Talk:Darlie Routier

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I just finished reading "Hush Little Babies". The book made me curious, so I Googled it, and ended up here. This article seems to be largely a recap of that book. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recap of book

message: The crime for which Routier was convicted is "capital murder," not "first degree murder," under the Texas Penal Code.  I am unsure about the "penalty" label.  On the one hand, the punishment for capital murder in general is either death or life imprisonment.  On the other hand, she was in fact sentenced to death.Johnm307 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conviction

message: In the Divorce section there is the following: "He went on to say that they decided on the divorce to move on from the "limbo" they've been in for the 18 years since her arrest and conviction." Even as of the writing of this comment (which is occurring a year after the referenced article) it's only been 16 years since the murders happened, according to the intro of the article. I'd edit this but I'm not familiar with this case, and not sure if I'm overlooking something that would make that quote make more sense.--24.106.177.2 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Time since arrest and murder

message: I just rewatched an old Unsolved Mysteries segment that mentioned that there was a man in the area that was committing attacks similar to this case. The man would break into homes, attack the family with their own knives from their kitches, and would wear a sock on his hand in order to try to prevent leaving fingerprints. It was theorized that perhaps the Routiers were victims of this man. When the police were asked about any possible connection they just gave this wishy-washy reply, which is consistant when a conviction has already been obtained. If this is true then this is evidence indicating Darlie Routier was innoccent. Perhaps someone reading this can locate additional sources and update the article?BoyintheMachine (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Unsolved Mysteries Segment Mentioned Serial Attacker In The Area.....Request Help For Information 

message: My edit reflected the CURRENT status of the case--ie that questions of legal error and the quality of the investigation have been settled by the court. It makes no prediction about what the outcome of ongoing DNA testing will be.
The source provided is NOT non-neutral--it is the transcript of the official court record.  That it is hosted on a non-neutral site is irrelevant--the document contains no editorial content and is itself neutral.  67.193.142.207 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't say that DNA will be the only chance for retrial. No one can know whether there is something else that could represent a basis for retrial. We could report that a certain neutral, independent and reliable source says DNA is her best chance, but it's not our job as an encyclopedia to come to that conclusion independently. You're right that neutrality is not the biggest problem with the passage. WP:BLPPRIMARY is a bigger problem here. We really try to limit the use of primary sources like court documents and we don't rely on them in biographies of living people. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I would argue that we CAN say that DNA is the only chance for retrial Darlie has exhausted ever other legal avenue open to her. Her appeals are used up, her writ of Habeas Corpus has been denied. The ONLY legal process still in play is the DNA testing.  However I concede that there is probably a way to word the the passage in a way that sounds less like speculation, but it would seem to me that the solution that problem is to EDIT the information, not simply delete it. I'd welcome your help with that, since you seem to have a good feel for what would work. As to the use of primary sources, I have no objection to the source being removed if that makes people happier PROVIDED the information is not then deleted under the pretext that it is unreferenced or uncited.  The previous assert (completely unreferenced) about the defense claims has been allowed to stand unmolested--the same should apply to the court's response to those claims 67.193.142.207 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, if you have a problem with two words in an edit, the proper response is TO REMOVE THE TWO WORDS, not arbitrary delete the entire passage.  You seem to be trying to provoke an edit war over this by simply deleting legitimate edits instead of trying to improve or even discuss them67.193.142.207 (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your understanding initially and I hope I haven't upset you too much by aggressively defending some of WP's key policies like WP:BLP. My advice, as stated above, would be to locate a reliable source that reports on what her remaining legal avenues are. Right now there is no defense for having any of the DNA/only chance assertions in there. We can't even defend that DNA is an option for her, because we haven't sourced that. After finding a source that discusses her remaining legal options, we can come up with phrasing based on (but not identical to) that source. If I missed some primary source information or some contentious unsourced information, you would be supported by policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:BLP) if you removed it or inserted a reliable source. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

text:  With the external link issue, that's pretty clearly spelled out in policy to me. WP:ELPOINTS (#2) and WP:ELNO (#11) were the basis for removing the links. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Eric.  I'm sorry if I seem a little exasperated, but I do realize that you are not a jerk and are not trying to push for an agenda.
I have edited to remove the suggestion that this is the only chance and replaced it with the neutral statement of fact that the DNA testing is the only currently active legal process in the case.  Again, if removing the source will solve the WP:BLPPRIMARY issue, by all means remove.  However I strongly object to any attempt to remove information in a way that suggests that the defense claims have not been dealt with by the courts when they have--exhaustively. The only other NPOY solution would be to remove the "Claims of Innocence" section altogether, and I think we both know that the result of THAT would be 67.193.142.207 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

text: It's no problem. I appreciate your efforts to fall in line with policy and continue working on the article. I think the easiest thing is just to say that DNA testing is pending as of _______ and stick a reliable source (like a newspaper article) on that. If that newspaper also says that DNA is the only avenue that the legal team is pursuing, we could include that as well. Thinking about the key WP policy of verifiability, I think it's going to be hard to prove that DNA is all that the lawyers are pursuing. As a separate issue, we try not to use current or currently in any article (WP:WTW) because it's hard to keep anything 100% current. We prefer "as of _______ (date)". Not to kill you with acronyms, but there is more info on basic WP referencing at WP:REFB.EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've asked Pamela if she knows of a suitable article for the source.  If anyone has one, it would be Pamela.67.193.142.207 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No prediction of future events 

message: Routier's case isn't one I've studied much, but I'm considering working on this page next and was baffled by the lead section. I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up and indeed an article confirmed that she was only tried for one of the deaths. Didn't two of her sons die? Why was she only tried for the one? Bali88 (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The younger son's murder qualified as a capital crime, therefore there was no need to try her for both.67.193.142.207 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Because if they found her innocent of one of the boys murders they could retry her for the other boys murder. 204.99.118.11 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I have heard both.  (1)  The prosecutors wanted to save one murder charge "in reserve", in case the first one ended in an acquittal or a successful appeal (or whatever).  And, (2) the younger boy's murder enabled the prosecutors to push for the death penalty, whereas the older boy's murder did not.  Either way, this should be mentioned in the article, somewhere somehow.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only tried for one death? 

message: i've read CNN's web page the state offered her life in prison if she dropped her appeal and admitted to her children's murder. Routier refused. is it true? should i add this information her article?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/death-row-stories-darlie-routier/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebele (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Life in Prison

message: Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Not sure if this is good to add to the article but here is a recent DMN article:
*Tsiaperas, Tasha. "Did Darlie Routier kill her kids? Doubts remain 20 years later." The Dallas Morning News. June 3, 2016.
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New DMN story 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Darlie Routier. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120814104344/http://www.wfaa.com:80/news/local/Darlie-Routiers-husband-files-for-divorce-124907959.html to http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Darlie-Routiers-husband-files-for-divorce-124907959.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion