felt that they just couldn't. Debates have been made about this, such as Anthony being a pretty woman. Some believe that if Anthony had been a man or ugly or even a minority, she would have been found guilty. One thing is for certain, once scholars get to writing about this case, it'll make for good material for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Peterson case is interesting. The difference might be that the defense couldn't plant reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. Hard to tell whether Casey's alleged attractiveness figured into any of it (personally, I don't find her attractive at all). In this particular case, there was plenty of doubt about who did what. In the Peterson case, there really wasn't. But the cases are similar in that there's not much directly tying the victim to the accused; it's more about connecting the dots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, see, that issue -- the issue of doubt -- is what has caused so much debate regarding this case. Most Americans believe her to be guilty...even most of the jurors, it seems...but those same jurors found reasonable doubt. To most Americans, there was/is no reasonable doubt; they believe the dots lead right to Casey Anthony. There are even questions about whether or not the jury interpreted reasonable doubt too narrowly, which I also included in this article. We should probably stop posting our personal thoughts/questions about this case here, however, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name
there seems to be confusion on the purpose of this article. it has changed, i'm assuming, to one of its former names. it gets confusing trying to keep up with discussions about this article on 4 separate pages. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully concur with the decision to restore the original and long standing title of this article. If an article on the trial itself is desired, write it. But don't usurp the notability this little girl achieved long ago. Needless to say some aspects of the article need to be rewritten to maintain subject specific proportionality. Best - My76Strat  talk  02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Putting it back to the old title was the right thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree, completely, with reverting to "Death of Caylee Anthony". It appears editors of this article have become somewhat attached to it, just as many became attached to the Casey Anthony trial. Per WP:EVENT, the standalone occurrence of Caylee Anthony's death (though newsworthy) is not notable or encyclopedic. The Casey Anthony trial is the event, here, and should be the focus of the article. There should be pre-trial: Caylee Anthony's death, media reaction/coverage of her death, investigation, Casey Anthony's arrest/charge, etc; then there should be the trial, verdict, sentencing, etc; then there should be the post-trial: media reaction/coverage, political reaction, public reaction, etc. The trial is the event; everything else should be in relation to it.  Chickenmonkey  03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you keep editors from zapping stuff on the grounds that "it's not related to the trial"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You discuss the article's contents, here on the discussion page. The trial and Caylee Anthony (and her death) are forever linked together. Things that relate to her (and her death) can potentially be added here, but the trial is the encyclopedic event; the burden (specifically in the case of "Caylee's Song") is notability. I'm not sure some song written by some guy is notable enough to include, but that's what the discussion page is for: discussing the article and its contents. If the article becomes too big, then the discussion should be had as to whether some sections should be branched into separate articles. Currently, this article doesn't appear to need that.  Chickenmonkey  03:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion but disagree with its premise. This article was started and deemed notable in 2008. Wikipedia:Notability deems that notability is not temporary, and it borders upon ludicrous to suggest that the sensationalism of the trial has erased the previous notability, relegating it to a temporary status. There absolutely needs to be separate articles with content proportional to the subject. For this subject, a summarized mention of the trial is appropriate, along with the initial circumstances, the community efforts to locate the child alive, the realization that the child was dead, and appropriate aftermath as it manifests. For in depth content on the trial, an appropriately titled, separate article should exist as the main article for that subject. IMO - My76Strat  talk  04:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I also respect your opinion but, in mine, this article wasn't, in fact, notable upon its creation. Throughout much of its existence, this article has been edited with the daily happenings of an ongoing news story (Wikipedia is not a newspaper). Not every newsworthy event is notable or worthy of an encyclopedic article. This article was certainly unencyclopedic during its first several months of existence; all one has to do is read those early incarnations, to see that. A recent, comparable example is Shannon Stone; his death received national news coverage, yet he is not notable enough for an article. In my opinion (and, I believe, in the opinion of WP:EVENT), Caylee Anthony's death, alone, is not encyclopedic. She was not a well-known figure, prior to her death (WP:SINGLEEVENT). Caylee Anthony is not notable enough for her own article, in my opinion, and neither is Casey Anthony. Both can be covered in a single article which documents: pre-trial, trial, and post-trial. A lot of the information that has been added to this article, over the past three years, could also be of an unencyclopedic nature.  