Talk:Anna Nicole Smith/Archive 2

message: I think we should rename this article "Citation's Needed". I mean c'mon people, there is 17 of them on her profile! There is 1 for "The case has gone on for more than a decade, producing a highly publicized court battle in Texas and several judicial decisions that have gone both for and against Smith in that time". 
This info can be found all over the Internet!. It is talked about on the news every other day. Why is a Cit needed?
There is 1 for the "Supreme Court's decision on May 1, 2006". There is is even 1 asking for a Cit on her becoming a spokesperson for Trimspa after she lost weight. You can find those commercials on every single channel and she went on every major talk show to tell the world how she lost the weight by using Trimspa!!! I don't follow her work, but there should be someone on this site that does. Why do you need a Cit for every bit of info? No other profile on this Wiki site asks for sources on common everyday facts.
I'm not going to add or delete from this profile, because I don't follow her work. But I think it is stupid and unprofessional for someone to place "Citation Needed" all over a profile, on topics that are common knowledge, even from someone like myself who doesn't even know any of the movie Anna has been in. But she has now passed on, so the contributers here should remove the unnecessary Citation from her profile. And next time, RESEARCH IT YOURSELF! I do it all of the time for other profiles. Let's make this place look like a professional Wiki of knowledge. I'm just sick of people places Cit's where ever they pleae, when they could easily find the sources needed.....
The2ndflood 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help if you would follow normal practice and post your comments to the bottom. This is a long discussion and there is a good chance people are going to ignore comments here. Also, you might want to read wikipedia policy, especially on the need for sources. Bear in mind a editor is fully entitled to remove unsourced information. Definitely it's better to tag or delete then leave unsourced information as is Nil Einne 11:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: Added subsection of 'Reactions' to Anna Nicole's death. Will most likely be subject to a lot of vandalism. Please keep your eyes on it and remove any vandalism or graffiti.
A Conspiracy section may be added later, as many rumors are swirling at the moment. --Ozgod 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be irrelevant since vandalism to anyone's page generally ensues when their names appears in the news. When that tidbit about Judy Garland's lost childhood records came up, her page experienced a surge of vandalism. Activity on wikipedia, unless monumental, is not something that would be worth noting. Personal reactions to Anna's death, from family, friends, colleagues, et. al would suitable for this section. --Ozgod 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It might help if you would follow normal practice and post your comments to the bottom. This is a long discussion and there is a good chance people are going to ignore comments here. Nil Einne 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we add this recap of her last days, provided by the Miami Herald... Found at  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.192.126.24 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added subsection to 'Death'

message: In light of these unfortunate circumstances.  Prayers go out to the family.
I wonder how this will affect the outcome of the court case with her daughter and Birkhead.  It might make it easier to do the paternity test instead of blocking it.  However, there has been another gentleman that has come forward to claim he is possibly the father.  A gentleman by the name of Chris Haupt. I think it could more of a way to get attention even though he was spotted a few time with her last summer in LA.  It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.   Again, a tragic turn of events and I wish the family all the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.215.128.103 (talk • contribs).
:Possibly if she has a will and it designates who the child goes to than that will have greater prescedence. Also the child is a citizen of the Bahamas. So that is another element to complicate the matter. Joneboi 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of her Child 

