This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Death of Azaria Chamberlain was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 13, 2012. | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 17, 2013, and August 17, 2016. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Death of Azaria Chamberlain:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Does Azaria Chamberlain really have an existance outside of the disappearance? It would seem that the bio should be merged into the disappearance story, with a redirect. --Randal L. Schwartz 17:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere that "Azar" means "dice" in Arabic, so "Azaria" probably means something like "lucky" or "fortunate". Where does "Helped by God" come from? Bastie 09:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I've removed this article from Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations due to the following:
It's a wonderfully written article, however, and would easily pass GA with those concerns addressed. Thanks! Air.dance 11:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing most of this topic from the article, as there are no references to it anywhere except an ABC Mediawatch article that says The media exploited the delusions of a vulnerable young woman to keep this bogus story running for days and then goes on to say that none of the reports linking Erin Horsburgh to the Chamberlain case had any substance. Kevin 11:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in expanding this article some more, I suggest reading Chester Porter QC's "Walking on Water: A Life in the Law". Porter was the counsel assisting the Chamberlain Royal Commission and oversaw much of the forensic investigation that eventually exonerated her. He goes into substantial detail in his autobiography about debunking many of the lingering rumors, and I suspect it would be quite a useful source for this article. Rebecca 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How is anyone supposed to verify large edits such as this without inline citations for statements? There is a huge list of citations at the bottom, which actually makes it harder to find specific claims to verify them. Ansell 00:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The article lists two estimates on the financial compensation:
"It is estimated that their legal fees exceeded five million Australian Dollars."
"Two years after they were exonerated, the Chamberlains were awarded AU$1.3 million in compensation for wrongful imprisonment, a sum that covered approximately one-tenth of their legal expenses."
Because of this, I am going to change it to one-fourth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.154 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
The picture of Azaria with her Mom doesn't look like an infant of 9 or less weeks of age. Infants generally do not have that kind of head control at 9 weekw.
In fact the jacket found was was not even in manufacture at the time of Azaria's disappearance - it started being produced at a later date and the authorities involved knew this. It was just that the Northern Territory Government was desperate for an excuse to release Ms Chamberlain as her case was a major embarrassment. Another example of the general public ( including jounalists and other commentators) blithely accepting what it is told without seeking supporting evidence (such as detailed photos and independent expert opinion). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pibroch1 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 13 June 2007.
Citation required briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The use of the term "exonerated" is quite inappropriate. There was no substantial evidence discovered which cast doubt on the convictions. The convictions were overturned on a technicality only. There remains every reason to be believe that the jury was correct.JohnC (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You clearly don't know shit about the case, don't you. Hitthat (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the prosecution's entire case was totally discredited on numerous levels. Their expert witnesses were proven to be totally unreliable quacks; their "forensic evidence" was proved to be totally false; and subsequent fatal attacks on children by dingoes proved that the Chamberlain's version of events was obviously what really happened. The only "techincality" which overturned the ruling was... the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Fatal attacks on children by dingoes proved that the Chamberlain's version of events was obviously what really happened" - very flawed logic, my friend. It was always possible that a dingo had been involved, that does not mean that a dingo was involved. It is possible Azaria was abducted by a passing pedophile, that does not prove that this was what happened.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
So it was a jacket that did not exist that the dingo removed without damaging it as a dog would, then the dingo put it under a rock. Since theres an inquest I hope they test the blood on the jacket since its not azarias!--60.242.71.160 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
"...subsequent fatal attacks on children by dingoes proved that the Chamberlain's version of events was obviously what really happened." What absolute rubbish! Other dingo attacks only show that the story is plausible, it does not in any way "prove" that a dingo took Azaria. Islamic terrorists had previously launched terrorist attacks on the US (see the 1993 World Trade Center attack), but the fact that Islamic terrorists have launched attacks against US targets doesn't "prove" that Timothy McVeigh was innocent of the Oklahoma Bombing does it! Ridiculous to pretend that other, unrelated incidents PROVE this one! There are other women who have killed their infants (one was recently imprisoned for it), does that "prove" Lindy Chamberlain is guilty and made the dingo story up??? Of course not! If you're looking for such "evidence" the Aboriginal trackers is much better since they were following the traces left over by this specific occurrence.
My own particular "beef" with the new Coronial inquest is the absence of mention of the "human intervention", which was explicitly mentioned in the original inquest (which also, BTW, concluded a dingo killed Azaria and the Chamberlains were not involved). I somehow doubt that "further evidence of dingo attacks" somehow changes the questions about the disposal of the clothes! It is highly likely that someone (at the time, they may now be dead as it was 32 years ago) knew what happened to Azaria, and where her remains are located. It is surely outrageous that this person(s) didn't come forward at the time of the trial! --158.89.1.33 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Also this statement "...the jacket found was not even in manufacture at the time of Azaria's disappearance - it started being produced at a later date and the authorities involved knew this..." I've heard this claim numerous times. But I also remember hearing (in Primary School no less) that "Azaria means sacrifice" and that "a dingo would not enter a tent" (coming from someone who lived bush most of her life too) etc. Is there any real evidence to back this up? I know the NT Government released her almost as soon as it was found and she identified it as Azaria's - they apparently conducted no test to verify that it was Azaria's, just took her word for it, even though they wouldn't "take her word for it" that she didn't kill her daughter. I did find it rather odd, but is there any real evidence as to what style the jacket was, and when it started being manufactured? Or is this just another one of those "urban myths" which have always surrounded this case? That said I have no time for the "opposite side" which just tries to ignore the "human intervention" which was found to have been involved in the disposal of the remains. If the police had recovered the body, many of the disputes about this case would be resolved, and Azaria could have a decent funeral.--158.89.1.33 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone explain why the infobox at the top of the page, which lists only a name, DOB and DOD, also lists an age!?! This strikes me as extremely disrespectful... -Grammaticus Repairo 21:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
edited so instead of saying one fourth says quarter 89.240.246.54 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm very tempted to remove the Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance#The_disappearance_in_popular_media section (perhaps mention the "The dingoes ate my baby!" thing, if a RS mentions it), or at least put it in a separate article/list/whatever we call them.
Comments?
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The material that was removed [1] that refers to the popular media seems adequately covered above. I am not sure what you mean by searching for the phrase but if necessary the phrase can be added back into the article elsewhere as appopriate.--Matilda talk 04:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
what's up with the last sentence in "Disappearance and subsequent discovery": she ate a dog that night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.253.220 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"Engineer Les Harris, who had conducted dingo research for over a decade, said that, contrary to Cameron's findings, a dingo's carnassial teeth can shear through material as tough as motor vehicle seat belts. He also cited an example of a captive female dingo removing a bundle of meat from its wrapping paper and leaving the paper intact." Both facts are completely irrelevant to the trial. A dingo's capability to tear through such strong material is ireelevant. What was relevant was whether a dingo made the same similiar incision marks to a scissor or a scissoring cutting tool, the mark that was left on the babies clothing. A dingo being able to unwrap a bundle of paper was irrelevant, especially as it didn't "unwrap" the child, it alledgedly cut through it's clothing and tore it apart.
"Evidence to the effect that a dingo was strong enough to carry a kangaroo was also ignored." So? It is irrelevant, thats why it was ignored. A dingo can carry a baby. It was never argued against. The argument against a dingo was that are not likely to and statistically don't.
It's technically POV pushing to place every single thing that was rejected in the trial up. Especially writing it as if it somehow adds to evidence they ignored of her innocence during the trial. 124.148.227.196 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Shouldn't this : http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/lindy-chamberlain-dingo-did-kill-baby-azaria-3717029 be added...? (a new inquiry)
According to this ABC News item:
The Northern Territory coroner will open a new inquest into the death of Azaria Chamberlain, ... Next year's inquest, ... will be held in February [2012] ...
