Talk:Death of Azaria Chamberlain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeDeath of Azaria Chamberlain was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
March 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Death of Azaria Chamberlain:

This concerns the picture that allegedly shows Azaria with her mother. Azaria was two months old when she died, so this cannot be a picture of hers! (probably a sibling?)

There are no active tasks for this page

Merge with "trivial bio"[edit]

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)

Agree. We should turn this into a redirect to Azaria Chamberlain disappearance, adding any material to the main article as needed and remembering that annoying task of updating an links to this page. - DavidWBrooks 17:29, 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)

There is a citation on Lindy Chamberlian's Official Website giving the title and publication details of the baby name book she relied on for the definition of the name which is the femine form of the biblical name Azariah. I'll try and get that and put it here. Lisapollison 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Arabic has nothing to do with it, and I'm not sure why you thought it would. It's from Hebrew. The alternate male spelling being Azariah. You can break it down as "azar" (meaning help or aid: see this) and "ia" or "yah" (see Yah). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why you thought it would." Probably because Arabic and Hebrew are closely related languages, just chock full of cognate words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

Hi! I've removed this article from Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations due to the following:

  • Although inline cites are not a strict requirement for GA, an article of this type almost does require them.
  • The references section needs cleaned up quite a bit -- every reference shouldn't be italicized. Check out WP:CITE for help with that.
  • It could use a bit more wikifying.

It's a wonderfully written article, however, and would easily pass GA with those concerns addressed. Thanks! 11:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement, This was the first article I started at Wikipedia and I didn't really know how to cite at the time. While the article has been significantly rewritten and improved by others since my initial contribution, I think I set a bad standard initially. You've reminded me though that this is an article I should really revisit when I get the time. I kinda dread rereading the court decisions to reference properly. Mattisgoo 23:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I too think the article would truly benefit with specific inline citations for its claims, such as the quote about Seventh-day Adventism being a "satanic cult," which I removed because it did not have a specific reference and seemed to need it to be there at all. Ansell 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I put that quote in as "dangerous cult" initially. Someone changed it to "satanic" recently for no good reason. The initial quote was not made up -- it's contained in one of the references at the bottom (but I don't remember which one). Another good argument in favour of inline references.Mattisgoo 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Erin Horsburgh[edit]

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)

Inline citations[edit]

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)

As the original author of a chunk of this article's uninlined content, I've come back and inline about 10 of the references that still directly related to sections of the content text. There's still more work to do. Mattisgoo (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2008 (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 (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.

Azaria's matinée jacket[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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. (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!-- (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! -- (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.-- (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There was "human intervention" but it was never admitted by the person who intervened, and the person who witnessed the intervention didn't realised how significant it was. When the jumpsuit, singlet and booties were found, the man that found them didn't touch them, but called the police. The police officer, as later recalled by the finder, did not hesitate but grabbed the jumpsuit, stuck his hand into it and pulled out what was inside, the singlet and booties. The man that had found them regarded this as irregular, and bad policing. The police officer then put the things back inside the jumpsuit in order to take a photograph. This explains why the singlet was inside out, when Lindy Chamberlain said with certainty that she "never" put the children's singlets on inside out. The police officer who had "intervened" did not come forward, either at the inquest or trial. The man that had found the garments did not know how much weight would be given to the simple matter of a singlet being inside out, and that on those grounds Lindy would be accused, not of being "mistaken" in that instance, but of being "a liar"! As it happens, Lindy was neither lying nor mistaken.
On the matter of whether a dingo or dog could extract the baby from the jumpsuit, the answer is yes.
Dogs are like humans. The vast majority of dogs are of perfectly average intelligence: smart enough to fetch a ball, smart enough to wag at a friend, bark at a stranger and growl at an intruder.
On the other hand, an intelligent dog, like an intelligent human, learns all sorts of skills that a less intelligent dog does not have. Many people with corgis will affirm that their dog has a large vocabulary of understood words, and attempts to imitate spoken words, or tones of the human voice.
The intelligence of individual dogs often comes to notice when the dog acts in an apparently "thinking" manner in an emergency situation, such as dragging their master from the backyard to the front gate in order to alert a passer-by to the fact that he is unconscious. (Your average dog might lick his face.)
My whippet could get herself neatly out of her woolly jumper without damaging it. However, when a jumper was put on her that she could not get out of, she sliced (with her back teeth) through the multiple threads of loosely-knitted, fluffy wool (at the centre front) as neatly as if she had cut it with scissors. The cut-line was perfectly straight for a distance of 3 centimetres. The wool was very fibrous, being part mohair. There was no slobber and no sign of chewing. The process took only a few seconds.
A blue heeler with a liking for bananas will hold the banana between both paws, nip the top and peel the skin with his teeth as neatly as any human can do it. A less intelligent dog will just chew the banana until the flesh squashes out.
An intelligent dingo will neatly skin a rabbit before eating it. In the case of a baby in a jumpsuit, both the neck of the jumpsuit, and the neck of a typical Australian baby singlet are stretchy enough for the body of a small baby to pass through them. It would not have been hard for an intelligent dingo or dog to pull the jumpsuit off the baby, or the baby out of the jumpsuit.
Amandajm (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Azaria Chamberlain infobox[edit]

