Talk:Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard

gypsy age?

Presumably Gypsy's actual age at the time of the murder has been established by now. That should be stated in the beginning. As stands it sounds like she was a child, then half way through the article you get enough information to back out the age to be about 25. or even 23 based on the mothers lie. 2600:1702:3B50:4680:B1CB:2157:4384:EBBF (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the introduction says, "When investigators announced that she was actually an adult and did not have any of the physical and mental health issues which her mother claimed she had, public outrage over the possible abduction of a disabled girl gave way to shock and some sympathy for Gypsy Rose."

If you got the impression she was a child, that inference isn't from the text. And the article also already explains that, while Gypsy didn't know her real age for years, she was born in July 1991. Therefore, the article already establishes that Gypsy would've turned 24 within a few weeks of the murder. CleverTitania (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article is extremely unclear as to what Gyspy's age was at the time of the murder was. Unfortunately I tried amending it but the issues with this article are so numerous (and long-standing, see above thread from 2019) that I honestly don't know where to begin. Cjhard (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That kind of non-assessment assessment leaves me with little, if any, confidence that you will be anymore capable of elucidating (or inclined to) a constructive critique of how the lede (the intro, I presume you mean?) could be improved upon than the editor who started that 2019 thread (who is now, dismayingly but perhaps unsurprisingly, nearing the anniversary of an indefinite block). Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. I have included the words "then 23-year-old" in front of the first reference to Gypsy Rose. Thank you for your observations regarding me. Cjhard (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, did you mean to suggest Ashmoo has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia? Cjhard (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to be direct here and offer some personal observations, with the hope that it mitigates any further sniping. Firstly, it's clear that the comment about a nearly-blocked user was in reference to Elizium23. I see no reason to elaborate on that topic further or the lede/lead issue; these are old and disparate topics that have no reason to be rehashed here.

To the broader discussion; I feel that Daniel Case has tended to, in particular on this article, respond to unclear or less-than-constructive editing suggestions not just with frustration, but with condescending and sneering tones. Which isn't helpful and discourages open discussion about ways to improve the page. At the same time, far too many of the comments on this Talk page have been framed as non-constructive criticism, and Cjhard's "numerous" remarks are a further example. Just saying an article is a mess and has been for some time, without bothering to give specific suggestions on ways to improve it, or being willing to go in and rewrite some of the tricky prose yourself, is frustrating for any editor who has previously invested a lot of time and energy into a page. Even just saying "Example A is problematic" isn't really useful if you don't offer at least some alterative phrasing or structural suggestions to solve the problem.

So I would ask this; please respond to any future conflicts, whether on specific content or writing style, only with relevant and timely comments - doing your best to avoid snarky asides, regardless of whether they are broadly criticizing the article or one another. Because at this point you've both been piling asides on asides and it's exhausting to read. And if you feel the article is in need of improvements that you do not have the time/energy to do yourself, try to offer suggestions which are constructive and actionable, not vague criticism. You are both seasoned editors with enough experience at this to recognize when a little extra effort at civility is worthwhile, to find that WP:OAS balance, before things genuinely become WP:UNCIVIL. For my part, if everybody can be patient with my own scarcity of spoons right now, I will do what I can to actively watch this page and lend a hand at tightening up the prose. CleverTitania (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I can sort of see the point of the criticism ... this is often the kind of friction that results when someone who has never edited the article parachutes in to the talk page, especially during a sudden upsurge of interest in the article, and makes sweeping, outspoken criticisms on the talk page, only to incur the wrath of the editor who developed the article originally and has been tending to it regularly ever since (A great deal of editors seem to presume, erroneously, that there is no one actively taking responsibility for the content of an article they happen across, which is why I advise that before you pop off on the talk page about what a piece of crap the article has been allowed to become, you try to find out who might still be caring by looking through the article history and statistics, and get in touch with them first).

I'm willing to entertain the criticism that perhaps the intro, as is, focuses a bit too much on the particulars of the crime, as it's largely unchanged from what I wrote back in 2017 when this was all a lot newer and we knew less about Gypsy. But, I remind everyone, the article is about the event of Dee Dee's death, not her killer ... I get the feeling the people who complained were expecting the article to be about her. As I have said at AfD, if Gypsy herself becomes notable for something other than having killed her mother, then we can have a separate article about her. Meanwhile, if anyone has any suggestions for how to rework the intro to take account of the time that's passed since 2017, I'm open to them. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've just said just demonstrates the ownership you feel over the article. Both you and the article would likely be best served if you removed it from your watchlist. Cjhard (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that's uncalled for, and irrevocably demonstrates a failure to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

Released date is December 28,2023 not the year 2033 97.141.2.180 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done, thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Claudinnea

You got her name wrong dingus 81.228.144.122 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

According to this cited source, she sometimes added the "a" to her first name as a way of making herself hard to follow and covering her tracks. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gypsy-Rose Blanchard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Who Godejohn is

A description of them and their attachment to Gypsy Roses trial 188.236.207.124 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• I will Oppose this. Gypsy is notable enough to have a bio-article. BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  +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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  But why? What benefit does that have to the presentation of the information here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Which part of the Gypsy page is not covered here already? Hayleywatson971 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

This page has a brief bit at the top and the rest of info is below the contents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)