This should probably be added to the article. (It may be that this is actually the same as the "fourth inquest ... expected to open in 2011" already mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The ABC news article does not mention any 2011 inquest.) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
results: inquest has been concluded and the coroner has deemed a dingo or dog did indeed kill Azaria Chamberlain. source: http://www.news.com.au/national/dingo-took-azaria-coroner-finds/story-e6frfkvr-1226392715293
coroners report: http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/courtsupp/coroner/findings/other/chamberlain_findings.pdf
however it does raise several questions about some of the evidence suh as the locationof the clothes but is willing to accept them as coincidence. 152.91.9.153 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
"Engineer Les Harris, who had conducted dingo research for over a decade, said that, contrary to Cameron's findings, a dingo's carnassial teeth can shear through material as tough as motor vehicle seat belts. He also cited an example of a captive female dingo removing a bundle of meat from its wrapping paper and leaving the paper intact.[11] His evidence was rejected, however."
Firstly; in this article 'Cameron' as a character hadn't been introduced. WHO IS CAMERON?
Secondly; 'His evidence was rejected, however' is a bit yoda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I made this change:
... as well as a manuscript collection
whichthat includes around 20,000 documents ...
on grammatical grounds, but it was reverted on the grounds that "Which is more correct in Australian English". However I disagree that "which is more correct in Australian English". WP:ENGVAR doesn't cover it. Which vs that does not mention Australian English at all. It does say that "in formal and informal British English that or which are both commonly used". I concede that Australia nominally uses British English (rather than US English) so one might argue that either is allowed and perhaps I shouldn't have changed it. However I assert that which is not "more correct in Australian ..." and - other things being equal - we should follow "the Chicago Manual of Style and other mainstream references" and use that.
Can I have the opinions of other editors please. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not one agrees with the verdict, and whether or not the Chamberlains were actually guilty, it is not appropriate to say that the court "ignored" evidence. That is tantamount to accusing it of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
They WERE biased, and they DID ignore evidence. Those are not opinions; they are facts supported by eyewitness testimony and documented evidence. Read the source materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You really are a "Chamberlain partisan" aren't you! The evidence of people like "Les Harris" wasn't "ignored". To say it was "ignored" implies that the Court ruled it "inadmissible", and that the Jury (yes, it WAS a jury trial) were never given the opportunity to consider it. But clearly that evidence WAS presented to the Jury. Les Harris, from what is shown here (and my vague recollections) didn't "prove" "Lindy was innocent". All he did was give evidence that dingoes could bite through material as tough as seatbelts, and presumably could have bitten through Azaria's clothes. It didn't, however, provide evidence that a Dingo took Azaria - it was only Lindy Chamberlain's word, and tracker statements, which provided that. The point was that the Jury, at the time of trial, found the prosecution evidence more compelling than the defence evidence. You can feel they were wrong, or placed too much blind faith in the "experts", but it not the same as claiming that the defence evidence was "ignored". The Jury simply felt that on the balance of the evidence they saw that Lindy Chamberlain was guilty. To claim evidence was "ignored" is a step too far surely.--158.89.1.33 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
At the top of this page was a redirect:
Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Amandajm (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Cut and paste of Wikipedia policy on victimization:
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
'NOTE': I have put the matter on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. I believe the matter of "victimization" needs to be discussed there, before the hatnote is added again.
Amandajm (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
One aspect of the case against Lindsay Chamberlain that is conspicuous in its absence from the article is what the prosecution claimed was her motive for murdering her infant daughter. Surely a motive was at least suggested in the trial or in the media. Murder trials never lack in motives -- real, plausible or absurd. Why no mention of one or more of them here? If anyone has good sources for claimed motives, please add it to the article. Bricology (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
There was Media comments about Azaria supposedly being injured in a fall and the Chamberlin's allegedly killed her because they did not want a disabled child. There were even imaginative speculations of Black Magic sacrifices which had the Chamberlin's standing in a circle of naked witches offering up Azaria to some diabolical Pagan Deity. There were also comments about the Chamberlin's being 7th Day Adventists, some speculated their religion was a Cult capable of human sacrifice.Johnwrd (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The movie 'A Cry in the Dark'/'Evil Angels' had scenes of the Australian public gossiping and speculating that the Chamberlains only wanted sons and would murder any daughters because Seventh Day Adventism is a sexist religion or that Michael and Lindy Chamberlain murdered their daughter because she screamed and cried too much and they were tired of a difficult baby. I am fascinated with the case but I still haven't read through the reports of the trial so I don't know what the prosecutions alleged motive was. This is just an example of some of the rumours that may have swayed the jury. 17:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone add information about the HUGE DELAY between the discovery of the jacket, the key missing piece of evidence, in 1986 and the finding this month of the cause of death?
