Law Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Media Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

Since Dannielynn's paternity has now been proven by DNA testing, where should this article go? - Should the article follow the official result of the paternity case and custody arrangements? Mattabat 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haha OK so it can be a page about a child of anna nicole but not the mother Virgie Arthur that isotope deleted??what is this child more then the child of anna nicole+????? i request that her article be restored.--Matrix17 14:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to contest the deletion of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the question again? what is Dannielynn more then anna nicoles child? and why was virgie arthur deleted,just because she was only her mother. well dannielynn is only anna nicoles child,right? doublestandard when it comes to some article decisions. its more about who writes it then the actuall article.--Matrix17 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with who wrote the article. Virgie Arthur did not meet WP:BIO in any way. Dannielynn does as a matter of technicality, though I don't see much of a reason for a standalone article here. At best this should be a redirect. Still, it is a bit premature to do anything here right now because the case is still ongoing. When the dust settles, then it would be a good time to discuss what should be done here.--Isotope23 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannielynn Marshall Stern is at the centre of a notable dispute, the involvement of Virgie Arthur is peripheral. If you disagree with this, you may nominate this article for deletion. If you disagree with the deletion of the article on Virgie Arthur, you may request a deletion review. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it up for deletion but someone took it off without even asking as usuall on this page.--Matrix17 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing PROD's doesn't require any comment on the part of the person removing it. PROD is different than a speedy delete or AfD in that way. You can always nominate the article for WP:AFD if you disagree with the deprod.--Isotope23 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article for deletion as a contested prod: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dannielynn Marshall Stern. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article should be deleted or merged with anna nicole, i mean c'mon people. Mcoop06 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Perhaps in the long run it should be deleted, but this article and the article about Virgie Arthur should remain as long they are part of a high profile, ongoing news story. --JHP 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error under the Howard Stern section, paragraph two, where it says smith bought the house in the Bahamas. That house didn't actually belong to either of them, they were renting it from someone and he apparently didn't want them there anymore. But that last part's just hearsay. And i'm sure that's all comon knowledge, but things should be accurate. ---brigid.

Yeah, I saw that too and have been checking on it. --Maniwar (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The custody battle of Dannielynn is unique in its circumstances. I imagine the ongoing case will eventually serve as citations for future legal arguments and it is important to have a comprehensive article about her for reference. As stated before Dannielynn does meet criteria of WP:BIO and while she has not directly done anything more than any other infant can do she indirectly has had a huge global impact. For example, on google news there are currently (at time of my post) 14,399 articles available referencing her name. I say no delete. Joneboi 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only opinion is if virgie arthur got deleted this should also get deleted or both articles get restored.Dannielynn is not more notable then virgie,in one way less notable.i totally agrees with isotope23 in hes opinion earlier here´,but now i think its time for deletion.--Matrix17 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought her birth name was Dannielynn. Is Dannielynn her "media" name or real one?

Baby16 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibeleive Hannibel was what they origonally went to name her. They then changed her name and filed for a new Birth Certificate.

I think there should be something indicating Dannielynn is potentially very rich, and that this a supposed reason for perhaps some of the paternity claims. However, I don't really know how to word it in such a way as to avoid legal problems. Can anyone help? --A bit iffy 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is no longer a biography, it is really a case or article, I removed the bio tag. --Maniwar (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that Marshall is another middle name, rather than a surname. Shouldn't this article be titled Dannielynn Stern paternity case? Charles 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirmed that Marshall is only another middle name for Dannielynn. I am moving the page. Charles 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a large chunk of the article here which was a copyvio from here. It has been here for a long time but fortunately still appears to be contained. However it would be good if another editor could check the article to make sure it's clean Nil Einne 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I initially removed more than I intended to which I have corrected here. Also, I noticed that the editor in fact gave the source which is [1]. However it still claims to be copyrighted there so taking it from there was still a bad idea. Looking further, it's all over the web. Several sources credit Nolo. Most likely the sites got permission or perhaps they are using it under fair use. They are lawyers so I presume they know what they're doing. But until and unless there is any evidence it is GFDL or public domain, this should remain removed out of wikipedia. In any case, I don't see the need to go into such depth. Surely such a thing should be covered in Patternity law in the United States or something like that, not in this article. Nil Einne 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably does originate from Nolo as they make it easy to get (pay for) permission to reprint their stuff. Also as they say, "As law publishers who invest time, energy and money ...... we take infringement very seriously." Nil Einne 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Nil Einne. --Maniwar (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on people, no need to add Larry Birkhead as the father in the lead. When this case came about, it was not known who the father was. Obviously, if Birkhead knew he was the father, he would not have done a paternity case. Improve the lead, but don't keep making it factually incorrect. I reverted the last three edits because it was making the case factually inaccurate. The case involved Dannylynn and Birhead who suspected he might be the father. --Maniwar (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the upcoming custody battle is outside the scope of this articles title. Being that this article is specifically titled "paternity case" I say another article needs either to be created or rename this article again to encompass both the paternity and custody cases. Any suggestions? Joneboi 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be incorporated into this article. I don't think an entirely separate article is needed. Perhaps a name change to reflect it might be good, but then, maybe not. The one thing I'm certain about, is I don't' think a new separate article is needed. --Maniwar (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the case was named Dannielynn ... Stern, not Birkhead. When the case took place, it was uncertain as to who the father was. If it had been known to be Birkhead, then it would have had his name in it, but it did not. when it was filed in California, it was filed under the child's then name. Do not change it without proof or without discussing. --Maniwar (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was moved from Dannielynn Stern paternity case to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case however, we need to call it what the actual case name is. Does anyone know how we can find out what the actual case name was? And then, it needs to be named that or the word case needs to be removed. If we are to keep credibility of wikipedia, then we need to be factual and not just current. Yes Birhead is the father, but that does not make it right to call the case that if it's factually inaccurate. We need to fix this article as it is not a good article. --Maniwar (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. According to Birkhead's former lawyer Debra Opri [2] the case is known as Birkhead v. Marshall. I hope this helps. 67.98.154.56 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this should be called the Danielynn paternity case...simply put and remove the last names 'or we need to rename it Birkhead v. Marshall to be more accurate and factual. What does everyone else think? --Maniwar (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not called the Dannielynn Stern paternity case. The opening line should reflect what is known to be fact. It was the case over the baby, who is Dannielynn Birkhead. Charles 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, do not revert this till a solution is devised. The child's father was not known when the case was filed, therefore the case could not possibly include the father's surname (Birkhead). I am trying to come up with a factual way to portray this case and adding Birkhead is not the solution. Birkhead was not known to be the father when the case was filed. This article needs to be renamed to reflect the true name of the case, not the name of current events. I would conclude that it should be named, similar to other cases, Birkhead v. Marshall. --Maniwar (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, first off, it was changed to reflect fact, then it was reverted and now it is being "discussed" to keep it at an incorrect form. It was the paternity case over Dannielynn Birkhead. There is no such person as Dannielynn Stern. If it is to be named in the form of the case title, fine. Until then, however, the intro line is to reflect fact. In is not in the form of a legal case title anyway so the point is moot. Adding Birkhead may not be a solution, but it isn't a problem unless you pointlessly try to make it one. Charles 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to warn you that if you revert, I will report you and I will call for RFC. Discuss on this talk page before reverting. You are new to this discussion and this article is being spammed and changed at people's whim and it is growing ever away from fact. There was not a discussion to rename it from Dannielynn Stern paternity case to the current name. I am trying to take this article and discuss what it should be called. Right now, it is inacurately named and instead of causing strife, contribute wisely and indicate where you think it should go. Help me make this a factual article and not some current even opinion. I've been editing this article through two name changes and if we keep it going, it will be called who knows what. But, it must reflect the actual case name. Please discuss and let's avoid an edit war. --Maniwar (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me, I feel that I have sufficiently supported why my position is correct. If you are trying to discuss what it "should" be called, don't go on changing the intro line. My edits reflect fact and those will stay fact unless it is given a name along the lines of a definite case title. Charles 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly broken the 3RR policy. And also, your bias in moving the article from Talk:Dannielynn Stern paternity case to Talk:Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case without calling for discussion or consensus is POV and biased and was improperly done. You clearly are violing several things here and instead of trying to discuss to resolve, you are taking things in your own hand. I will call on the community to add their input and feedback. --Maniwar (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the 3RR policy. I'd advise you to write me up for it if I have. I only have a bias for fact and the article was simply moved to reflect fact. Charles 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Maniwar that it would be appropiate to rename the article one last time to Birkhead v. Marshall since that is how cases are labeled on Wikipedia. The case name also shows that it was Larry Birkhead suing Vicki Marshall. I read somewhere that Mrs. Arthur (Marshall/Smith's mother) originally brought suit against her daughter before Birkhead over custody of the baby. I guess that could be mentioned in the background section about events preceding and related to the case. 67.98.154.56 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I- Charles unfortunately just loves to argue, and randomly makes changes whenever he feels like it. You should see what he has done to other articles.Tim Foxworth 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is much bigger than Birkhead simply suing Marshall. Also, is the focus of this article custody, paternity or both? Charles 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Could I, as the creator of this article (albeit originally as a redirect to Anna Nicole Smith), and as the one that originally suggested it be renamed along the lines of "xxx paternity case" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dannielynn Marshall Stern), make a suggestion?

I know that of course anyone can make a suggestion, and we're all theoretically equal, but I'm sort of hoping I'm more equal than others in this case. ;)

My suggestion is: how about renaming the article as Paternity of Dannielynn Birkhead (or whatever the little lady's name is by the time you read this)?

My reasoning is that the dispute over her patertnity was not just a court case: many people along the way were said to be her father, and several of those were not party to any court case concerning Dannielynn paternity, but those claims are relevant to this article. So having it as "xxx paternity case" is slightly misleading.

Any comments, anyone? --A bit iffy 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with whatever article name is decided. The main thing that concerns me is when the article is locked to prevent vandalism, it also prevents me from doing any editing to it (I do not want to sign up at Wikipedia. I can wait out any time the lock is up, though I noticed that Howard K. Stern article has been locked non-stop for months) so I hope any lock is kept to a minimum. 67.98.154.56 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit iffy, that is a good suggestion and would sit better with me than the current name. However, this is already tagged as court case and I feel an RFC would be warranted to get additional feedback from the community and to avoid willy nilly discissions like those Charles have been doing. I think we have to decide 1)What would the best long term solution be 2)Where do we want to go with this article and 3)What direction would do the most justice. The community has already pointed out they don't want it to be a biography and to be honest it will drop off the current events newsline soon. Would it be best as court case? or would it be best as a sub of Larry Birkhead or Anna Nicole Smith? I'm not sure. But we need to have the article be more accurate. Clearly, the Birkhead name, as a case, is false and inaccurate. --Maniwar (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the article got tagged as a court case because it has the "case" in its name. Anyway, following on from Charles ("This is much bigger than Birkhead simply suing Marshall. Also, is the focus of this article custody, paternity or both?") and Joneboi ("I think the upcoming custody battle is outside the scope of this articles title"), should the article scope should be widened further by renaming as "Paternity and custody of Dannielynn Xxxxxx"? Or should there be separate articles for the legal case and the custody? Or something else?--A bit iffy 08:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the whole page just be called Dannielynn Birkhead? Charles 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit iffy, why don't you call for some consensus? But for now, till a solution is devised, the I am going to change the case name back to what it was originally Dannielynn Stern paternity case since a consensus was not called for and it reflects more true to the case. --Maniwar (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is merely your opinion and is not supported by fact. The name has been restored and can stay that way until you have evidence to the contrary. Dannielynn Stern paternity case is not the case name and Birkhead v. Marshall is too narrow of a title. Charles 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested an RFC to aid with this discussion as we need community input. --Maniwar (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]