Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

Change Gypsy & Ryan's wedding date from June 27, 2022 to July 21, 2022. Ryan stated their wedding date (and also stated that it is incorrect in many online sources) on The Viall Files podcast January 8, 2024. MEMaddux ( talk) 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rehsarb ( talk) 00:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merging Gypsy-Rose Blanchard back into this article

Per the outcome of the AfD, closed as no consensus since it seemed like a merger was preferred (I had nominated it for deletion primarily because there was so little content to merge back into this article that wasn't already here). So I have appropriately tagged both articles. Daniel Case ( talk) 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I will Oppose this. Gypsy is notable enough to have a bio-article. BabbaQ ( talk) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Okay, but what is there to say about her that does not duplicate content from this article? Sure, she's notable, but her notability is entirely overlapping with the event notoriety. There isn't much outside of that, and it isn't long enough to warrant a size/content split. Should not have her own page, IMO PARAKANYAA ( talk) 11:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not generally opposed to perpetrators of high profile crimes having individual articles, but what aggravates me is that 99% of the time when people do it they basically write it backwards which makes both pages worse: the best way to write these kinds of articles is to get the main page as well-developed and comprehensive as possible (at least GA, IMO, or as close to FA as these kinds of articles can get) and at that stage open a discussion as to whether a split would benefit both articles, rather than creating an article that substantially duplicates an existing one. They want a separate article because they feel like it should, not because it adds anything. Another plus is it's less likely to get dramatically AfD'd. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    +1 I still do not see why we need a separate Trayvon Martin article even though it has survived two AfDs (in fairness, neither one was a keep). Daniel Case ( talk) 02:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    At least that one's a size split. The main article is massive. There's not really a similar justification here: this article is only C class, is confusingly written in many places, and has a lot of improvements to be made to it. I will never understand why people want to make separate articles for the perpetrator without first making the main one good. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 02:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the main article was massive, that to me suggested that maybe there was too much in it. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair point, but trying to trim an article of a topic as politically contentious as that is often like pulling teeth, I'm afraid. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 02:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As a possible compromise: Merge this article into Gypsy-Rose Blanchard. I understand that such a merge might not exactly fit standard practice, but given that that there is a single killing, killer and killed, this might be more likely to gain consensus. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 12:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Usually we don't name an article about a single crime after the perpetrator (when known) ... i.e. Murder of Sherri Rasmussen, not Stephanie Lazarus. I think, in addition to the event being what's notable, it also has to do with not wanting to reward real-life misconduct. Serial killers, and killers already notable for something independent of the crime, are different. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    But why? What benefit does that have to the presentation of the information here? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 13:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I dont know how to do merging or how that works but I also do not see the point in there being 2 pages as it is just duplicate information. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 17:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually, having read through both articles it is pretty obvious there is a distinction between the two articles. One focusing on Gypsy and the other solely on the crime and more on the mother and her life. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Which part of the Gypsy page is not covered here already? Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, of course the content will be arranged differently, but there's nothing that would be undue to say on the crime page. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per WP:SIZESPLIT. It would better to improve and crossreference the two articles rather than merge these. Abcmaxx ( talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per the article statistics page, it's currently at 6,600 words, just only slightly above the size at which SIZESPLIT says length alone is not a justification for splitting. I don't find the article's size a valid reason to split it up. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but I'm taking into account that given the person in question is alive and active in the public sphere, it is likely to be expanded, especially given that the depth and quality of the article can be vastly improved as well. Abcmaxx ( talk) 10:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Likely to be expanded" is another way of saying WP:CRYSTAL. If and when it's expanded, then we can consider that argument more seriously. Right now it doesn't hold water. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would rather the effort be put into expanding and improving articles rather than merging only to unmerge them again. The article is already split, this is a proposed merger rather than proposed split, therefore I see no good reason for an overhaul. And my argument is nothing like WP:CRYSTAL; the person is verifiably alive and active in the public sphere. Abcmaxx ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Merges are cheap. It's not like it would impose such a huge burden on us. And this argument doesn't engage the key question: is Gypsy-Rose notable yet for anything outside the context of killing her mother? I notice she's sort of faded from media view over the past couple of months since someone decided they just had to create a separate article. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, a lot of sources are very focused on Gypsy's experience as a victim of Munchausen by proxy and not just on the murder. She has also become an activist of sorts for the disorder. 2804:D59:878F:900:950A:194A:3E9B:F021 ( talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    what sources and I respectfully disagree with you she has not become and activist of any sort as of yet. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Has become independently notable in the aftermath. DrewieStewie ( talk) 19:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - while originally she definitely was only notable for the event of the murder, there is now new content beyond the original event that appears to raise her into some celebrity status, such as the new documentary that just released earlier this year that goes more into depth about her herself or this people magazine article from just today that seem to indicate that the public is going to continue discussing her life in the future, beyond the original event and Lifetime announcing another series that will discuss her continued life beyond the original event just last week. Basically her status is moving from the notability criteria of WP:CRIME into that of WP:ENT as she is starring in the TV shows and would satisfy the entertainer criteria for notability. Raladic ( talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Recent changes to intro