Yes, things take time, but 26 years?! Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It takes time to well and truly put someone through the legal wringer. A Royal Commission vindicated the parents in 1987; then they were pardoned; then the convictions were quashed in 1988. So ... they've been "not guilty" since then. Getting a new Coroner's finding has been the open issue that the parents wanted resolved. After 7 years, a 3rd inquest was held but left the verdict open. The government decided not to hold a 4th inquest after 6 more years, in 2004. Then they did hold one after another 8 years, and that's the recent one that once again blamed dingoes. Why 6, 7, 8 years between action? I dunno. http://guides.sl.nsw.gov.au/content.php?pid=242811&sid=2095354 ... Flagstonia (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
How does one decide what is notable and "encyclopedic" here and what is not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that if an incident is the inspiration for an entire work*, (such as a book or movie or television episode that is notable in its own right or whose author is notable) that book or movie or episode is also appropriate to mention within a "Media and Cultural impact" section- it has had real world impact. Particularly if third parties have commented on the connection. (*not just a single throw away joke within the work)-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes we can identify that Seinfeld and The Simpsons made a joke about this incident, but if that is all we can do - so what. It is not encyclopedic. Seinfeld referred to dozens of cultural events every episode for twenty plus episodes for 10 seasons, The Simpsons refers to dozens of cultural events for 20 plus episodes for over 20 seasons.
The mere fact that this event was the butt of a single joke on each show is mere trivia without some third party analysis showing why the joke was important. If this were NOT the butt of a joke, THAT might be something.-- The Red Pen of Doom 10:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Above, there was reference to an ongoing RfD, which I have just closed as a keep (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 14#Dingoes Ate My Baby). Now that that's resolved, should the hatnote be restored? I don't hugely care one way or another, though I personally would be inclined to restore it, but I figured someone should bring it up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Death of Azaria Chamberlain#Current status - Apparently the entire car has now been added to the museum collection. [3] Mitch Ames (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm fascinated with the case, ever since I saw Lindy Chamberlain being used as an example of false associations on a crime documentary about lying people in crimes. However I can't find any information outside this article on Wikipedia (or on other sites which simply copy-paste this article) about either a playwright named 'Brooke Pierce' or a play by Brooke Pierce on the subject of this miscarriage of justice. 90.203.53.112 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This needs more attention and I've added a citation needed tag. I am also unable to find any evidence that Brooke Pierce wrote a play about this (except for articles quoting the Wikipedia article). Justin Bacon (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, this is the same person in the first comment about the play and I did some more research. This is a playwright called Brooke Pierce but information on the plays she has written is a bit sparse. Glad someone else added 'citation needed' to the article DangePowers (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Death of Azaria Chamberlain/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Is it just me, or does the physical abilities shown in the picture of Azaria and her Mom
look very advanced for an infant of 9 weeks ? If we look at this page: http://wondertime.go.com/learning/child-development/development-motor-skills-coordination.html We see that an infant still does not have a lot of head control, however, the picture seems to suggest a child of a fair amount of head control. The baby also looks much larger than a baby of 9 weeks of age. |
Substituted at 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Azaria Chamberlain. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Azaria Chamberlain. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This article should have a section about "the events of 17 August 1980". As it now stands, the article jumps from the lead to the coroner's inquest. There is no info about the night of the baby's disappearance and death. And that indeed is the very title of this article! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge Michael Chamberlain and Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton into this page (Death of Azaria Chamberlain) according to WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. Brinerat (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the introduction section (before "Contents") begins with "In the U M After being released". Why is the "In the U M" part here? It makes no sense at all.58.80.201.106 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition to “Media and cultural impact” section: Theatrical production Playwright Alana Valentine conceived a production in 2013, featuring criticism and outrage towards Lindy Chamberlain surrounding the events and aftermath of the death of Azaria. [1] The production continues a decade later; in 2023 amateur theatre company Milton Follies starred Ashley Howes as the Lindy.[2] 2001:8004:C31:EE24:1C5D:A5B5:B315:2760 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)