Talk:Carlie's Law

VfD Discussion

Discussed moved from VfD:

• OK, I am going to seem crass here, but Carlie Brucia and Samantha Runyon should be deleted. It is terrible that thousands of kids are abducted each year, but this is not the place to document each and everyone of them. Kingturtle 17:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Loads of kids are killed every year. One for wikimemorial if people feel the need to write about them. Secretlondon 17:57, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. People who were not famous in their lives do not become famous (and therefore encyclopædic) upon their deaths, unless they have a particularly unusual or record-setting death (e.g., Eddie Slovik). Let's keep articles (at least long ones) on run-of-the-mill victims off Wikipedia. -Psychonaut 18:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Reminds me of the Gashleycrumb Tinnies. A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs, B is for Basil, assaulted by bears... →Raul654 18:29, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • No vote... but that's tinies. Andrewa 10:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was national news. Carlie Brucia was famous before her death. Samantha Runyon probably was too. Anthony DiPierro 18:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • National news in one country. And famous as they were abducted I presume. They weren't famous before that, surely. I presume they are just cute, white American kids (as I understand that cute, black American kids who are murdered tend not to make the US news) Secretlondon 18:30, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • National news in the one country where the majority of the readers live. And yes, they were famous before they died. As for your racist remarks, we shouldn't exclude people from Wikipedia just because they're white. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Black and Hispanic children also make news if they were abducted in front of a bloody video Camera. Dominick 20:16, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Remove from Wikipedia. (I follow the news, and ive only heard of the Runyon person, but neither deserve their own articles.) Sennheiser! 18:40, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I happen to live in Tampa, Florida, so the fact that Carlie Brucia is the only thing I've been hearing about for the past week probably doesn't mean much. Anthony DiPierro 18:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Another one you might want to look at is Nicole Brown Simpson. Anthony DiPierro 19:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Thats totally different. There is probably a better example. Sennheiser! 19:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • How is it different? They're all people famous for crimes committed against them. Anthony DiPierro 19:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It is different in that OJ Simpson was a major US Football player and Mrs. Simpson was part of that story. This content might do better in an article on child abducton. Kd4ttc 01:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information is verifiable and factual and of interest to readers who care about famous crime cases. Eventually Wikipedia should have a lot more information on crimes than commercial sites such as [1]. Of course it's important to limit the content of these articles to the factual and verifiable. However, the suggestion to move this page to the memorial wiki is misleading -- the memorial wiki is intended for personal tributes and comments, not for factual, verifiable information about deceased persons.—Eloquence 19:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. My responses earlier were cultural and filled with the fear that the US media was a determiner of encyclopedic quality. If these sort of articles are important to Americans then of course keep. I mustn't judge you by my less sentimental culture. Apologies. Secretlondon 19:57, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Chronicling these cases is important to find out what drives the killers, what their social background is and so forth, which is of course essential to prevent further crimes. That, I would say, is not "sentimental" at all. However, under the present titles one of course expects articles about the person being murdered, which indeed raises suspicion about their relevance in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a title like Carlie Brucia murder case would be helpful to avoid this; then again, it is more cumbersome.—Eloquence 20:44, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Here's a good test -- if we deleted this article, would we reasonably expect it to be recreated often? If the answer is yes, then I think it's a keeper. These are folks who will probably have a lasting legacy and will be referenced by the media, politicians, legislators and activists in the future, so we should include them. (Note that this is subtly different than the constant debate here over the 9/11 victims or Iraq War casualties, where certain individuals may pass this test too, but not all.)
    • The child abductions that have lasting legacies I've changed accordingly. For example, Polly Klaas has been moved to Polly Klaas Foundation, Megan Kanka was moved to Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation (but has since been moved back) and Laura Kate Smither has been moved to Laura Recovery Center. These articles now focus on the legacy, while still containing the crime information. Kingturtle 23:40, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the intent, but I think that particular approach is problematic; the title focuses on one outcome (foundation, recovery center) while ignoring other aspects of the case (the offender and their background, the media coverage, the victim etc.). If a broad title is desired, I would suggest something like Polly Klaas murder.—Eloquence
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a morgue; that is, it is neither 1. A place in which the bodies of persons found dead are kept, nor 2.A reference file in a newspaper or magazine office. If these sad deaths lead to something of encyclopedic importance the article can be written when it occurs. Dpbsmith 02:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If anything, isn't this exactly what Wikipedia is for? It fills in the knowledge gap that has traditionally existed between newspapers (breaking news) and the history books. Wikipedia is already a very widely used reference (top 1000 most popular web sites and topping all other online encyclopedias). It is a place where the information of accumulated news events can be compiled, written about and told in a comprehensive and succinct way. I am sympathetic to the fact that pretty white teens from middle class families get media coverage, and lower class minority girls who are murdered are largely ignored. But that's a larger problem than what to include here and now. And for now, these names are in the media ecology, and they should be here as well, in one form or another. Eloquence and Kingturtle's suggestions about naming the articles about the events and implications, rather than the personality, seems like the best idea. Fuzheado 02:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree 100% with Fuzheado. Let's keep this, at least for now. Ensiform 00:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And with the original names. I meant for them to be biographical pages, but how much else can one write about a 5 year old and an 11 year old whose lives were cut short?. I meant them as biographies, and what is known about the victims is basically all that is there. Samantha Runyon and Carlie Bruscia reached celebrity before their tragic deaths, and not only that, encyclopedias are supposed to educate people. White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Arabian, boy, girl, whatever, this are cases that shall be known about by the general public because children worldwide are in danger. If we delete or change the names of these articles, then we might as well do the same with the article of the king who was killed six days after birth. Whats the difference? I know my comment might create some controversy, but hey Im the man who went and got himself a Paris Hilton style hat today so controversy surrounds me, it finds me and I look for it..LOL keep, and without changing the names. Antonio Paris Wannabe Martin
  • Keep. Verifable information that ought to be around once the press have gone. (Side note, news of this case was not restricted to the local news: it received a small segment on the UK news). Further there are plenty of precedents for keeping this material - British readers may like to consider this article in the same light as they would Soham murders - a not dissimilar tragedy that occured in Britain. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and encyclopedic. Deleting these would set a poor precedent for Wikipedia's comprehensiveness. - Seth Ilys 14:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. An interesting and worthwhile article. It may be that as time passes it becomes irrelevant, but right now it is timely and informative. As an analogy, the Encyclopedia Britannica used to publish a Book of the year with timely articles that may not have been be of interest over the long haul. — NickP 23:46, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important information.User:Doovinator
  • Keep: This was a major news event, regardless of whether she was famous before or after her death; she is famous. SimonMayer 19:40 Mon 16 Feb 2004 (GMT/UTC)

Keep. Why exactly should famous people only be considered encyclopedic knowledge? This is the internet, you are not constrained by printing costs or size. If someone provides factual information about a person, why exactly should you remove it? Especially if that person was murdered, raped, or had a tragic life?

Keep. This abduction and subsequent rape and murder is particularly historical in that her abduction was caught on video. Without that, this case may have never been solved as her abducter had never commited a crime like this before.

---

Image

Can we add the photo from this article to the entry? I know we're not allowed to use copyrighted images, but this one is used all over the place. It might even be public domain, released by her family, but I haven't been able to find out. Anyone? —Frecklefoot 16:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

External links

are they really necessary? do they add anything that is missing from the article? They are slowly becoming obsolete too. May we remove them? Kingturtle 04:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I was the one who added them. I added them because they had more info than was in the article itself (including photos, of which we have none). At the time, I couldn't think of a way to incorporate the info without just straight plagerising it, so I added the links. If the links become stale, sure, remove them (I just checked them though, and they're still active). —Frecklefoot 16:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See Alsos

The list

See also: Polly Klaas, Megan Kanka, Laura Kate Smither, Samantha Runyon, Elizabeth Smart

is awkward and incoherant. See Alsos to, say, Abduction of pre-pubescent girls and Child murder would be appropriate, and each of them should link here and to the appropriate names among these See Alsos. Come to think of it, i'm doing that; someone else can make sure the names get on the other articles. --Jerzy(t) 15:56, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, but she wasn't murdered. Her abductors were caught, and have been ruled incompetent to stand trial.

Carlie's Law

Even though this what put forward a year ago, and appears not to be happening, I added it, since any nationally proposed legislation is an issue of public interest. --rob 4 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Susan Schorpen redirect

I had been reading about the disaster that Carlie's mother, Susan Schorpen, made of her own life on crimelibrary.com and decided to see what Wikipedia had on her. When I entered her name I was redirected to Carlie's article, which is certainly reasonable considering she only first came to public attention because of Carlie's murder. The problem was Schorpen's name didn't appear anywhere in the actual article. I'm not sure if Schorpen's trouble's with drug abuse and the law belong here as a footnote to Carlie, in her own article, or not at all so I'm not adding anything about it. Since Carlie was her daughter, and the search for her name (Susan Schorpen) redirects here; I added the fact that Carlie was reported missing by her mom and stepfather within a half hour of being abducted. The article on Court TV's Crimelibrary [2] mentioned it usually took Carlie 15-20 mins to make it home from her friends house and that within 30 minutes the stepfather was already out searching and Schorpen called 911. Anynobody 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article should be split into 2 articles, 1 discussing the murder & 1 discussing the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.42.228 (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlie's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011125331/http://www.courttv.com:80/trials/brucia/ to http://www.courttv.com/trials/brucia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)