Chicken<b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 04:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The editors believed otherwise, and in fact without the death of the child there is no trial; and the wide media coverage is about the death of the child and the unusual behavior of the mother in response to it. That would be kind of a long title, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chickenmonkey that all of this should be covered in one article. The two topics are intricately and substantially linked. There is no way to discuss the death without discussing the trial and impact that had on society, and there is no way to discuss the trial without discussing the child's death and impact that had on society. Plus, information about the death itself is small. But all things related to the death -- pre-trial, trial, and post-trial -- is significantly bigger. The only thing I don't agree with Chickenmonkey on is that the initial media reaction/coverage should be in a different spot. All of the Publicity and media coverage should be in one spot, in my opinion, and this is what I did (making a Before the trial subsection and During and after the trial subsection). The previous formatting of this article just wasn't in line with how Wikipedia articles should be. As for the title, I don't care much either way, but it does make more sense to me that the article be titled the Casey Anthony trial. However, if editors are going to be removing things from this article based on faulty BLP violation reasons, such as an adequate reflection of the public and media's response to the trial and verdict, then I support the Death of Caylee Anthony title. The article still has to do with BLP either way, though, because it still documents the lives and/or responses of/from living people (the defense and prosecution, the Anthony family, the jurors). Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One article should be sufficient unless some unexpected major development arises - such as someone in the family getting pinged by the Truth Fairy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I also support the change back to the original name. Good choice.--BabbaQ (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here; supporting the name change. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the trial should be discussed under the Caylee Anthony name. The trial is a much bigger event than the Caylee Anthony search was.  Either there should be two separate articles - I consider both events to be notable in their own rights - or if there is only a single article, it should use the more notable title, which would relate to the Casey Anthony Trial. Warren Dew (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the Death of Caylee Anthony not include the trial? How do you get past what I stated above? This: "The two topics are intricately and substantially linked. There is no way to discuss the death without discussing the trial and impact that had on society, and there is no way to discuss the trial without discussing the child's death and impact that had on society." Also tag on the fact that the information about the death itself is small, which would make for a small article if only speaking of the fact that she died and that's it. Children die all the time and get attention from the news, but we don't give them Wikipedia articles just because their death received media attention. It's what came after Caylee Anthony's death that made her notable -- the impact it had on society in relation to Casey Anthony. No matter which title we go with, there is no reason to split the two topics. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither title matters that much if it's all covered. JacobTrue (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ashton snikkering behind his hand
I've just, for the second time, removed this part of the section Closing arguments. Please do not replace it without first explaining its relevance. "At one point as Baez spoke, Ashton could be seen smiling or chuckling behind his hand. This prompted Baez to refer to him as 'this laughing guy right here'. The judge called a sidebar conference, then a recess. When court resumed, he chastised both sides, saying both Ashton and Baez had violated his order that neither side should make disparaging remarks about opposing counsel. After both attorneys apologized, the judge accepted the apologies but warned that a recurrence would have the offending attorney excluded from the courtroom."As described, it is an incredibly commonplace event in a courtroom. What am I missing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A little too much detail for an encyclopedia article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthonyhcole, why not discuss before removing it? Two editors are for it. And now two are against it. You say it's "an incredibly commonplace event," but that is your opinion. And, according to reliable sources, it is not "an incredibly commonplace event" that usually happens in the courtroom among experienced prosecutors and defense teams. At least not here in America. While Biaz is not experienced, Ashton is, and his snickering in the courtroom while Biaz is giving his closing argument was considered extremely unprofessional and to have impacted the jury's decision. Ashton has even discussed this and whether or not he feels it impacted the jury's decision. If it were just some trivial detail, the source wouldn't even mention it. It's mentioned in the source because this moment interrupted the trial and almost cost both sides some serious ramifications. Just because it didn't, it shouldn't be included? I don't get that at all. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the source for it impacting the jury's decision? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in various sources that it may have impacted the jury's decision. I'd have to gather those sources. And since I'm too lazy at the moment to do that, I'd advise others to Google it. My point is that it is a moment that has been extensively discussed, to the point that even Ashton was asked about it. Anthonyhcole is not as familiar with the case, so Anthonyhcole doesn't know this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone asked a juror about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was wondering. But I don't think so. I see your point that jurors commenting on it would make it more notable to include in the Criminal trial section, and I agree (and was thinking the same thing). No need for me to push this any further. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned about us posting comments that are purely speculation, regardless of their source. Logically speaking, I find it unlikely that an entire jury would make their decision based on a lawyer snickering. In fact, the more I learn about this case, the more reasonable the jury's decision seems. It's possible that the child actually did die accidentally, and that the mother either had a panic attack or was under the influence of something, and that somehow this seemed like a good idea at the time. I'm not saying for sure, I'm saying it's possible. And that's where the jury found themselves. A more interesting question than snickering would be whether the jurors were influenced by the death penalty being on the table. But supposedly the jurors are being kept out of the public eye, so it might be some time before we know more about their decision process, if ever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the jury based their entire decision on a lawyer snickering. Of course not. I'm saying it's been extensively questioned as one part of the reason the jury made their decision. If I had included mention of that in the Public and media reactions section, I would feel even stronger about the ordeal being included in the Criminal trial section. But I didn't. I didn't because it doesn't seem like something that could have played a big role in the jury's decision, and most believe that it didn't. They do, however, believe that the death penalty most likely did. That's why I did include that in the Public and media reactions section. My main point about Ashton snickering is that it was considered highly unprofessional, both sides got in trouble for it and it interrupted the trial, and it was commented on extensively in the media (which includes interviews with Ashton commenting on it). This makes it seem relevant to mention in that section. But I'm over it. Was never strongly for it. Just felt/still feel that it is relevant to mention in that section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored it.  it wasn't really "trivia" as it caused the judge to call a side-bar, and the judge chastised both for making disparaging remarks, and it arguably is pertinent to the tone of the proceedings. A case can be made to keep it in...  If it's removed again, though, I won't do anything.  But I think others of like mind as I should put it back.  It was noteworthy enough for EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD to mention it, and as having an effect in the closing arguments tone and proceedings. So why shouldn't Wikipedia?   It would seem a wee bit incomplete to leave it out, because of "I don't like it" with the excuse of "it's trivial" when arguably it really isn't. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What relevancy does it have? Worldwide coverage is not a ticket to inclusion, or this article would be the size of a book. How does it have anything to do with the trial's outcome? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT ONLY say that it was because it was covered all over the place. That was just ONE reason I gave. (Also, though, why would media even mention it if it was so "trivial"?) I also said that it was pertinent to the tone of the proceedings, and it's not really all that minor that it caused a bit of a problem for the judge to call a SIDE-BAR. Side-bars are notable, in a sense, also the point that both lawyers were chastised as a result. It arguably should be included in the very uh "Closing arguments" sub-section in the article, since it's something that took place IN the "closing arguments" that caused the judge to go off on the attorneys. If the judge didn't think it "so trivial" in that he made a big stink about it, then why should Wikipedia? Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The media will take about anything that sounds interesting, whether it's important or not. You should know that by now. What sources support the statements you're making about that one item's alleged impact? Or is it just your personal observations? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I already stated that that was NOT the only reason that called for its restoration. But you're wrong in saying that the media will mention ANYTHING.   Yeah, did they mention the color suits the lawyers were wearing?   Not all papers did that.  So that's not really true. But this was DIFFERENT.    I'll say it again, Bugs...  The JUDGE CALLED A SIDE-BAR BECAUSE OF IT.    If he didn't, then MAYBE it should be left out as "too trivial". But the "snickering" of Ashton, and the sub-sequent remarks by Baez because of it, and then the judge calling a side-bar and going off on both lawyers is arguably significant and relevant when talking about the very subject of the "closing arguments". In other words WHAT WENT ON during those "closing arguments" that would make a judge do or say this or that.  Do you get it now?   The "all news media covered this" is maybe 40% of my argument.  The other 60% (I'll say it again) is that it CAUSED A RUCKUS AND A TONE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, and the judge to act and say stuff regarding it.  How is that just my "my personal observation"?  You yourself can "observe" that too, and it was reported as substantial and relevant.   If the judge didn't call a side-bar (I'm repeating myself now, so it can finally come through) then PERHAPS it could be left out.  But it went beyond a trivial "well Ashton smiled...the end."   No, it's a bit deeper than that. peace out. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you saying plenty of things about it. I don't hear you quoting any sources to support your interpretation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Do I really need to cite you a "source" for the point I made about the judge calling a "side-bar" and a recess, because of this very thing?  You know that all sources have stated that, and it's what happened.    Ok, it's mentioned clearly in this source right here, and also maybe right    here.  Just of a couple of countless sources (some more "reliable" than others).   I'm not necessarily talking about it affecting the outcome of the verdict (though that's been speculated, and who knows, because of jurors thinking a prosecutor is being rude, I doubt that will help matters, but that's not even my angle anyway...), but that it caused some things to happen by the JUDGE HIMSELF during the closing.  Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need a source to prove that there's something unusual about it. Assume I'm ignorant of the details of the trial process. Find me a source that says that side-bars during closing arguments are extremely unusual in general, and that this one is important to this case somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your premises are wrong. Where does it say that court room proceedings that are notable or reportable in general have to be "unusual" necessarily?   That's one.  Number Two...it can be easily argued that it IS actually somewhat "unusual" in that snickering and smiling and disparaging remarks and then side-bars AS A RESULT of that are not done in every closing arguments session in court cases.  Either way, lol, you lose, in your argument here.  To be frank...   One, it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "unusual" to be argued for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Especially dealing with general but important court happenings. Two, does this thing that happened with Ashton, Baez, and the judge, happen in all court cases and closings?  No.  So it's whatever.   The point is that (again) it was not like "oh Ashton was caught smiling. the end."  Or "Ashton smiled, and Baez said that was no good. end of story". NO...it went even beyond that. Into the judge calling a side-bar and recess, and going off on them.  Affecting the tone of the closing arguments situation, at least to some degree.  An argument can be made for inclusion, because of all that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Affecting the tone of the closing arguments." What source is making that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why he felt snickering was a good idea. Maybe he couldn't control himself? JacobTrue (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically. Its unclear to me if it was premeditated. It came at the point when baez was mentioning how he thinks the duct tape trail points to George. Clearly the prosecution thought (and perhaps still thinks) the defense's theory is absurd...in the state's closing arguments, Ashton mentioned that nobody makes an accident look like a murder. ThisLaughingGuyRightHere (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence section
Blackie Lstreet keeps tampering with this section in a way that does not make sense. Just because this evidence was reported in 2008 does not negate the fact that it was used at trial. This is not "potential evidence." This is evidence that was used at trial. I watched it live and saw this evidence used at trial. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Flyer - I hope you don't mind be suggesting - you are emotionally involved in this issue (clearly if I had watched the whole trial live, I would also be) and I think the article would have more chance of NPOV improvement if you took a step out of the heat, take it of your watchlist for a week or so. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just that "I watched it live" or that I need to take a step back. My opinion is not taken as a reliable source. And there is nothing wrong with my being passionate about an article I have significantly worked on. I am like that with all articles I have significantly worked on, as various editors I have worked with know. This is about the fact that the Criminal trial section clearly shows that this evidence was presented at trial. Various reliable sources show it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its only a suggestion from what I have seen over the last couple of days that may be of benefit yourself as well as the article. I see you are a major contributor to the current content but sometimes the article benefits a lot from the input of uninvolved less passionate reassessment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your suggestion and disagree in this case, and would rather this section be focused back on Blackie Lstreet's tampering with that section for invalid reasons. There was no reason for Blackie Lstreet to completely remove it before and there was no reason for Blackie Lstreet to term it "potential evidence" when it is evidence that was clearly presented at trial. If he wants that section updated with references from 2011 (during the trial), then that can be done (which is quite trivial now anyway). If no one cares to comment on the