Talk:Anna Nicole Smith/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've removed a few images from the article. It's hard to make a fair use argument fo these images. -

I did some cleanup editing but this piece still needs considerable work. The tone clearly reads like it was written by several people. The beginning is filled with short, choppy sentences, but then the tone becomes more complex later in the article. UncleFester 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The data section on the right states her weight as 170lb (64kg). Either metric or imperial value is incorrect. 64 kg is 141 lb, and 170 lb is 77 kg. I don't know which number is correct (I think the lower one), but someone who knows where these numbers are from should make this consistent.

No exact information on current weight, Best est. found on imdb.com...

"Her Playmate data sheet for May 1992 gives her measurements at 36DD-26-38 with a weight of 140 lbs. When she became Playmate of the year, her weight was reported at 155 lbs. Her weight reached a peak of 224 lbs in 1996, but she managed to slim down to a reported 138 lbs in 1997. She gained weight since and was close to her peak weight in 2002, but she lost down to her natural weight in 2005 (back down to her 1990s modeling weight) and was a representative of a weight-loss program." Sirex98 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith Original version biography.

I removed the item that referred to her marrying an unknown cook in the mid 80's, as it is mentioned in some detail in the Early Life section. Crx2gen 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the "playboy and modeling" section, Smith is referred to as " Short, fat, sexy and zaftig," whereas the trivia section points out that she was the tallest ever playmate. Either all playmates are rather short or one of the two references is incorrect. --Mfree 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is== Birth name ==

Out of curiousity, why isn't her birth name of Vickie Lynn Hogan meantioned in the article? James E. Zavaleta _{T C E} 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article describes her as "Short, fat, sexy and zaftig" How can an American woman who stands 5'11' (180.3cm) be accuractly described as short?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000645/bio Johnnaryry 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd associate a weight loss product with Richard Simmons - and in any case, documentation??? Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I added content about Howard K Stern's shocking claims on the 9/26/06 episode of Larry King Live. But then the rest of the article disappeared after I made the changes! Who did that? Can someone put back the whole article and include the additions/changes I made about Stern's 9/26/06 claims???

Although the spelling has yet to be officially confirmed (via her website or press release), I've changed the spelling of her daughter's name based on the CNN article link.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/26/smith.baby/index.html--Mdieke 11:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is Dannie Lynn to match Vickie Lynn.

Most major media outlets are now reporting that Dannie Lynn is the spelling of the baby's first name.

The official Bahamian birth certificate lists the baby's name as Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern, indicating Howard (Howard Kevin Stern) as the father.

I know the problem with the previous images, copyright and such, but this article needs images (at least one). This celebrity is in the news, with the death of her son, and the contriversy of her addiction during pregnancy. --Yancyfry jr 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody came in here and made a bunch of edits to the section which was sourced to court decisions. The edits added the editors own opinion and cannot be supported by any court opinion. I have reverted it back to my original section (which was based on several hours reading every published court case related to the matter). If you are going to edit this section say why in the comments.

To add to the comment in the edit history, the section was written from a point of view. It takes sides. And no matter how many citations you put on it, thats wrong. Terms like "squared off" and "joined forces" as two simple examples among many more that are not a neutral point of view. Worse yet is the parsing of court decisions in the text to attack one side in the case. The reason for the edits (NPOV) was give in the edit tag. Since you have rejected all the edits designed to fix the many problems in the section, the section is now tagged to identify the problem. Your choice now is to either fix the POV problems yourself, allow others to do so or to explain why the POV problems identified by the previous edits are not valid.

12.96.162.45 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The side that the section takes is the side of the Bankruptcy Court the District Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The terms "squared off" and "joined forces" were already included in the article when I attempted an edit; I have no problem with those terms being edited out. If you would take the time to read (1) The Bankruptcy Court opinions; (2) the District Court Opinions; (3) The Ninth Circuit Opinion; and (4) The U.S. Supreme Court Opinion, you will see that I am recapping the case. This is a very complex case and it was not presented accurately. Before I edited, it was presented as a federal court getting involved in a state probate matter. But that simply is not what is happening. There are *two distinct cases*. One a probate matter, dealt with in one state (somebody should feel free to add more to that if they wish, I've only researched the tort matter taking place in California). And one a tort matter, dealt with in a federal court. Smith was never challenging the will. Smith was saying "I was promised a gift, and the son interfered with me receiving the gift." A bankruptcy court agreed with this position. A District Court agreed with this position. The 9th Circuit thought Smith was trying to make a tort matter out of a probate matter. The U.S. Supreme Court said the 9th Circuit was incorrect; that the probate matter was decided in Texas, and the matter before the 9th Circuit was indeed an independent tort action that did not concern the will but concerned tortious interference of a gift (you don't need a will to give a gift). I take exception with your accusation that I "parsed the decision" to attack one side: The quote is the finding of the court; it's why the court awarded Smith such huge damages (kind of important, right?). The case was Smith vs. the son. The court found the son had acted fraudulently. This is not my opinion. It's the holding of the case. Please, I ask you to do the work that I did in trying to edit the section, and read the cases. Here are the citations:

253 B.R. 550 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2000) 257 B.R. 35 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2000) 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7081 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2001) 264 B.R. 609 (C.D. Cal. 2001) 271 B.R. 858 (C.D. Cal 2001) 273 B.R. 822 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2002) 275 B.R. 5 (C.D. Cal. 2002) 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9990 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2002) 392 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) 126 S.Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2006)

Please do your homework before you challenge my neutrality. I was simply trying to present the complexity of the case because I think it is actually a challenge to find an in-depth description of the case, and I am afraid the reason is that so many people find it easy to dismiss the idea of Anna Nicole Smith.