You removed the short description I added but did not give a reason. I restored it and gave my reason why I think it should have not been removed. You then removed it and wrote OK, if you want a better reason, it needs to read like it was written by a native English speaker
I dont believe there to be anything that was wrong with my edit. Behaviour like this is off putting to newcomers who are trying to learn and are trying to help.
I have not vandalised anything nor deleted the info that was there. As I am quite new I dont quite know what happens when articles are merged.
I want to help and make the article good but I feel I am waisting my time as you keep removing my edits instead of helping correct what is wrong. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 05:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry; I do appreciate that you're new and trying in good faith to learn how to do things.
Per our style guide, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Your condensation of it to a single paragraph with some grammatical mistakes put it out of compliance with this guideline.

You have used the term "short description"; you may, it seems, be confusing that with the intro. The short description is that short sentence in the {{ short description}} template at the top of the article code. It's only visible when you look at the drop-down menu from the search field, or on the mobile version of the site in boxes with links. "Short description" is not a command for what the first part of the article text should be. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This page has a brief bit at the top and the rest of info is below the contents. /info/en/?search=Murder_of_Tupac_Shakur
For example
Dee Dee had changed her name after her family, who suspected she had poisoned her stepmother, confronted her about how she treated Gypsy-Rose. Nonetheless, many people accepted her situation as true, and the two benefited from the efforts of charities such as Children's Mercy Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, Ronald McDonald House, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
I dont think all thats to be at the top and could be put further down. Plus the info about the name change is whatvthe family said and its al lot more likely that the name change was just part of the frauds that were commited.
My edit may have had grammar errors but i dont undertsand what was wrong with what i wrote. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 08:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Citing what other articles do or don't do is not a valid argument by itself for how we do a particular article. This article is a good bit longer than the article about Tupac's death; it stands to reason that there is more to summarize at the top (and frankly the article about Tupac's death could be expanded a bit more, too).

If you take the time to read the passage I linked and quoted in the MOS, you'll see that it also makes the point that a great deal of readers (especially on mobile, I think) read only the intro, so it is in accord with Wikipedia's purpose to write article intros that, as noted, provide a "concise overview of the article's topic".

I further commend your attention to MOS:LEADLENGTH, which says "A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied", sets guidelines for the maximum length of the intro commensurate with the article's overall text length, and notes that most of our featured articles have intros at least three paragraphs long. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I didnt use the other artcle as the only argument. I can see what you are saying about tge featured article and that they are sometimes longer.
When I view this page on mobile this is what it shows.
On June 14, 2015, sheriff's deputies in Greene County, Missouri, United States, found the body of Clauddine "Dee Dee" Blanchard (née Pitre; born May 3, 1967, in Chackbay, Louisiana) face down in the bedroom of her house just outside Springfield, lying on the bed in a pool of blood from stab wounds inflicted several days earlier. There was no sign of her daughter, Gypsy-Rose, 23, who, according to Blanchard, had chronic conditions including leukemia, asthma, and muscular dystrophy and who had the "mental capacity of a seven-year-old due to brain damage" as the result of premature birth.
Then its the box with the picture and stuff.
@ Hayleywatson971: I have refactored this discussion into a separate section as it wasn't about my proposal to merge the separate article on Gypsy back into this one. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't understand why listing the illnesses and charities individually is necessary. I hope you understand
I'll say that you may have a point there.