inappropriateness of these actions and continue to let them happen, then it is all the better I stay at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "potential evidence" sounds like an OR construct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I just keep reverting this or report it? I'm thinking of bringing in an outside administrator on this, because these edits by Blackie Lstreet make no sense at all. His edits always make no sense to me. He either removes or atrociously rewords the material simply because the references are from 2008 and the trial happened in 2011. That's nonsense, seeing as this evidence was presented at trial, as even shown in the Criminal trial section and reported on extensively by various news outlets since then. Just because it was first shown in 2008 and the references sourcing this material in the Evidence section are from 2008...does not make that any less valid. There's no way it can be argued as "potential evidence" when it is indeed evidence that was used at trial. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it was introduced at trial, it's evidence. When I first read "potential evidence", I thought it was maybe material speculated on by the media but never introduced at trial for lack of relevance or something. But evidence introduced in 2008 isn't "potential", it's just evidence (though I was tempted to say "kinetic", as opposite of "potential"). Not sure of your next course of action. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do. Blackie Lstreet doesn't truly engage in discussion here at the talk page. He simply starts a section complaining about things, and then another section and another about the same thing. He has a different view of how Wikipedia works because he is a newbie and is still learning. But I don't feel he is learning at all, at least not properly, because he continues to use our guidelines and policies in ways that do not make sense when it comes to backing his editing. I can't be the one to talk with him, seeing as we have a volatile history (early as that may be). So it needs to be someone else. Someone who actually explains to him why these edits are inappropriate. He's already shown that he won't stop; he does this at the same time every late night/early morning. And the Administrators Noticeboard have shown that they won't do anything, so I'm just going to have to contact an administrator (one that is not my friend or acquaintance) individually to specifically look at this issue with the Evidence section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the hoopla over this and why are you guys fighting? I see it in more than one place. The evidence was used by Jeff Ashton, so how is it potential? JacobTrue (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While I think it can be commendable that Blackie wants to ensure a neutral and NPOV tone in this sensitive article, he has also demonstrated an obsession with placing his own spin and in seeing "POV" even when it's not really there, and abruptly removing whole parts of sections of this article with no regard to their noteworthiness or context in the article.


 * His stated position is that his own removals and his own wordings are much more important and descriptive of the subject than what he has removed, which he deemed as "clutter". I feel that Blackie's arguments are usually based on reasoning such as wp:ilikeit, wp:idontlikeit, wp:otherstuff, and seems to be violating WP:OWN. And accusing others of what he himself has become guilty of. When editors note the reliable sources and pertinence of stuff that he has whole-saled removed, Blackie initiates a series of repetitive and endless talk page posts attempting to justify his over-reactive edits. No matter how many other users disagree, and no matter how many links to guidelines and policies are offered, Blackie insists his perspectives are correct and he becomes wp:disruptpointy. Blackie seems to interpret WP policy and editor conduct rules to suit his own justifications and continually responds to editors who disagree with him with posts of redundant justifications of his own invention.


 * Taking elements of truth (that I even have agreed with in part), but then going bananas with it, and arguably edit-warring.   Again, there's been SOME amount of POV in this article and it needs improving here and there.   But to remove whole paragraphs simply because "I don't like it" has no valid WP justification.   And using the front excuse of "POV" after a while starts to wear thin.   There was no real valid excuse, as one example, in removing the matter of "Ashton smiling" and the reaction of Baez and what was said and the judge calling a side-bar and recess, and going off on the two lawyers, as that was reliably sourced and pertinent in the goings-on of the closing arguments.  As well as a bunch of other things. Calling that "clutter" is tantamount to "wp:I Don't Like It" which not only is invalid in votes but in also edits as well. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I added some more 2011 references to the Evidence section backing things that were to be/and were later shown to be used at trial (even though it's quite clear what was used at trial by just reading the Criminal trial section) to hopefully satisfy Blackie Lstreet somewhat and bring a halt to him changing that section to some long, POV, awkwardly-worded title...or outright removing it. But I doubt he'll be satisfied either way. Even if finally satisfied with it, he'll just find something else to complain about in how we are portraying Casey Anthony in a bad light. I also added some more about Baez to the Criminal trial section (also seen in that link) -- what he did to combat the Internet evidence -- but now it's a bit unbalanced because that section needs more about what Ashton and co did to combat Baez's claims.


 * But as has been stated, Blackie Lstreet has no reason to remove the Evidence section or retitle it to "potential evidence." That evidence being unveiled in 2008, and some of the sources used to support it being from 2008, does not negate the fact that this evidence was used at trial. If Blackie Lstreet acts inappropriately again by removing or retitling that section, he needs to be reverted on the spot. I'll probably just leave the reverting up to others sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Book, TV and film deals
Regarding this edit, should we only list offers that have been confirmed? And if so, since the porn offer has been confirmed, should we wait to mention it until or if other offers are confirmed? For example, I'm not seeing why the porn offer shouldn't be mentioned simply because the company withdrew the offer. Maybe it shouldn't be included right now as a stand-alone piece. But once or if other offers are made, I feel that it should be. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vivid advertise in that way when anyone is in the press, its not notable at all and its likely a BLP violation - Is she the sort of person that suggests she should be offered a role in a porno movie? has she a history of that, no she doesn't. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's personal opinion to say "[v]ivid advertise in that way when anyone is in the press, its not notable at all." My point is that when or if other offers/deals are made, why should we mention the others but not this one? Asking "Is she a porn star?" can also be asked of film deals, etc. "Is she an actress?" No, but that wouldn't stop her being offered a film deal (and by "film," I of course mean something other than porn). Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vivid did the same to Pippa Middleton - which is also not in her article - large discussion is in the archives there. they offered her five million - Vivid do it all the time - as advertising - if it is notable anywhere add it to the Vivid article Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speculative film/book deals that have not happened are valueless crystal and futuristic. - Allow them to happen and add them then - in the promotional (and encyclopedic) world offers are nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The example you gave is different if that woman is not going to continue to get offers and deals. Or hasn't gotten any more offers and deals. Even if she has gotten more, I'm saying if Casey Anthony continues to get offers and deals, then Vivid should be mentioned as one of her offers. It does not imply that she is a porn actress any more than a film deal implies that she is a film actress. We don't get to pick and choose which deals are presented in this article and which are not...simply because we don't like the deal and/or company. And to say "Vivid do it all the time" is still an opinion, unless you have a reliable source to back that up. And even with a reliable source, it may just be the opinion of the editor. I understand not including speculative film/book deals. But confirmed offers/deals should be included and can be encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you see is different - Vivid offers someone in the press a uninvited offer to do something they have never been involved in previously, star in a porno movie. Deal=notable and encyclopedic - or if the subject themselves seeks out a sex movie deal with someone - uninvited speculative and promotional offers from third parties are not. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I hereby offer to write a paragraph about Casey Anthony's life on the back of an old grocery-store receipt if she offers me the rights to do so, in exchange for which I will pay her one $2 bill and I will slap her with a wet trout.  Since I've made this offer publicly, and anyone can come here and confirm that I have made it, can I be part of the article now, please?
 * If we include third-party offers extended to people with fame for the moment, we invite spam. Anyone can make such an offer just for publicity, and we feed that by including the offer, particularly when there is absolutely no reliable evidence that the offer has been accepted, will be accepted, or is even being seriously considered by the article subject.  These offers aren't seriously intended to be accepted; they're advertising for the company that extends them.  Including them in the article is essentially WP:SPAM. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, I don't know what you see is different. You keep making arguments that could be said of any other type of offer she could get - TV company offers a person something they have never been involved in previously, star in a made-for-television film. Forget the deal part, I was arguing that if other offers are included in this article, so should the Vivid offer. But as for "Deal=notable and encyclopedic" more than an offer does, that is an opinion. Offers are included before the deal is made all the time in Wikipedia articles. Some even when the offer was never accepted. And, yes, that includes GA (Good) and FA (Featured) articles.


 * Macwhiz, you make a good point. I admit that. Case closed; I can accept that argument. Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure she'll get a lot of book deals. JacobTrue (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)