message: Attention to the editors of this article - recently unsourced claims have been added about the possible death of Anna Nicole Smith.  Can someone verify if this is vandalism or if the info is valid?  All that has been derived is that she has collapsed and might be hospitalized at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her death has been stated by both CNN and Fox News as coming from law enforcement and her lawyer. The great kawa 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are both correct, a valid reference in the article has been cited now: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/08/anna.nicole.collapses/index.html .¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may people are continuing (and will continue) to add snide remarks in regards to her death as she was a highly controversial public figure, so the semi-protection should apply for at least a short while. Midnightguinea 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should definitely remain semi-protected for at least several hours.   At the moment vandalism is still being removed.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Semi-protect as the vandals have begun their onslaught. The great kawa 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Gah. Someone is going to have to find out what's going to happen to that court case she was involved in. It's probably just going to be dropped, eh? Most importantly, the language in that section implies that she's still alive, as does much of the article. Therealhazel 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have deleted part of the above anon's comment as it was a legally dangerous statement that falls under the purview of WP:BLP (not for Smith, but for the individual being accused). 23skidoo 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's dangerous because Wikipedia has to get information on living people correct. You can't go make accusations about someone. Read this section from the WP:BLP page: "Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims." Nphp20 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to add to the above, the rules apply to talk pages too. I don't like editing other people's comments and usually don't, but the wording that I removed from the anon's posting basically suggests a certain individual is responsible for her death. There is no way to know something like this until a criminal investigation is completed, if one is even warranted, so to even speculate this in a talk page opens Wikipedia to libel concerns. 23skidoo 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sadly, have to agree.  It's not as if she's suddenly a martyr or something, death doesn't change that she made mistakes.  Let's just keep the article clean and neutral and get out all of the aggression here.JohnnyRush10 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That kind of information probably won't be public for awhile, I'd guess. I think Stern is the only one who gets to make a statement, and that'll probably be held until tomorrow. At least, I'd hope so... If your wife dies, the first thing you think shouldn't be "what should I tell the press?!" Therealhazel 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Newspapers don't make 'assumptions.'"  Hahahahahahahahahaha okay.  Casey J. Morris 00:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Vandalism? (Confirmed as Valid) 

message: Would an admin please lock fully lock this article (edits have been crazy since the announcement) until things calm down a little? CaveatLectorTalk 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still think its too early to call, however it is very heated at the moment.  If you believe it should really be enacted request at WP:RFPP.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't look like the rapid editing has affected the quality of the article. All the vandalism I found when I first came by was cleaned up within seconds, and we need to be able to edit once more news comes out. Therealhazel 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another admin has protected the article from edits by anonymous IP editors, so that should reduce any vandalism considerably since 99% of it comes from IP numbers. If an IP with a legitimate piece of information to add really wants it in, those editors can request it here. 23skidoo 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Protect 

message: News conference is currently in progress.
Evilgohan2 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Conference 

message: Absolutely no information regarding her cause of death was given during the press conference so there should not be any placed here for the next few days.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilgohan2 (talk • contribs).
Right, like we'll pay attention to you.74.195.3.199 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative Comments 

message: At the very top of the page there is a comment that says: "She died of overdose on trimspa"...it would be unproductive to revert due to the many edits in between the addition of this vandalism.  For some reason I cannot locate the location of the statement when trying to edit the page (even with the Find on this Page tool in my web browser).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good someone got to it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone vandlised the recent death template. See the history for more information. RHB Talk - Edits 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unremovable Vandalism 

message: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically the section 
Don't edit others' comments:  Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. 
 
There has been a few users deleting other people's talk comments without an explanation. --Lincoln F. Stern 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually any talk not related to the improvement or changes that need to be made to the article can be removed by any editor. Talk pages of articles are solely for that purpose and they're not general discussion forums for the subjects of the article. If people are making off-topic comments and they're being removed that is proper editing.--Crossmr 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maverick, the policy on libel trumps most other policies here, as libel poses a greater threat to Wikipedia than almost anything else. Removing potentially libellous information from people's comments is a duty. Argyriou (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but it is pretty clear you shouldn't delete other peoples comments unless it is libel or contains peronal details. It further states to save room one should archive and not delete comments. --Lincoln F. Stern 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out, if the comments are off-topic they can be removed. Not archived. Have a look at the guidelines you referenced, second sentence which is in bold. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.. If people want to have general discussions about the subject they can do it elsewhere or find their comments here removed.--Crossmr 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  ah ok i wasnt aware of that rule well then if that was the case then its ok. Maverick423 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page guidlines

message: Someone please lock out the ip-address editors from the discussion. The removal of edits is already out of hand. 63.3.5.2 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the talk page has just been locked down to unregistered users. --Lincoln F. Stern 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please lock down the discussion 

message: In Marshall v. Marshall, it is stated that Vickie Lynn Marshall was her legal name, and is confirmed here. If so, this article needs some overhaul to comply with WP:MOSBIO --Zimbabweed 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Nicole Smith just a stage name?

message: In the only episode of her TV show that I saw, where she was a judge at a bikini contest, she went to a Mexican restaraunt where she was served a dish loaded with onions. She sent it back- saying she was allergic to onions. When the waiter brought the replacement, it was also loaded with onions. Smith said something about not being able to eat it because she could die or it could kill her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Food allergy?