As for what you said about how it appears on your phone: I went and looked at it my phone, too, and it was the same. That's because that's how the mobile version of the site works when it detects that a phone is the viewing platform (on my iPad, the mobile version looks more like it does on a desktop) because it wouldn't work to have the phone version look exactly like the desktop (although you can choose that look at the bottom of the page if you want).

Take a look at the page on a desktop when you get the chance ... you'll see that all the four intro paragraphs are on the left with the infobox (what we call "the box with the picture and stuff") on the right. The vast amounts of whitespace that a single paragraph next to an infobox used to create before the late 2022 skin change are one of many reasons we encourage longer intros.

Perhaps in time the tech people could set things up so that there are more mobile-friendly versions of articles that would load only on phones. Of course, they'd probably tell you to get in line given all the other things people want the mobile interface to do ... Daniel Case ( talk) 03:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You have said in the past that you agreed that it needed work as someone said it reads like a crime novel.
What do you think about the name change do you agree that that part needs to be updated? Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Update the lead and help with the trial.

Dee Dee had changed her name after her family, who suspected she had poisoned her stepmother, confronted her about how she treated Gypsy-Rose.


Can that bit be changed, I know her family have accused her of this but we don't know if it is true. We do know that she was committing multiple frauds and it's more likely to do with that and the family stuff if true was just an extra reason to change names.


The trial part

While the charge of first-degree murder can carry the death penalty under Missouri law or life without parole, County Prosecutor Dan Patterson announced he would not seek it for either Gypsy-Rose or Godejohn, calling the case "extraordinary and unusual"


I am not sure about this bit because he did get life without parole.

Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 02:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

He meant he would not seek the death penalty. Since Godejohn pleaded not guilty to murder one and was convicted, the judge imposed life without parole. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
In February 2019, he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction, the only possible option since prosecutors had declined to seek the death penalty.
Was it just the death penalty that was said to be taken off the table or both options and was that for them both or was that just what was offered to Gypsy.
Im not sure and ive not changed anything because im unsure and have done the talk post to what others think. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 04:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply


no.

Gypsy Rose Blanchard needs a different image rather than the girl who killed her mom 166.91.253.57 ( talk) 20:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

How could she be anything else? Besides, this should be discussed on that article's talk page, for as long as it lasts (And the image has to be a freely licensed one). Daniel Case ( talk) 20:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Really bad article - any ways of fixing?

I've just come across this article now. For such a high-profile case and for such a long article, this is embarrassingly poor. Is there any way of gathering more people to work on this? I'm shocked that a page for a reasonably well-known murder could be of such low quality. Feels like it's off a WordPress crime blog. Toffeenix ( talk) 08:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, as the editor who started it and did all the work on it for years, it was in pretty good shape until Gypsy was released a couple of months ago, attracting a whole bunch of newer editors to the article, quite a few of whom were determined that things like the explicit account of what Godejohn and Gypsy did the night of the murder belonged in the article. And I really didn't have the time to clear things up and argue with people here on the talk page anymore than I already have. It's one of those things where you tell yourself that at some point in the future when it's not really a thing anymore you'll clean it up. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Discuss how to change it

I agree with Daniel Case that this is supposed to be an article about the "Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard", and not about her daughter, whose notoriety was gained, after all, by being convicted of a role in her death, and who is now paroled. At this point, for instance, the Lede has gory details about the murder scene, but hardly covers when and where Godejoy and Gypsy were arrested, whether there was a trial, and what the disposition of their cases were. It was my understanding that in the case of murders, editors are encouraged to focus on the victim not the perpetrator. We should at least establish how the mother and daughter got to Missouri, how long they were there before the murder, and what was going on in relation to that event. I think the background on the pair is too long. Maybe we should deal with what was first known about their circumstances, and later introduce the material about the fabricated childhood.

Given Gypsy's difficult childhood, this is a highly unusual case, and she was also a victim. But that does not mean we have to provide endless details from all the material that has been published; it could be summarized. This is supposed to be encyclopedic and based on fact. I'm still reading the article, but it appears that no medical/psychiatric doctor ever diagnosed Gypsy as having suffered Munchausen by proxy (or its new name). It certainly sounds as if that was what her mother was doing, but editors should be more clear about what was established, versus what has been discussed and speculated.

Maybe another early step is to try to focus on content from Reliable Sources, per Wiki MOS, rather than entertainment and fashion magazines and sites: Bustle.com, Cosmopolitan, Variety, Elle, Marie Claire, E!online, and other sources that especially appear in relation to the many documentaries and TV shows produced are not generally sources for legal and medical information. See <<Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources>> for a thorough listing so that editors can check their sources, and weigh them against the content under question.

Maybe if we sort out the basics about the murder/trial/pleas, some background (limited), and incarceration, we could try to deal with the phenomenon of Gypsy's notorious profile and media frenzy about her since her release. I've started editing the article - may copy it to Sandbox to work on it.

Any thoughts? Parkwells ( talk) 20:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well ... my argument is that Gypsy-Rose doesn't yet deserve a separate article as her crime is the sole source for the time being of her notability. So, some editors have sort of been trying to coatrack everything they think is notable about Gypsy-Rose into this article.
As for those sources you list, Variety is actually green at RS/PS, although you're right, I'd look for sources more known for medical and legal coverage first. But, yes, Bustle and Cosmo are case-by-case, and the other ones we don't have a consensus strong enough to put on that page yet.
You are also correct that Dee Dee was never diagnosed with factitious disorder imposed on another (what we should be calling it, the name you're trying to remember). I believe we even quote Dr. Fliederman saying that such a diagnosis is possible only on a living patient, although Dee Dee certainly showed a lot of the signs of it. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. Since she is only known because of the murder, I agree that she doesn't deserve a separate article. I think it is wrong to have even a proposed article about her start like this: "[she is ] is an American author and TV personality, who was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of her mother, Dee Dee Blanchard, and sentenced to ten years in prison.[1] Following her mother's death, Blanchard gained international notoriety, and her story was eventually adapted into a Hulu limited series, The Act (2019)." She is a convicted murderer first. Don't some states have laws against convicted criminals being allowed to profit from their crimes? Parkwells ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, to be fair, she pled guilty to the crime, rather than being convicted, even if that makes no legal difference (although as a practical matter sparing the state the expense of a trial does pay off with consideration in sentencing, as Gypsy's lawyers doubtless knew).
As for the Son of Sam law you mention, some states have them but not all; you are correct. And in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional as then applied (it has been amended so it applies to all economic activity derived from the crimes, not just publishing, but then what other legal activities derived from the crime could there possibly be?) Daniel Case ( talk) 22:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, in this case there have been at least two TV series, two or more documentary films, the book that Gypsy Blanchard published, interviews and personal appearances she may have been paid for. It would seem she was selling some part of her story. Parkwells ( talk) 01:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As she appears to be making money off her crime and story, it would appear that Habitat for Humanity and other charities that assisted her and her mother may have claims to some part of that profit. Parkwells ( talk) 01:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Intro/Lede

I think this should be written from the point of view of a relatively straight summary of facts, what is known.

So, we could say Dee Dee Blanchard was murdered on June 10, in an event jointly planned by her daughter and her boyfriend, and committed by him. They also took money from her safe. Since they left town, Blanchard was not immediately noticed to be missing, and her body was not found until June 15. Details about what the neighbors noticed or thought (and their contacting police) could be in body of article.

The couple were traced to WI, arraigned and extradited to MO. The investigation and trial revealed the complicated story of the abuse suffered by Gypsy-Rose and her participation in the frauds carried out by her mother. Short overview.

Initial charges were first-degree murder, which had potential for capital sentence. Before trial she pleaded guilty to lesser charges and received a 10-year sentence. Godejohn was convicted and sentenced to LWOP.

