Talk:Keli Lane

Re-creation
This appears to be a bit of a fait accompli but shouldn't this have gone through the DRV process before being re-created, especially as a BLP article? At the very least, the deleting administrator should be asked for his/her thoughts on the matter, which I have not heard. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The closing admin left the way open for re-creation with his closing comments: "If convicted, do no harm might well not be applicable, so if that happens, at that point, rewrite and reinstate". He has provided me with a copy of the deleted article, which can be used to expand the current article once the immediate threat of re-deletion has passed. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That reason (given by that administrator in the past which I read somewhere) was why I went ahead and created a new page. I couldn't find the old one and it would have been more appropriate to undelete that old one. But now it is more practical to expand this page since it is already showing up on google searches 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Water polo player in lead para
I suggest that the point about whether Lane being an 'Australian water polo player' as the leading comment of the article be clarified in light that she did not actually represent Australia at the Olympic games in 2000. According to the article on Water_polo_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics she was not a part of the gold medal winning women's team. The media coverage of the issue certainly makes use of the epitaph of water polo player and it is easy to assume this is case - her water polo career, whilst a relevant part of her character may not be the ideal lead to this article.Charles evesson (talk) - 26 June 2011.
 * Whilst I understand your point, the purpose of the lead is to give a biography an occupation. The lead does not claim that Lane was an Olympic water polo player. I think the inclusion of her occupation as a water polo player is worthy because of the motive of her actions; viz "Self-advancement, especially to increase her chances of representing Australia in water polo at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games". According to Duffy (14/12/2010):
 * "In terms of Lane's long-term motive for murder, the Crown produced evidence that she was prepared to abandon her children at birth to increase her chances of representing Australia in water polo at the Olympic Games in 2000. There was also evidence she believed children would interfere with her educational plans, her social life, and the regard in which she was held by parents and friends."
 * I acknowledge that this is a media source - Duffy has a solid reputation as an investigative journalist. I have not read the transcripts of proceedings; neverthless, the jury accepted these arguments in a majority verdict. Inclusion of her occupation as a teacher may be appropriate if it related to some actions, whilst she was a teacher, that led to her criminal offence(s). In this case, her occupation as a teacher is secondary to her former Olympic ambitions. Jherschel (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Argh, just lost a whole post which phrased my objection to the water polo lead much better. I'll reply in brief: I intend to pull apart the Supreme Court case notes from AustLii and add reference to them across the article to clarify evidence with the media reports (I will do this in sandbox first and link you when i'm done). I'm sure most of the media reporting is fairly accurate but I don't think it's the most reliable source to be had. I'm wary of the lead as a waterpolo player because whilst it is a relevant part of her character and worth of inclusion in the background section, the most important point is that she is a convicted murderer and that she is currently appealing the conviction. When i'm looking through the transcript of the judgement I'll see what emphasis is placed on her Olympic ambitions and let you know.

I think the classification of the article as a BLP is a moot point as the enduring value of this case is the prosecution's use of lies as evidence and the appeal to the CCoA during the trial. It is also a high-profile case of neonaticide and provides interesting insights into the criminal trial process in terms of returning a conviction with a majority verdict (although we have no idea whether it was unanimous or 11 to 1, though we assume it was 11 to 1) and a guilty verdict with no evidence of a body. I'm a newb in terms of wiki politics and classification of articles, perhaps it would be better as a page about the legal case? Charles evesson (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bravo for removal of infanticide category. The correct term is neonaticide. Charles evesson (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)