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)

Calm down, it's gone. Nick Cooper 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The age was back again, and I removed it. It does sound potentially offensive, but it's also inaccurate. She was aged two months, not zero years. The calculator apparently isn't set up to deal with ages under one year. -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

quick edit[edit]

edited so instead of saying one fourth says quarter 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section - Remove?[edit]

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.


dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it. I'd also consider removing the crime category and See Also crime link. The event wasn't considered to be a crime after new evidence was eventually found. -- Longhair\talk 08:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I did as you suggested, and removed {{Australian crime}} for the same reason. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The popular media section should have been moved to a separate article rather than completely removed. Many people will first seek information on "The dingo ate my baby" phrase by first seeking for it under the source by which they originally heard it. -Fuze44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuze44 (talkcontribs) 23:47, 26 April 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 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointless aditions to trial info[edit]

"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. (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Obviously for the first group of investigating lawmen, it was very relevant whether a dingo can carry a 10 pound baby in its mouth. In the initial discussion of the case, officer John Lincoln filled a pail with ten pounds of sand and demonstrated to others how he couldn't support it in his mouth for even a minute. This was to demonstrate to his fellow officers that a dingo couldn't have carried the child away. It is also relevant to the defense's case whether a dingo's teeth could easily tear through a baby's jumpsuit and would not just consume the clothing as well as the child when eating. In summary, I don't see why you're complaining unless you think Lindy Chamberlain was guilty.TL36 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Just want to say here that the type of material of the jumpsuit (of a type that most Australian babies wear) is not at all easy to tear. It is very stretchy fabric. And it is most unlikely that any canine creature would consume it, unless it was an extraordinarily stupid dog. Amandajm (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Current status[edit]

Shouldn't this : be added...? (a new inquiry)

Another inquest - February 2012[edit]

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)

Looks like someone already mentioned it, while I was writing my talk page entry.
Now we have under Current status - "A fourth inquest is expected to open in 2011" and under the lede and Coroner's inquests - "A third inquest was announced in December 2011". Something needs fixing. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

results: inquest has been concluded and the coroner has deemed a dingo or dog did indeed kill Azaria Chamberlain. source:

coroners report:

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. (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The questions that were raised about the "location of the clothes" was a simple statement from the coroner at the first enquiry "I think they might have been more scattered, but they may not have been." Amandajm (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please re write this section its really bad[edit]

"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 (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"That" or "which"?[edit]

I made this change:

... as well as a manuscript collection which that 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)

I agree with you - it should be "that." briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with the change to "that". The "more correct in Australian English" claim is completely spurious. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I've restored "that". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Australia doesn't use British English. Australia uses Australian English. That the two varieties are closer to each other than they are to US English is no surprise considering history. As the section you link to notes, the "rule" was championed by Fowler about a century ago but even he noted that "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." It's a prescriptionist invention which US style guides have latched onto but didn't catch on outside of North America. However, American style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style have no relevance to Australian English, be other things equal or be they otherwise. Do any of the "other mainstream references" you mention actually originate in Australia? It's not a question of which is correct, they're both equally acceptable. Thus I would argue that MOS:RETAIN does apply. JIMp talk·cont 06:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well done, Jimp! Amandajm (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias in report on trial[edit]

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 (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 (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.-- (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


At the top of this page was a redirect:

This redirect is in the worst possible taste. It ought not to be there, so I have removed it for the following reasons:
  • This article contains biographical information pertaining to living persons and they need to be treated with appropriate respect. [2]
  • The quotation is inaccurate. It is not what Lindy Chamberlain actually said, so it isn't relevant here.
  • Anyone who looks for those words is presumably looking for the fictitious band.
  • The notability of the fictitious band is very slight, by comparison with the weight of the offence that the redirect causes.
  • The band can be mentioned in the section about fiction.

Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing the hatnote will not affect the redirect. I've filed an RfD here. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Paul! Amandajm (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing hatnote on the following grounds:[edit]

  1. The misquotation of Lindy Chamberlain's statement was used as a form of ridicule and victimisation (of the innocent)
  2. The naming of the band "Dingoes Ate My Baby" was ridicule and victimisation (of the innocent)

Amandajm (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste of Wikipedia policy on victimization:

Avoid victimization[edit]

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)