Media response to the crime and related story gave Gypsy-Rose notoriety, with documentaries and limited TV series completed while she was still in prison, and high-profile interviews, appearances, etc soon after she was released on parole. Parkwells ( talk) 01:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

MI is Michigan. Missouri is MO. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Typo, thanks for correction. Parkwells ( talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Murder_of_Dee_Dee_Blanchard&oldid=1217939615"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

Change Gypsy & Ryan's wedding date from June 27, 2022 to July 21, 2022. Ryan stated their wedding date (and also stated that it is incorrect in many online sources) on The Viall Files podcast January 8, 2024. MEMaddux ( talk) 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rehsarb ( talk) 00:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Merging Gypsy-Rose Blanchard back into this article

Per the outcome of the AfD, closed as no consensus since it seemed like a merger was preferred (I had nominated it for deletion primarily because there was so little content to merge back into this article that wasn't already here). So I have appropriately tagged both articles. Daniel Case ( talk) 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I will Oppose this. Gypsy is notable enough to have a bio-article. BabbaQ ( talk) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Okay, but what is there to say about her that does not duplicate content from this article? Sure, she's notable, but her notability is entirely overlapping with the event notoriety. There isn't much outside of that, and it isn't long enough to warrant a size/content split. Should not have her own page, IMO PARAKANYAA ( talk) 11:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not generally opposed to perpetrators of high profile crimes having individual articles, but what aggravates me is that 99% of the time when people do it they basically write it backwards which makes both pages worse: the best way to write these kinds of articles is to get the main page as well-developed and comprehensive as possible (at least GA, IMO, or as close to FA as these kinds of articles can get) and at that stage open a discussion as to whether a split would benefit both articles, rather than creating an article that substantially duplicates an existing one. They want a separate article because they feel like it should, not because it adds anything. Another plus is it's less likely to get dramatically AfD'd. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    +1 I still do not see why we need a separate Trayvon Martin article even though it has survived two AfDs (in fairness, neither one was a keep). Daniel Case ( talk) 02:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    At least that one's a size split. The main article is massive. There's not really a similar justification here: this article is only C class, is confusingly written in many places, and has a lot of improvements to be made to it. I will never understand why people want to make separate articles for the perpetrator without first making the main one good. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 02:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the main article was massive, that to me suggested that maybe there was too much in it. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair point, but trying to trim an article of a topic as politically contentious as that is often like pulling teeth, I'm afraid. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 02:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As a possible compromise: Merge this article into Gypsy-Rose Blanchard. I understand that such a merge might not exactly fit standard practice, but given that that there is a single killing, killer and killed, this might be more likely to gain consensus. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 12:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Usually we don't name an article about a single crime after the perpetrator (when known) ... i.e. Murder of Sherri Rasmussen, not Stephanie Lazarus. I think, in addition to the event being what's notable, it also has to do with not wanting to reward real-life misconduct. Serial killers, and killers already notable for something independent of the crime, are different. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    But why? What benefit does that have to the presentation of the information here? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 13:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I dont know how to do merging or how that works but I also do not see the point in there being 2 pages as it is just duplicate information. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 17:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually, having read through both articles it is pretty obvious there is a distinction between the two articles. One focusing on Gypsy and the other solely on the crime and more on the mother and her life. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Which part of the Gypsy page is not covered here already? Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, of course the content will be arranged differently, but there's nothing that would be undue to say on the crime page. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per WP:SIZESPLIT. It would better to improve and crossreference the two articles rather than merge these. Abcmaxx ( talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per the article statistics page, it's currently at 6,600 words, just only slightly above the size at which SIZESPLIT says length alone is not a justification for splitting. I don't find the article's size a valid reason to split it up. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but I'm taking into account that given the person in question is alive and active in the public sphere, it is likely to be expanded, especially given that the depth and quality of the article can be vastly improved as well. Abcmaxx ( talk) 10:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Likely to be expanded" is another way of saying WP:CRYSTAL. If and when it's expanded, then we can consider that argument more seriously. Right now it doesn't hold water. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would rather the effort be put into expanding and improving articles rather than merging only to unmerge them again. The article is already split, this is a proposed merger rather than proposed split, therefore I see no good reason for an overhaul. And my argument is nothing like WP:CRYSTAL; the person is verifiably alive and active in the public sphere. Abcmaxx ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Merges are cheap. It's not like it would impose such a huge burden on us. And this argument doesn't engage the key question: is Gypsy-Rose notable yet for anything outside the context of killing her mother? I notice she's sort of faded from media view over the past couple of months since someone decided they just had to create a separate article. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, a lot of sources are very focused on Gypsy's experience as a victim of Munchausen by proxy and not just on the murder. She has also become an activist of sorts for the disorder. 2804:D59:878F:900:950A:194A:3E9B:F021 ( talk) 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    what sources and I respectfully disagree with you she has not become and activist of any sort as of yet. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Has become independently notable in the aftermath. DrewieStewie ( talk) 19:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - while originally she definitely was only notable for the event of the murder, there is now new content beyond the original event that appears to raise her into some celebrity status, such as the new documentary that just released earlier this year that goes more into depth about her herself or this people magazine article from just today that seem to indicate that the public is going to continue discussing her life in the future, beyond the original event and Lifetime announcing another series that will discuss her continued life beyond the original event just last week. Basically her status is moving from the notability criteria of WP:CRIME into that of WP:ENT as she is starring in the TV shows and would satisfy the entertainer criteria for notability. Raladic ( talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Recent changes to intro