message: Has there been any information about why Smith traveled with her own nurse? Rhobite 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nurse 

message: I noticed that a lot of nasty vandalism has been added to the talk page and the article. Why is her  website gone? I went there and all I saw was "Anna Nicole Smith: 1967 - 2007". Janet6 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt edit it - but I tried to visit the site and I think it was just overwhelmed with people visiting....who knows.  The site doesnt work. NYKenny 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I guess some of the vandals are Farkers. Go to , there are a few wiki-fiti shown there. -zbewski
Farkers? I think it's time to lock this one down for a while. SSJPabs 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation of vandals on page

message: They just had a screenshot of this article on Paula Zahn's show on CNN.. luckily no vandalism. Rhobite 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, saw that too. They were discussing the vandalism and the rude remarks about Smith. Nphp20 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN 

message: -zblewski
:I've removed the vandalism screenshots from this page.. I can't think of a reason why we'd want to preserve and reproduce it here. It's available in the article's history for those who are interested. Rhobite 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post death vandalism here if you can.

message: I tried to change it myself, but I'm not an "Established Registered User", or it went to full lockdown while I was still editing.  Anyways, can someone change where the Seminole wikilink points to when discussing the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in the Death section, its not located in Seminole, Florida, but is named for the Seminole Indians, who own it. Cyraan 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --JWSchmidt 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the edit, sorry if im nitpicking, but I don't know if linking to the Seminole takeover is best either.  It was called the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino when it was built and opened, at least a year or so before the takeover took place, unless the naming was a part of the takeover deal when it was still being negotiated. Cyraan 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I forgot there where two, and I'm thinking of the one in Tampa, I dont know about the one in Hollywood, but linking to the Seminole Tribe's article might still be a little more accurate.  Ill go ahead and remove the editprotected request though. Cyraan 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seminole Hard Rock 

message: This page is protected for several reasons, firstly because of vandalism and secondly because of insertation of unsourced speculation of the cause of death.  Discuss the possible causes and reports here until the medical examiner's report is released. Teke (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I reduced the protection to just semi with the caveat that the user take care of the page, or full protection will be reinstated. Teke (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protection

message: I dispute the neutrality as well as the necessity of the "Reaction" section (under the "Death" section).  It is true that Perez did deface some pictures of Anna Nicole Smith on his site, but the "mocked sadness" sounds like someone's opinion and not an objective fact.    I also do not think this section is needed on Smith's final biography because several other articles on Wikipedia do not have quotes from other people concerning another person's death, whether the death was recent or occurred well before the start of Wikipedia.THE evil fluffyface 02:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the entire section should be removed? --JWSchmidt 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is necessary because reactions to her death are relevant to how she was viewed in life. My choice of words of "mocked sadness" may have been poor in choice, although I selected them after seeing many people viewing his site felt he had was treating her whole death with a sense of insincere mockery. When the temp edit is removed the mock sadness should be removed and just left to the defacing he has done of her pics. My apologies.--Ozgod 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's an section of the Steve Irwin article on the reaction to his death, and again quite a bit of talk page banter discussing the contents of said section. -- Longhair\talk 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction section  

message: The article says she worked as a law enforcement officer for 28 years. I couldn't prove that. This article has the fourth highest hit count. Try and deal with citation.  Thanks Samuel 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it has been removed. I would like to point out to the Admins that The article is now the second highest on Google, up from 4th earlier today on a search for "Anna Nicole Smith". That means lots of people are viewing this page. The point is: we need to get those citations and remove any unsourced / un-verifiable / or just plain untrue information ASAP. Danski14 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: 
Browsing through and saw that Anna's age is incorrectly reported compared to the date she married Billy Wayne Smith.  The article says she was 17 as of April 4, 1986.  With her birth date of November 28, 1967, she would be 18 years of age on April 4, 1986.  One of the three figures (date of birth, date of marriage, or age at marriage) needs to be changed appropriately.  Everchanging02 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, The date of birth of her son, Daniel Wayne Smith is listed as January 22, 1986, but 'a year' after their marriage.  By this, I would assume the year of their marriage is what is at fault.  Please fix this.  Everchanging02 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words:  Change the date of her marriage to Smith ("April 4, 1986") to "April 4, 1985". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Everchanging02 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other sources indicate that the 1985 marriage date is correct, though it's a bit difficult to find a good reliable source for this as so many sources just seem to reference eachother. --- RockMFR 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age at Marriage to Smith 