129.210.218.152 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely positive that I have done much more reading on this case than many. There is a very good reason that this case has many more appelate issues to be decided, about 7 more if memory serves. The bankruptcy decisions have been vacated by the distrct court. The distrct court opinion has been vacated by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit decision was reversed by the SCOTUS. There is no binding recitation to many of the of the dicta and parsing added. The mere fact that the 9th circuit ruling is ignored beyond the probate exception, shows bias, is not neutral and is not accurate. Smith was absolutely challenging the will. Read all the pleadings, I have. As an aside, in probate court, Pierce Marshall was formally the will proponent and Vickie was the will challenger. The federal case and state cases used the same pleadings and dealt with the same fact issues. You cannot claim that testamentary documents are valid and simultaneously claim they are tainted by fraud and undue influence. The point the SCOTUS focused on was that her tort claim was the only one of her federal claims that was fully litigated in district court, eventhough she made many more. Thus there is concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court. The SCOTUS did not adjudicate the factual mertis of the case via dicta. Additionally, the bankruptcy court based its decision on a sanctions issue, not evidence. That hardly fits the best evidence rule. If you make factual statments from vacated judgments, cite the evidence from the record that supports those findings. There is no holding from any court that the son acted fraudulently. Again, those judegments are vacated. In point of fact, the probate matter decided the same fact issues and the jury exonorated the son. That judegment has not been vacated and is valid. The probate case is styled Marshall v. McIntyre and was decided in 2001.

65.64.245.231 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You are really twisting things with this and you know it. This section is titled for a Supreme Court decision. But it's not about a court decision (procedural history, facts, issues, etc) at all; it's a series of one dubious statement after another, one dubious and/or incorrect legal statement/conclusion after another. I really wish you would identify yourself. I suggest that this section of the article be deleted (or at least have the heading changed to reflect the fact that it is advocating a position rather than giving a legal synopsis drawn from the published court opinions). I suggest deletion because the section is not informative; it is merely advocating a position. You know this is true; I wish you would identify yourself and admit that you are using this space for an inappropriate purpose. 67.188.78.163 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I did not author the section, I am not twisting anything and you know it. It's was also not originally titled that way and I did not even author the statments you claim are twisted. The original author of the section cited public sources. So, it does not seem so dubious to me but you are free to tag it and they can debate it with you. If you are so worried about identity, then you should do the same. If the consensus of people want the section deleted, then it should be deleted. This should not be a unilateral decision. What I do know is that there was no controversy until 129.210.218.152 came on here and admitted to posting a non-neutral POV. As the original author (12.96.162.45) mentioned, just because you put case cites in your post, doesn't validate a biased point of view. What I know is true is that 67.188.78.163 and 129.210.218.152 have an inappropriate agenda and are trying to accuse others of the same. The original author described the right way to get consensus on the section and the anon user refused and wanted their selective reading to dominate. I am all for a reasoned discussion. Until this can be done, then I advocate the section as written by several individuals long ago. 65.64.245.231 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

actually you did author the section, by virtue of your removing what was there and replacing it with a version with which you agreed. But this is consistent with your history of editing this article (and any other article dealing with Anna Nicole Smith and this controversy) in a manner that distorts facts and advocates your view. We're all sorry that you are a family member to this messy proceeding. But wikipedia is not your soapbox. 24.6.182.79 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do not agree with all the comments currently in the section. They were written by someone else and you claiming I authored them is plainly false. I disagreed with your authoring of the section as biased and inappropriate, as others have warned you about in other aritcles. As I said, if the editors of wikipedia decide something else should be done, then that is perfectly appropriate. The more eyes the better, in my view. Not only have you attempted to turn wikipedia into your soapbox but your own personal soap opera as well. You could easily be Kent Richland, Gerald Uelman or Stephen Reinhardt65.64.245.231 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a vacated decision and a remanded decision? From your comment, I'd guess that you do not, because in point of fact the decisions were not vacated. You are also simply wrong on the point that she was challenging a will in the Bankruptcy court/district court/9th circuit/SCOTUS decisions. There are two separate lines of court cases. The probate decision + progeny in Texas state court is one line; the bankruptcy + tort progency in Federal ct in Californa is the other line. You're mixing up the two, separate, distinct lines and I don't know what else to say other than you are completely wrong on this point (and many other points). I'm not going to spend my time trying to out-edit you because you are simply wrong on the law. This is like Murphy's Law of Wikipedia, or something. Not to get personal, but I'm curious about your legal training/background. 129.210.218.152 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that when I run a WHOIS search on the IP address 65.64.245.231 I get a location in HSTNTX. Hmmmm, Houston, TX, huh? Do I smell somebody connected with this case trying to use wikipedia to push a personal agenda? If so, you don't need to be Tom Hanks to know that Houston, we have a problem.