You removed the short description I added but did not give a reason. I restored it and gave my reason why I think it should have not been removed. You then removed it and wrote OK, if you want a better reason, it needs to read like it was written by a native English speaker
I dont believe there to be anything that was wrong with my edit. Behaviour like this is off putting to newcomers who are trying to learn and are trying to help.
I have not vandalised anything nor deleted the info that was there. As I am quite new I dont quite know what happens when articles are merged.
I want to help and make the article good but I feel I am waisting my time as you keep removing my edits instead of helping correct what is wrong. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 05:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry; I do appreciate that you're new and trying in good faith to learn how to do things.
Per our style guide, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Your condensation of it to a single paragraph with some grammatical mistakes put it out of compliance with this guideline.

You have used the term "short description"; you may, it seems, be confusing that with the intro. The short description is that short sentence in the {{ short description}} template at the top of the article code. It's only visible when you look at the drop-down menu from the search field, or on the mobile version of the site in boxes with links. "Short description" is not a command for what the first part of the article text should be. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This page has a brief bit at the top and the rest of info is below the contents. /info/en/?search=Murder_of_Tupac_Shakur
For example
Dee Dee had changed her name after her family, who suspected she had poisoned her stepmother, confronted her about how she treated Gypsy-Rose. Nonetheless, many people accepted her situation as true, and the two benefited from the efforts of charities such as Children's Mercy Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, Ronald McDonald House, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
I dont think all thats to be at the top and could be put further down. Plus the info about the name change is whatvthe family said and its al lot more likely that the name change was just part of the frauds that were commited.
My edit may have had grammar errors but i dont undertsand what was wrong with what i wrote. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 08:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Citing what other articles do or don't do is not a valid argument by itself for how we do a particular article. This article is a good bit longer than the article about Tupac's death; it stands to reason that there is more to summarize at the top (and frankly the article about Tupac's death could be expanded a bit more, too).

If you take the time to read the passage I linked and quoted in the MOS, you'll see that it also makes the point that a great deal of readers (especially on mobile, I think) read only the intro, so it is in accord with Wikipedia's purpose to write article intros that, as noted, provide a "concise overview of the article's topic".

I further commend your attention to MOS:LEADLENGTH, which says "A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied", sets guidelines for the maximum length of the intro commensurate with the article's overall text length, and notes that most of our featured articles have intros at least three paragraphs long. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I didnt use the other artcle as the only argument. I can see what you are saying about tge featured article and that they are sometimes longer.
When I view this page on mobile this is what it shows.
On June 14, 2015, sheriff's deputies in Greene County, Missouri, United States, found the body of Clauddine "Dee Dee" Blanchard (née Pitre; born May 3, 1967, in Chackbay, Louisiana) face down in the bedroom of her house just outside Springfield, lying on the bed in a pool of blood from stab wounds inflicted several days earlier. There was no sign of her daughter, Gypsy-Rose, 23, who, according to Blanchard, had chronic conditions including leukemia, asthma, and muscular dystrophy and who had the "mental capacity of a seven-year-old due to brain damage" as the result of premature birth.
Then its the box with the picture and stuff.
@ Hayleywatson971: I have refactored this discussion into a separate section as it wasn't about my proposal to merge the separate article on Gypsy back into this one. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't understand why listing the illnesses and charities individually is necessary. I hope you understand
I'll say that you may have a point there.