message: 
Reading "Smith as spokesperson" section seems like it would be better suited under the Appearances heading. Anyone agree? Joneboi 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or what about a "Career" heading and rearrange the information that is currently under headings regarding her career? Joneboi 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done as an editprotected request - the article is now semiprotected only, so you should be able to make the changes yourself. Proto::► 14:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances 

message: I removed the reations section wikipedia is not a memorial, one or two is find but it is becoming too large and now half unsourced, we want to improve this article not make it worse. Jaranda wat's sup 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the reactions section, I removed the Rosie O'Donnell and Crane Durham text.  Both entries seem more to embarrass these two living people with potentially libelous statements rather than contribute on the extensive life of Smith.  They violate WP:BLP, especially at this time. -- Jreferee 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Donnell's comments may prove to have been prophetic, and they echo the post-mortem comments of Smith's own mother. Durham, on the other hand, should be fired for what he said. Wahkeenah 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also this: http://blog.peta2.com/2007/02/farewell_anna_nicole_smith.html which includes some links to the stuff she's done with PETA in the past. — coelacan talk — 08:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reactions 

message: PETA released a statement on the death of Anna Nicole Smith Crocoite 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also this: http://blog.peta2.com/2007/02/farewell_anna_nicole_smith.html which includes some links to the stuff she's done with PETA in the past. — coelacan talk — 08:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement From PETA on Anna Nicole Smith's Death 

message: There was vandalism added by Visual-undeath and removed by OverlordQ, i'm not sure what it means by being semi-protected.
Just noting it (easier than tracking through history)
Koshatul 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some vandalism just got corrected by OverlordQ 

message: i hear the autopsy is ganna be done today on her. does anyone know more or less when it is. Maverick423 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the media is reporting that it'll be done today. So, we'll just have to wait and see. dposse 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to an AP story on the scheduled autopsy.  --Allen3 talk 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopsy 

message: This one is a stumper.  The AP is still reporting Houston today, but both the BBC online and the New York Times say Mexia.  Can anyone find conclusive proof one way or the other? It's possible that the NYT is saying Mexia just because she grew up there.  Perhaps there's an article in one of the Houston papers or someone could find her birth certificate online?  If you change it, please, of course, refernence it well.  Moncrief 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always heard she was from Mexia. All the people in this area claim she is from Mexia.ShadowWriter 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any doubt whatsoever that she grew up in Mexia. This is a question about her birthplace. Of course you can be born somewhere else and move to your hometown the next day. Moncrief 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see if her birth certificate is publicly online.ShadowWriter 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Great!  Change it in the article, please (giving a source so we don't have to go through this again). Thanks! Moncrief 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the online Texas Birth Index, 1903-1997, Vickie Lynn Hogan was born in Harris County, Texas. Houston is in Harris County; Mexia is in Limestone County.
It still says she went to high school in Mexia, which is possible, but unlikely, considering her mother's statement. Could someone confirm that?Jeztah 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you PLEASE sign your posts?  Moncrief 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, that was my message. Signed. Jeztah 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw an article that had a picture from the Mexia yearbook didn't it?  Said she transferred in, in ninth grade and then dropped out or left or something in tenth grade?  Maybe I was just dreaming that :) Wjhonson 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're not dreaming. I don't know what grade she was in, but her mother testified in court that she transfered to a high school in Mexia and subsequently dropped out of school. Cleo123 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you people read this article before commenting on it? If you'll read the article, it says she was in the ninth grade when she transferred to Mexia High School. A footnote to that claim links to an online article that has more information, including her yearbook photo.  — Walloon 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace: Houston or Mexia, Texas?