As more fully discussed in the Noticeboard thread, I do not consider the hatnote to be a BLP violation. Until and unless the article about the band is deleted AND the similar redirect to this page are deleted, the hatnote belongs on this page. Many of the subjects of Wikipedia biographies were the subjects of ridicule for one reason or another. Where that ridicule itself became sourcable and noteworthy, it gets included in the biography. The ridicule must be discussed neutrally and with due respect for the subject of the biography but that does not mean the topic of the ridicule must be unilaterally censored out. This page should be treated exactly the same way. Rossami (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not "unilateral" censorship. The Red Pen of Doom supports the deletion, as you are well aware. You have responded to Red Pen's posting on the relevant page.
The ridicule is indeed part of the subject of the article. It is the hatnote that is offensive, because it is extremely confronting.
Let me say again, without shout, Wikipedia search "dingo" and "baby" or Google "dingo" and "baby", and it will lead to the Wikipedia article. The redirect to a misquotation is superfluous and needs to be deleted as well.
In the name of human decency, let us not offend these people more than they have been offended already.
Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
As a clarification, I support the analysis that as a potential signifigant BLP infraction it should be removed from the article until such time as a consensus has been determined that there is a justification to include it in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
As has been noted before, the ease of which users can find the topic via Google is irrelevant to Wikipedia's policy on use of redirects and disambiguating hatnotes. Moreover, your own observation that the meme is so widespread undercuts the argument that anything we say here will have any impact on the opinions or reactions of the family. This is not an issue of "human decency". Rossami (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
that there is widespread other harmful stuff out there does not in any way remove Wikipedia's obligation to not be a participant in the same. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No, this isn't just about how quickly Google responds to "dingo baby". It is about how Wikipedia's Search and other searches such as Google, respond to "dingo baby".
So the argument above is not relevant.
Amandajm (talk) 02:22, 23 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 cash 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)

Huge Delay[edit]

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. ... Flagstonia (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Media and cultural references[edit]

How does one decide what is notable and "encyclopedic" here and what is not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

de-listifying is always a good start. If you cannot create an intelligent, informative, complete sentence that sounds OK in a paragraph rather than a bullet list, chances are you don't really need it. and the second is to have a third party source that talks about more than the existence of the reference; the source provides a context or explains how/why/impact. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
ex- "The Simpsons made a joke about a dingo. Here is the joke ..." (bad - nothing other than existence)
ex - "After the Simpons epdisode joked about dingos, the average viewership in Australia dropped by half, (footnote-that links drop in viewership to the joke) while tourism from America increased by 10%.(footnote-that links increase in american tourism to Simpons joke)" (good - real world impact)
ex- "The incident became a common symbol for people becoming caught in bad lies and was used as such as a punchline in Seinfeld and other comedy routines. (footnote - that specifically ties the incident to "common symbol for lies" and Seinfeld and other shows) (good - explains context for the joke)-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
But just press mention? One assumes that stories like this one may just reflect what a journalist has found in this article. So just circularity? Or true third party notabiity? How does one tell? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I would look to the analysis provided in the source, and the background/reputation of the person/publisher making the analysis. In the source you link to, the analysis seems to be "became deeply embedded in American pop culture" which she bases on examples that were also listed in the Wikipedia article. (We dont know whether she got the examples she used from Wikipedia or not.) So then, you would look at the background of the author/publisher. Do they have a reputation for publication/scholarship in the applicable topic (ie culture, comedy, crime)? if so, then their imprimatur on the analysis, whether the examples originated in Wikipedia or not, is generally enough to satisfy. (WP:SELFPUB might be helpful)
In this case, I think The Atlantic has such a reputation and so could be used as a source for article content along the lines of The incident served as comedy material for American shows such as Seinfeld (footnote to source describing Elaine joke) and The Simpsons (footnote to source describing Bart joke) and "became deeply embedded in American pop culture" serving as "a punchline [readers of The Atlantic] probably remember hearing before [they] knew exactly what a dingo was."(footnote to Atlantic). -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 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)

I entirely agree with the points made here. Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Media_and_cultural_references / Seinfeld and The Simpsons ie trivia[edit]

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)

I tend to agree. The Simpons especially is packed with one-liner even half-liner gags based on cultural references and observations. But this case is seen as so unusual (even though statistically it may not be) that its cultural reach has been immense. I think we need some way of showing how wide that reach has been. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I support this. Amandajm (talk) 03:55, 19 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)

The problem with this is that the matter is the subject of discussion over the potentially offensive nature of the Hatnote itself. The discussion had been moved. It should not have been "closed a Keep".
Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Amandajm (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The RfD is closed now, so this is largely procedural on my part. The consensus seemed to be that the redirects were fine, so the next step would be determining whether the hatnote should be there. I'm personally not convinced of "offensiveness", or that it's really our problem on Wikipedia (I'm not seeing anywhere that BLP overrides something like NOTCENSORED, which I'm not one to bring up much but I think applies here), but again I don't care much one way or another. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The fictional band is such a marginal topic, that we wouldn't lose much by not having a hatnote. I'm fine going without it. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Dingoes ate my baby. Peter James (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
"Marginal topic" isn't relevant, and it's not so marginal that nobody would look for it - it survived two AFDs and was merged after the third. It's ambiguous (or if unambiguous only refers to the band - it's possible that that particular misquote is only sufficiently searched for because of use in fiction). Because of that, to point the redirect here requires a hatnote somewhere - on the redirect, which is only possible with a soft redirect, or here. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
A soft redirect with a hatnote is not a redirect at all, but a crappy disambiguation page, and the disambig was voted to be deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Car added to museum collection[edit]

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)

The play by Brooke Pierce[edit]

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. (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

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:

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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Events of 17 August 1980[edit]

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)