As for what you said about how it appears on your phone: I went and looked at it my phone, too, and it was the same. That's because that's how the mobile version of the site works when it detects that a phone is the viewing platform (on my iPad, the mobile version looks more like it does on a desktop) because it wouldn't work to have the phone version look exactly like the desktop (although you can choose that look at the bottom of the page if you want).

Take a look at the page on a desktop when you get the chance ... you'll see that all the four intro paragraphs are on the left with the infobox (what we call "the box with the picture and stuff") on the right. The vast amounts of whitespace that a single paragraph next to an infobox used to create before the late 2022 skin change are one of many reasons we encourage longer intros.

Perhaps in time the tech people could set things up so that there are more mobile-friendly versions of articles that would load only on phones. Of course, they'd probably tell you to get in line given all the other things people want the mobile interface to do ... Daniel Case ( talk) 03:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You have said in the past that you agreed that it needed work as someone said it reads like a crime novel.
What do you think about the name change do you agree that that part needs to be updated? Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Update the lead and help with the trial.

Dee Dee had changed her name after her family, who suspected she had poisoned her stepmother, confronted her about how she treated Gypsy-Rose.


Can that bit be changed, I know her family have accused her of this but we don't know if it is true. We do know that she was committing multiple frauds and it's more likely to do with that and the family stuff if true was just an extra reason to change names.


The trial part

While the charge of first-degree murder can carry the death penalty under Missouri law or life without parole, County Prosecutor Dan Patterson announced he would not seek it for either Gypsy-Rose or Godejohn, calling the case "extraordinary and unusual"


I am not sure about this bit because he did get life without parole.

Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 02:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

He meant he would not seek the death penalty. Since Godejohn pleaded not guilty to murder one and was convicted, the judge imposed life without parole. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
In February 2019, he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction, the only possible option since prosecutors had declined to seek the death penalty.
Was it just the death penalty that was said to be taken off the table or both options and was that for them both or was that just what was offered to Gypsy.
Im not sure and ive not changed anything because im unsure and have done the talk post to what others think. Hayleywatson971 ( talk) 04:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply


no.

Gypsy Rose Blanchard needs a different image rather than the girl who killed her mom 166.91.253.57 ( talk) 20:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

How could she be anything else? Besides, this should be discussed on that article's talk page, for as long as it lasts (And the image has to be a freely licensed one). Daniel Case ( talk) 20:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Really bad article - any ways of fixing?

I've just come across this article now. For such a high-profile case and for such a long article, this is embarrassingly poor. Is there any way of gathering more people to work on this? I'm shocked that a page for a reasonably well-known murder could be of such low quality. Feels like it's off a WordPress crime blog. Toffeenix ( talk) 08:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, as the editor who started it and did all the work on it for years, it was in pretty good shape until Gypsy was released a couple of months ago, attracting a whole bunch of newer editors to the article, quite a few of whom were determined that things like the explicit account of what Godejohn and Gypsy did the night of the murder belonged in the article. And I really didn't have the time to clear things up and argue with people here on the talk page anymore than I already have. It's one of those things where you tell yourself that at some point in the future when it's not really a thing anymore you'll clean it up. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Discuss how to change it

I agree with Daniel Case that this is supposed to be an article about the "Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard", and not about her daughter, whose notoriety was gained, after all, by being convicted of a role in her death, and who is now paroled. At this point, for instance, the Lede has gory details about the murder scene, but hardly covers when and where Godejoy and Gypsy were arrested, whether there was a trial, and what the disposition of their cases were. It was my understanding that in the case of murders, editors are encouraged to focus on the victim not the perpetrator. We should at least establish how the mother and daughter got to Missouri, how long they were there before the murder, and what was going on in relation to that event. I think the background on the pair is too long. Maybe we should deal with what was first known about their circumstances, and later introduce the material about the fabricated childhood.

Given Gypsy's difficult childhood, this is a highly unusual case, and she was also a victim. But that does not mean we have to provide endless details from all the material that has been published; it could be summarized. This is supposed to be encyclopedic and based on fact. I'm still reading the article, but it appears that no medical/psychiatric doctor ever diagnosed Gypsy as having suffered Munchausen by proxy (or its new name). It certainly sounds as if that was what her mother was doing, but editors should be more clear about what was established, versus what has been discussed and speculated.