message: StjamesphatazzHer article should read...
Vickie Lynn Hogan was her name at birth. not Marshall. Did she get a Legal Name Changed when she married Smith and to Anna Nicole Smith but when did she legally change her name? And then she married Marshall 2nd Husband which then her name was Anna Nicole Marshall ( if Anna Nicole was legal) and after Marshall death she recently married her lawyer and latest husband, Howard K Stern making it Vicki Lynn Stern if Anne Nicole was not legal name. Stjamesphatazz 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the article should not be changed. It should reflect the name by which she was known to the public, and the name she herself used professionally as an adult. Should we change the Marilyn Monroe article to that of her birth name Norma Jeane Mortenson?  A large number of entertainers do not use their birth names throughout their career.  There should be a redirect, though, from her birth name to this article, if there isn't already.  Also please note that her birth name is featured prominently at the beginning of this article; it's just not the title of the article. Moncrief 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I completely understand what it is you want to say. I can, however, point out our naming conventions, which state that articles about people should be named in the way that the person was/is most commonly known. Anna Nicole Smith was/is most commonly known as Anna Nicole Smith. AecisBrievenbus 18:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sign your posts, please. Who are you?  Have you read this article?  Her correct birth name is given. Moncrief 00:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vickie Lynn Hogan was her given name birth name

message: judge just ruled that she cannot be buried till the paternity test is conducted. man thats kinda sad Maverick423 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind finding a link for this? I had heard the judge didn't want to take DNA.  --  Zanimum 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual situation is that the Judge said the body can't be given over until the related issues concerning the paternity test are resolved. We don't know that she is going to be buried. The concern on the other side would be over a quick cremation. Once the body is released to someone, the court has no further say in whats done with the body. I really wonder who the body will be released to anyway. The judge denied a request for an emergency DNA test because its assumed that samples will be taken during the autopsy.  The concern over her DNA has to do with fears that a different child will be produced for the DNA test. As far as being sad, be sad for the daughter. I think she is headed for the most horrible kind of life imaginable. 12.96.162.45 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith cannot be buried 

message: the reaction section needs expansion and cleanup. I wanted to type something like "Reaction since Smiths death have been pouring our from friends, family, and former business partners" or something like that but i didn't know how to correctly phrase it. Any ideas would be great. dposse 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reaction needs cleanup 

message: Why is the Anna Nicole Show not listed under her television appearances? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.173.99 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not include the show named after her? 

message: "could not make enough money to support herself and Daniel. She then became a stripper at a nightclub in Houston."
I think this is heavy POV. There is no way to judge her motives for becoming a stripper and the article should not suggest that "not making enough money" at other jobs was the reason. 12.96.162.45 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting change to article (I'm locked out) 

message: Can someone get a few sources? --Lincoln F. Stern 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN is updating its news article as the guy talks. dposse 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/09/smith.dies/index.html newly updated hotness. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Examiner News Conference 

message: Someone was changing the name of the lawyer/companion/husband/etc Howard K. Stern in the article to Howard Stern a different person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CloneGuard (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been reverted already. Thanks, though. dposse 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Stern vandalism 

message: Just to be clear, what is the wikipolicy on a persons name? This person has three names. Her birth name was Vickie Lynn Hogan, her married name is Vickie Lynn Marshall, and her stage name which everyone knows her by is Anna Nicole Smith. I just want some clarification on what to put in the introduction to avoid edit wars later. dposse 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MOSBIO: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. ... For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." AecisBrievenbus 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Do you want to do that now? I have no idea how to fix this per wikipolicy, unless there's no need to. dposse 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afaict the lead paragraph is correct at the moment: "Vickie Lynn Marshall ..., better known by her stage name Anna Nicole Smith..." Nothing needs to be changed. AecisBrievenbus 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Ok. thanks. dposse 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know if Anna Nicole Smith was her legal name (ie did she change her name like Marilyn Monroe did?). Does the rule above apply if the person legally changed their name? Thanks. Yankees76 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wikipolicy on names. 

message: I thought this talk page had been semi-protected to stop IP vandals from vandalizing it. Why was this page unprotected so soon? Acalamari 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", people have to be able to contribute somehow without waiting 4 days right? --WikiSlasher 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policies also state that libel is to be removed immediately from articles or article talk pages.  The semi-protection was placed due to an exceedingly large amount of trolling amassing from anonymous editors and new accounts.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was actually talking about this talk page. The article is still semi-protected. If the semi-protection on the article was dropped, we'd be reverting double or triple the vandalism we have now. Imagine if it hadn't been semi-protected at all. The other day when we had 7-9 users editing at once...with no semi-protection, it would have been worse. Acalamari 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So was I. I think there is a real need to keep the article semi-protected but with the talk page like I said in an above section, it's unwikilike for newcomers to not even be able to use the talk page. We can always revert vandalism/libel on the talk page. --WikiSlasher 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected Talk Page. 

message: I think one of the critical developments of the reaction section, will develop in time, is how the media has gone from portraying her as the dumb ditzy blonde to the tragic sexy drugged up pin-up girl. The fact that the media has gone from ripping her apart to creating this tragic figure is a certaintly a reaction that needs noting. If anyone can find articles from newspaper or magazines that have swapped views on Anna Nicole since her death and reference it, it would wonderful in the future to developing this section.--Ozgod 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that would be POV and original research. This isn't about the media and their reactions to this woman, this is a encyclopdia article about Smith's life, career, and death. That's all. dposse 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How the media reacted to her is relevant because their reactions to her during her life did have an impact on her and the changes they made aftewards shows the retrospection they observed - i.e. her public image while she was alive and her public image after she died.--Ozgod 03:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not notable here, though. It's completely POV is you compare a article from two years ago and now. Of course it's going to be different. The media are made of of humans, and they do care when someone dies this young, especially a celebrity. Your point of view that the media is evil is fine, but it has no place here.  dposse
The point being, dposse, is to record the change in the media's view of Anna Nicole after her death compared to when she is alive. That is my point as to why the section is relevant.--Ozgod 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You would have to have a published source that states that the media has changed their opinion. Gdo01 02:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not POV but it would be original research until there is a source saying what amounts to the obvious (the same thing). The media reaction to her and how it changes over time is certainly notible here but initial analysis can't be here. I dont know that there is anything unique about what happened though. Media coverage about the recently dead always tends to be more positive. Most reporters don't like bashing the dead. Her reputation is also getting better as a side-effect of everyone in the world going after Howard K. Stern.  She was a stupid drunken junkie whore. There is nothing redeeming about any part of her life. But as bad as she was, the animals around her are all worse. 63.3.5.2 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Subsection to Reactions

message: This SHOULD be added: (I've tried to add it you guys keep calling it spam)
A very touching song written with regards to her death.  
Anna Nicole Where Are You?  
http://www.myspace.com/normaugustinus
:It's a MySpace link. I believe that MySpace links are normally removed. Acalamari 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it is the article subject's "official" myspace link, it will be removed.  Please see WP:EL.--Isotope23 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another new external link

message: Came across this, thought it should be added
http://www.annanicolesmith.com/
82.35.250.141 07:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new external link

message: Lets face facts. Despite what you may have thought of this woman, she was highly controversial, and generated massive publicity for herself through her actions in life. So maybe there should be a section simply titled Controversies. Some of the other stuff could be incorporated into that. The fact that three men are claiming paternity of her child, and alluding to the possibility that there may be many others, gives us yet another insight into her somewhat troubled life.Cattona 08:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any content that is controversial should be placed at the relevent historical points in her life. The proposed subsection wouldn't be half as useful as simply merging all such content into the normal flow of the article. — coelacan talk — 10:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. E! True Hollywood stories, which thrives on controversies and failure for their shows, goes chronologically, so should we.  --  Zanimum 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I think the article needs a bit of cleaning up, with her death mentioned nearer the top of the article. In the section about the birth of her daughter it suddenly mentions her "corpse". This just seems slightly confused as it precedes the section about her death. Can someone change it about a bit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems chronological to me.  --  Zanimum 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumbled information 

message: you guys work. She died yesterday and you got it here today. wow.24.144.137.244 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, they shore work. Wahkeenah 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We had it updated within minutes of the news networks reporting.  --  Zanimum 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What language are you writing in?  Moncrief 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia > media. 24.127.55.63 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That explains it. Wahkeenah 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow

message: As this has become a more and more predominant theory into the bizaare/suspicious deaths of both mother and son, I think a section should be added to discuss this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisalisa46410 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a theory. Its a paranoid guess. There is not a single fact to confirm what amounts to a wild accusation about the parentage of a living person (Dannielynn). As such, its a libel risk and should not be in the article until at least one fact can be found to support it. 63.3.5.2 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, discussion on the discussion page is fine discussing between users who the father is while the article itself should track the developments on this paternity suit.--Ozgod 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel - father of Dannielynn Hope