129.210.218.152 03:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you do not actually practice law or actually read any of the pleadings from either side. A decision can be both vacated and remanded for further proceedings. If you read the last line of each decision you will see this to be true. The order from the district court regarding core/non-core specifically vacates the bankruptcy court. As a matter of law this must be done for a de novo review. The order from the 9th Circuit specifically vacates and remands the district court decision. The SCOTUS decision specifically reverses and remands the 9th. (see Marshall v. Marshall)I have read the pleadings by both sides filed in probate court and all federal courts. It is obvious if you read the pleadings. You are making a distinction without a difference. The pleadings between the state forums and federal forums are exactly the same, word for word. Go read for yourself. You may harp on about progeny all you like. You claiming I am wrong one the law is not something I can take seriously considering your comments.

Look, Sherlock Holmes, your IP is tied to Santa Clara, CA. I could make the same accusation about you. Get over yourself.

65.64.245.231 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you believe my entry was making a "distinction without a difference" then you are implying that the Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case (whereas I was simply recapping the decision made by the court). I think such an assertion and such an implication is more evidence that you are not NPOV.

1) If you look up my IP address you will notice it is tied to Santa Clara University. Santa Clara University has a law school. The law school has law professors. The law professors teach courses in such subjects as Wills and Trust, Torts, Federal Jurisdiction, and others.

2) Interesting note, pt. 2: searching the previous edits by 65.64.245.231 reveals edits to articles regarding Probate, Anna Nicole Smith, Marshall v. Marshall, J. Howard Marshall, E. Pierce Marshall, and Elaine T. Marshall. I find it very hard to believe that somebody not connected to this case -- somebody who claims above to have "read all the pleadings" -- would edit both an article on Elaine T. Marshall [oh, and to add to the intrigue, the user edited out the following on the Elaine T. Marhsall article: "As reported in the article "Family Vows To Battle Anna Nicole Smith," published in USA Today on July 24, 2006, Marshall now represents her late husband's estate, which continues to oppose Anna Nicole Smith in the case Marshall v. Marshall"] and have such strong feelings about my summary of legal proceedings.

So, if I haven't made myself clear, here goes: 65.64.245.231, I'm calling you out. You are either Elaine T. Marshall or somebody closely associated. So, the only person not being neutral with this article is, in fact, you.

129.210.218.152 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not universal agreement about the correctness of the SCOTUS decision. To imply that the only people who disagree about the position of the court are involved in the case is absurd. In some aspects it makes sense why they decided what they did and in others it does not. What I am disagreeing with is your selective reading and mixing of the cases that advocate your point of view, while ignoring all the evidence and findings to the contrary. Clearly that is not NPOV. You are not merely recapping the case.

If you are a law student, then I would say you need to study harder. If you are a law professor, then that does not relfect well on Santa Clara University. So should I point out your edits on Stephen Reinhardt? Seems a rather odd association unless you are Judge Reinhardt or a clerk. Smells like an agenda to me. You seem adept at projection.

I do not think it is any secret that I am interested in this case. I do live in Houston and I have followed the case for years. As far as I am aware, Pierce Marshall and Elaine Marshall were from Dallas. I am not connected to the case. Like I said, get over yourself and learn how to edit objectively without bias.

What is absolutely clear is that I am not the only one that objects to your edits and your resort to ad hominem attacks has no place on wikipedia.

65.64.245.231 03:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Judge in California has just denied emergency DNA testing for Anna Nicole Smith's daughter.

Chancetinker 17:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale of the image from the infobox is "to illustrate the DVD in question". With it placed in the infobox, it is used to illustrate Anna Nicole Smith (the person) rather than the DVD. Please note that, except in a few, specific circumstances, fair use images cannot be used to illustrate living people. --

I see the point you are trying to convey, but it is "fair use" to use a DVD cover in an article about the famous person starring in what is on the DVD. However, I will remove the poster from the info. box until a better image can be uploaded. FredR 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even touched the main article. I watched the news conference and CNN and if either the newspapers or M.E. knew what the C.O.D. was: I am sure it would have been mentioned in either the press conference and CNN wouldn't be taking stabs and trying to guess what her C.O.D. was. Provide me with a link from any newspaper and then go ahead and put it in her article too. Whoever removed it please don't. This is a relevant discussion as to her death. --FiftyOneWicked 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith and TrimSpa Inc. have been sued in a class-action lawsuit alleging their marketing of a weight-loss pill is false or misleading. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250495,00.html Crocoite 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)