Maybe another early step is to try to focus on content from Reliable Sources, per Wiki MOS, rather than entertainment and fashion magazines and sites: Bustle.com, Cosmopolitan, Variety, Elle, Marie Claire, E!online, and other sources that especially appear in relation to the many documentaries and TV shows produced are not generally sources for legal and medical information. See <<Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources>> for a thorough listing so that editors can check their sources, and weigh them against the content under question.

Maybe if we sort out the basics about the murder/trial/pleas, some background (limited), and incarceration, we could try to deal with the phenomenon of Gypsy's notorious profile and media frenzy about her since her release. I've started editing the article - may copy it to Sandbox to work on it.

Any thoughts? Parkwells ( talk) 20:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well ... my argument is that Gypsy-Rose doesn't yet deserve a separate article as her crime is the sole source for the time being of her notability. So, some editors have sort of been trying to coatrack everything they think is notable about Gypsy-Rose into this article.
As for those sources you list, Variety is actually green at RS/PS, although you're right, I'd look for sources more known for medical and legal coverage first. But, yes, Bustle and Cosmo are case-by-case, and the other ones we don't have a consensus strong enough to put on that page yet.
You are also correct that Dee Dee was never diagnosed with factitious disorder imposed on another (what we should be calling it, the name you're trying to remember). I believe we even quote Dr. Fliederman saying that such a diagnosis is possible only on a living patient, although Dee Dee certainly showed a lot of the signs of it. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your comments. Since she is only known because of the murder, I agree that she doesn't deserve a separate article. I think it is wrong to have even a proposed article about her start like this: "[she is ] is an American author and TV personality, who was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of her mother, Dee Dee Blanchard, and sentenced to ten years in prison.[1] Following her mother's death, Blanchard gained international notoriety, and her story was eventually adapted into a Hulu limited series, The Act (2019)." She is a convicted murderer first. Don't some states have laws against convicted criminals being allowed to profit from their crimes? Parkwells ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, to be fair, she pled guilty to the crime, rather than being convicted, even if that makes no legal difference (although as a practical matter sparing the state the expense of a trial does pay off with consideration in sentencing, as Gypsy's lawyers doubtless knew).
As for the Son of Sam law you mention, some states have them but not all; you are correct. And in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional as then applied (it has been amended so it applies to all economic activity derived from the crimes, not just publishing, but then what other legal activities derived from the crime could there possibly be?) Daniel Case ( talk) 22:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, in this case there have been at least two TV series, two or more documentary films, the book that Gypsy Blanchard published, interviews and personal appearances she may have been paid for. It would seem she was selling some part of her story. Parkwells ( talk) 01:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As she appears to be making money off her crime and story, it would appear that Habitat for Humanity and other charities that assisted her and her mother may have claims to some part of that profit. Parkwells ( talk) 01:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Intro/Lede

I think this should be written from the point of view of a relatively straight summary of facts, what is known.

So, we could say Dee Dee Blanchard was murdered on June 10, in an event jointly planned by her daughter and her boyfriend, and committed by him. They also took money from her safe. Since they left town, Blanchard was not immediately noticed to be missing, and her body was not found until June 15. Details about what the neighbors noticed or thought (and their contacting police) could be in body of article.

The couple were traced to WI, arraigned and extradited to MO. The investigation and trial revealed the complicated story of the abuse suffered by Gypsy-Rose and her participation in the frauds carried out by her mother. Short overview.

Initial charges were first-degree murder, which had potential for capital sentence. Before trial she pleaded guilty to lesser charges and received a 10-year sentence. Godejohn was convicted and sentenced to LWOP.

Media response to the crime and related story gave Gypsy-Rose notoriety, with documentaries and limited TV series completed while she was still in prison, and high-profile interviews, appearances, etc soon after she was released on parole. Parkwells ( talk) 01:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

MI is Michigan. Missouri is MO. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Typo, thanks for correction. Parkwells ( talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Murder_of_Dee_Dee_Blanchard&oldid=1217939615"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE