Talk:Disappearance of Walter Collins

You Can Improve this article

The accuracy is correct from verified sources on the first sections. On the kidnapping and murder case, you can help to make it more factual and accurate. 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

HER NOTABILITY - KEEP ARTICLE

Her article should REMAIN on Wikipedia. She is NOTABLE and part of the history of Los Angeles, CA. Some of the information and details on her son's kidnapping and the murder case may need more editing to make it completely factual and not innacurate. You can help! Thank you. 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes her notable, apart from her involvement in WP:ONEEVENT? How do you know she's notable in herself? -- Zsero (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not accurate

The the article as written is a rehash of the film's plot. While the writer took pains to be take the material from the historical record, he employed dramatic license to a certain degree. The article is grossly inaccurate on several points. The film was an abridgement. Indeed, there are even "facts" in this article that don't tie with either the film or the historical record. For example, the boy who turned up five years later has been conflated with Northcott's cousin Sandford Clark, and the "fact" that the escaped boy knew Walter was made up by the writer of the film. The only accurate information in the article is already contained at Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and Changeling (film). It should therefore redirect to Wineville Chicken Coop Murders instead. Steve ^{T • C} 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Not only is much of this article in accurate plot summary of the film, but it really needs to edited for grammar, spellling, ect...Georgmcmickael (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it also be possible to get a real picture of Mrs. Collins rather than picture of Jolie?

Also Northcott is mentioned near the end of the article as if he was introduced earlier. Unles one has read the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article the reader would have no clue who is being mentioned here. The article neads rewriting.

There is also the problem that Christine_Collins#Early_Life.2C_Marriage_and_Residences directly copied from the November 10, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times Daily Mirror without any citation of that series of articles. I suggest we develop the section Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders#Christine_and_Walter_Collins and split off a Christine Collins article at a later time, when there is sufficient detail to do so. In the mean time, I suggest that we redirect this article to Wineville_Chicken_Coop_Murders#Christine_and_Walter_Collins. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS NO HISTORICAL RECORD THAT HAS EVER BEEN CITED ABOUT A "BOY WHOM CAME FORWARD 5 YEARS AFTER GORDON NORTHCOTT WAS EXECUTED".

The following complaint belongs in the movie, not here on the article about Christine Collins, whether she believed her son was alive or not, she did not require proof. Many parents whose children are missing still believe their children are alive until they are faced with irrefutable evidence, even then some do not believe it. It's a shame you've been in contact with Mr. Straczynski and he refuses to share his sources with you, it was likely this was just something Ms. Collins believed as an alternative to believing her son was raped and murdered. But again this complaint pertains more to the movie then the article about this woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanagih (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

One of the singluar most controversial topics (since the film Changeling was released), is the story about a "boy whom came forward 5 years after the execution of Gordon Northcott".

This supposed "historical truth" came from the film Changeling. There is no historical record of this ever happening, according to the Riverside Historical Society, nor is this topic ever revealed about a "boy whom was held at the Chicken Coops and then escaped" by the State of California's star and key witness, Sanford Clark.

This was a plot point inserted by the screenwriter of the film Changeling, J. Michael Straczynski, that was utilized to help to explain why it was that Christine Collins never gave up hope that her son was alive. I have attempted on several occasions to ask Mr. Straczynski to provide the source material for his claim, but he refuses to respond, simply citing that the legal department of Universal Studios vetted all of the claims that he made in the film. In contacting the legal department at Universal Studios, they also refuse comment.

The fact of the matter is this: this particular claim of a "boy whom came forward 5 years after the execution of Gordon Northcott", (implying that Walter Collins may possibly have escaped the chicken coops and remained alive), is nothing but the highest example of a film that somehow gets morphed into the truth. This claim is false. Walter Collins was murdered and the State of California executed a man based on the legal testimony of Sanford Clark whom told the entire story of Walter's death at trial.

To suggest that Sanford Clark perjured himself would mean that the State of California executed the wrong man.

There is no evidence that has ever been presented and substantiated that remotely supports the claim of a "boy whom came forward some 5 years after Gordons execution".

The Historical and testimony (which constitute the legal record) states that there were only 3 boys ever imprisoned at the Chicken Coops; Collins and the 2 Winslow boys. Those boys were all murdered.

Stop the speculation and get the historical and legal facts of this case.

The Riverside Historical Society director, as would the entire World (whom follows this case), be most interested in substantive proof of a "boy whom came forward".

Beaconboy (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

inaccessible source

Three citations on this page refer to universal production notes, however the link simply redirects to a broken page with nothing on it. Is there another source for this document?

Lamlatx (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Collins was released ten days after Hutchins admitted that he was not her son[8] and filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department.

1. What was she released from? 2. What were the charges in the lawsuit she filed?

If all that happened was the police politely asking her to "try the boy out", and her accepting, there is absolutely no reason for her to sue them. And if she was never held, there was no reason she'd be released. And generally the whole story lacks anything noteworthy, eh, just another police mistake of no consequence whatsoever.

And if all other, sourced facts in article point to some event logically occurring, and don't make a lick of sense without that event, goddammit, don't delete the paragraph because there's no source for it alone!!! Sharpfang (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Cecilia Rasmussen Article referenced does not agree with sworn trial testimony nor Riverside Historical Society facts

Cecilia Rasmussen wrote an article for the L.A. Times (2/7/1999) entitled 'The Boy Who Vanished and his Impostor'. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/07/local/me-5769

Since Ms. Rasmussen's article was printed in 1999, additional historical information has been revealed, thus placing Cecilia Rasmussen's article historically inaccurate. The book (Nothing is Strange With You / 2008/ James Jeffrey Paul) was published in 2008. This book accurately reflects the historical record of the matter of Walter Collins and his Mother, Christine Collins.

In addition, the book accurately reflects what the Riverside Historical Society has on record and includes the sworn testimony that was used to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that Walter Collins had been murdered by the mother of Gordon Northcott, Sarah Northcott.

The historical record, as printed in the book, refutes several conclusions from the article written by Ms. Rasmussen. As such, I have edited this particular section to accurately reflect what the historical record indicates (regarding Walter Collins and his Mother, Christine Collins), and provided the additional information that Ms. Rasmussen's article does not contain.

There was also a film released in 2008 (Changeling), with the screenplay written by J. Michael Straczynski.

The screenwriter is quoted as stating that he uses his imagination to depict the viewpoint and perspective of Christine Collins regarding the events that she endured after the disappearance of her son Walter Collins.

Keep in mind that the film (Changeling) is not a documentary.

The screenwriter did not interview Christine Collins to gain her viewpoint or perspective (as she had died decades earlier, possibly before the screenwriter was even born).

This section (that I have edited) regarding Christine Collins, borrows heavily from both the film and the Rasmussen article, and is contradictory to the Historical Record in some instances.

It is my strongest belief that this page on Christine Collins should accurately reflect the updated historical record and sworn testimony as its strongest source material; rather than a newspaper article and film that do not accurately portray the sworn testimony and conclusion of a jury that hung a man for his complicity in the murder of Walter Collins. Beaconboy (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Collins. 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://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20121017122040/http://www.universalpicturesawards.com/docs/prodNotes/Changeling_Notes.doc to http://www.universalpicturesawards.com/docs/prodNotes/Changeling_Notes.doc

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).

• 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) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled 2018 comment

Yeh, what. I performed 5 searches and multiple sites with pictures of the real Christine Collins and archives of articles from this incident and contemporary articles from the L.A. Times about this incident, her time in a pyschiatric ward and her suing Captain Jones. In addition to that, as anyone editing or questioning the veracity of a Wikipedia page knows, pictures can not be used on wikipedia unless submitted by the owner of the copyright. there are a few pictures of Christine Collins available, if you really want the picture changed, contact the websites who are currently using her image now. The archived L.A. Times article requires a L.A. county library card to access the full articles, but it's interesting other references in this article are links to MTV websites & a book by Duthel, but it is only in context of her unlawful imprisonment that these same references are challenged, elsewhere throughout this article, the same references seem to have gone unnoticed. Image: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/39024948/christine-ida-collins# https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/realtor-christine-collins-working-in-her-office-news-photo/50562116#/realtor-christine-collins-working-in-her-office-picture-id50562116

Articles about her: https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc/322495551.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=current&date=Jan%2029,%201941&author=&pub=Los%20Angeles%20Times&edition=&startpage=&desc=Suit%20to%20Renew%20Old%20Judgment%20Recalls%20Northcott%20Murders

https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc/162300241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jul%2013,%201929&author=&pub=Los%20Angeles%20Times&edition=&startpage=&desc=HOAX%20DISCUSSED%20IN%20COLLINS%20SUIT

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/07/local/me-5769

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/10/changeling-stor.html

https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/doc/162258503.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Sep%2021,%201928&author=&pub=Los%20Angeles%20Times&edition=&startpage=&desc=ENIGMA%20BOY%20IDENTIFIED

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/files/1928_0916_collins_RO.jpg

Again i don't see why the issue with Mr. Straczynski's adding something to the script is in contention here, rather than on the film page. This article doesn't mention Collins' depending on an alleged escaped victim of Northcott's being the reason she believed her son is alive. Jmanagih (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

I wanted to explain some changes that I made to the article. First, I removed a poorly-sourced section on Christine Collins's early life. It was cited entirely to FamilySearch, a user-generated genealogy website. Secondly, the blog hosted at the Los Angeles Times is titled "The Daily Mirror", but it has absolutely nothing to do with the British tabloid newspaper, and it's a bit perplexing that someone would think it does. I'm also a bit confused as to why we're using production notes from a Hollywood film to source statements in this article. This is obviously nowhere near to being a reliable source for anything the slightest bit controversial. There's also a bit of editorializing about how Christine Collins never accepted the "true fate" of her son, Walter. There is no reason for Wikipedia to be editorializing like this. That's fine for a blog, but an encyclopedia should take a neutral point of view and avoid using judgmental wording to describe someone's decisions. The Los Angeles Times news article cited for her apparent refusal to accept his "true fate" in fact leaves the child's fate ambiguous and gives supporting evidence for her belief. The "later life" section was cited to a self-published book from Lulu.com and accused her of using aliases to hide her identity – obviously that would need a citation a reliable source. I found a source or two to replace some of the unreliable sources I removed, but some of the content wasn't easily salvageable. I rewrote what I could from the sources I found, which had the benefit of removing the editorializing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have read your edits and wish to discuss with you a few items you are possibly unaware of (or at least do not reference) that effect the truthfulness of your edits, and highly influence the casual reader of this Wiki page to reach false conclusions as a result of you posting non-up-to-date information regarding this case.

• You reference the Los Angeles Times article (written by Cecilia Rasmussen around '98) as your supporting claim that validates and justifies a few of your edits in this article. In 2008, a book was published by James Jeffrey Paul, Nothing is Wrong with You. The book is the Gold Standard for the factual information regarding Christine Collins, Wineville Chicken Coop Murders as well as whether or not Walter Collins was murdered. As it relates to the murder of Walter Collins, the Rasmussen article is false...........completely false. How can any journalist (Ms. Rasmussen) of any credibility completely ignore the court case against Gordon Northcott and sworn testimony by the State's star witness that resulted in the hanging of a man...........Gordon Northcott. Her article flies in the face of reality and truth. It is something that the editors of the LA Times should be ashamed ever hit their pages. I would expect that kind of article in the National Enquirer. Ms. Rasmussen completely ignored truth and facts to publish an article that is far from the truth. The book by Paul, gives the reader the true understanding of the truth and facts of not only Christine Collins, but also sworn court testimony that was used to legally put to death a man, Gordon Northcott,in the case of Walter Collins.

• Cecilia Rasmussen's article that you reference in one of your edits, is completely debunked and no longer valid. Ms. Rasmussen's false claim that 'a boy came forward', (which you have edited in the page to read as such): "Christine was further encouraged by the appearance of another boy that Northcott was convicted of murdering.", is completely false. You not only change her quote, but your addition of the words(to her quote), that the boy was someone whom Northcott was convicted of murdering, are simply incorrect. This particular edit (you made) causes the casual reader to believe falsely that Walter Collins was not murdered in Wineville. Your edit causes the reader to not be aware of the sworn testimony and hanging of a man by the State of California.

• Here are the court facts (that you are seemingly unaware of, or have chosen to ignore) of the victims that Gordon Northcott was convicted of murdering. The Winslow brothers, The Headless Mexican. Gordon Northcott was only implicated in the murder of Walter Collins, as his Mother had already confessed to the crime and the Judge accepted her plea of guilty. So there was never any boy whom came forward that Gordon had ever been convicted of murdering (as you state).

• Your quote: (The Los Angeles Times news article cited for her apparent refusal to accept his "true fate" in fact leaves the child's fate ambiguous and gives supporting evidence for her belief.") Again, the Rasmussen article conflicts completely with the sworn testimony of the court case against Gordon Northcott. Her article totally ignores the truth and sworn testimony of this case that was used to hang a man. Your incorrect edits in some places, cause the wiki reader to believe that Walter Collins may have escaped his murderous fate. Walter Collins fate was not ambiguous. There is no neutral point of view, there is only the truth of the matter. Walter Collins was murdered, regardless of the Rasmussen article. If Christine Collins had stated that 'the moon was made of cheese', while it can be included in a wiki article, do we not have some responsiblity to also comment on the truth of the matter? Do we allow the uninformed reader to read an article and walk away believing the moon is made of cheese?

• Let me ask you a question: It is a given that Christine continued to search for her son through the remainder of her year. That is a fact. On the other hand, is there no room to support the fact and truth, that her son was murdered? That is the court case and conclusion of the State of California in '28. How can we leave the casual reader to have even the slightest notion, that because Christine chose to search for her son, that the possibility exists that Walter was never murdered. That is what your edit does. I am not going to change that part of your edit, but rather, wait for your reply. Do we ignore the truth that Walter Collins was murdered? Should Wiki stand for the truth as proven in a court case, or should wiki simply allow the reader to draw false conclusions, just because the truth for Christine Collins was too much for her to bear. Whom would want to think and live with the truth that their son had been sexually assaulted for weeks, before being bludgeoned to death? It would be much easier for Christine to take the approach she took; that her son Walter was alive (in spite of the court case), and that she had hope he would one day be found? Do we only allow Christine Collins point of view to be reflected on this Wiki page; giving readers false conclusions about the truth of the case, or do we allow Christine's point of view, yet point out the obvious truth of the matter for the reader, which you refer to as "editorializing"?

I expect any Wiki article to include the truth, at all costs, that Walter Collins was murdered; not just Christine Collins point of view that he escaped and was alive; that he just hadn't been found yet.

The Rasmussen article that you refer to implies that someway, somehow Walter Collins could have survived the murder at the chicken coops. You seemingly chose to ignore the court case in this matter and the facts of it.

Looking forward to your comments.

I am going to make a few changes to your edits as mentioned above.

Beaconboy (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written according to what reliable sources say, not our interpretation of the truth. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for an essay on the matter. You seem to have strong opinions on this case; I really don't care in the slightest about it. My only interest is in maintaining a neutral point of view, removing any POV-pushing, and giving due weight to viewpoints expressed by the reliable sources. We can't interpret primary sources, such as trial records; this is original research. So using them as evidence of anything is not allowed. Also, one source doesn't simply cancel out all the other sources. Just because you think a source is wrong doesn't mean you can ignore it. On the other hand, if something is a fringe theory and not well-represented in reliable sources, we might not cover it. However, the Los Angeles Times is pretty mainstream and well-respected.

As far as leading readers to certain conclusions, Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs" or correct what you think are wrong ideas. If you think it's a fact that Walter Collins was murdered, the best place to express that is a blog post on Wordpress. We can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox to tell the world what we believe really happened. If the Los Angeles Times says he might have survived, we report that he might have survived. We can't shape the narrative around our own personal beliefs.

The Los Angeles Times says about the other boy: "Five years after Northcott's execution, one of the other boys he was accused of killing was found alive and well." Apparently, I got some details wrong – Northcott wasn't convicted of killing this person, he was only accused of killing him. Maybe I misremembered what I read when I wrote that sentence, which is sloppy on my part. But the source clearly says someone was found "alive and well". What sources have debunked this claim? The book you referenced seems to be Nothing Is Strange with You: The Life and Crimes of Gordon Stewart Northcott, a book by James Jeffrey Paul (Google Books link). As I mentioned before, self-published books are not reliable sources, and this was self-published through Xlibris. We can't use that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My response to your claims:

"Wiki is written according to what reliable sources say, not our interpretation of the truth". Are you suggesting that I am interpreting that Walter Collins was murdered? Are you suggesting that the State of California and their verdict, is not considered a realiable source of information? I am not interpreting anything. It was the finding of the State of California. If you are looking for a reliable source, do you not consider the State of California and the actual trial to be a reliable source, compared to an article published by the LA Times some 50 years later? It is the article by the LA times that is interpreting the truth.............that the State of California was incorrect in their verdict and intentionally overlooked evidence. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that cites any source in the Rasmussen article...............The Rasmussen article should be considered nothing but pure speculation, given no provable source information. The Rasmussen article is the one that needs to prove its conclusions, with citable and verifiable source information and data. What you are suggesting is that the actual trial where a man was hanged, somehow was a mistake, because of a newspaper article that was written 50 years later.

NPOV: their is no neutral point of view regarding whether Walter Collins was murdered. We can't allow speculative information to interfere with the truth in this matter.

"We can't interpret trial records". There is nothing to "interpret" about the trial records. There is only the truthful and factual conclusion. Walter Collins was murdered. It is not subject to interpretation, it is the truth.

"Just because you think a source is wrong doesn't mean you can ignore it," I don't think that the Rasmussen article should be ignored. On the other hand, shouldn't source information be able to be provable somewhere in the historical record? A boy whom came forward was never introduced as evidence in the trial, and it is pure speculation and gossip. IF Rasmussen ever provided source information that is verifiable that is a different matter. However, there is no source information that she provides. Her statement cannot be proven to be true, therefore how can we publish something that cannot be proven to be true? The Rasmussen statement appears in no historical record anywhere on this case.

"However, the Los Angeles Times is pretty mainstream and well-respected." First off, I am not debating that the LA times is the same level as the National Enquirer. On the other hand, any particular article authored by a staff member, can be subject to retraction or questioning, especially given that she cited no source information or offers any kind of proof that the event actually ever took place. Just because she wrote it, does not make it the truth.

"Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs" or correct what you think are wrong ideas." It is the Rasmussen article that would be attempting to correct great wrongs (The State of California's verdict in the murder for Walter Collins), NOT the other way around. The Rasmussen article indicates that the State of California was incorrect in their verdict and conclusion regarding the murder of Walter Collins (in your words, the great wrong). I totally agree with you........Wiki is not the place for articles that attempt to right great wrongs; so keep the Rasmussen article out. Please do not attempt to right (with the rasmussen article), the great wrong (verdict against Gordon Northcott). No place for such in Wiki.

"If you think it's a fact that Walter Collins was murdered, the best place to express that is a blog post on Wordpress. We can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox to tell the world what we believe really happened. If the Los Angeles Times says he might have survived, we report that he might have survived. We can't shape the narrative around our own personal beliefs." These are not my personal beliefs! I am simply letting you know what the State of California concluded in the trial against Gordon Northcott. It is not my belief that Walter Collins was murdered. That was the belief that was handed down by the State of California. I didn't shape anything to fit my beliefs. The state of California is quite the reliable source for information regarding Walter Collins, versus an article printed some 50 years later. What you are suggesting is that the Rasmussen article has uncovered evidence that would void the verdict by the State of California, and that is simply not true at all.

Regarding a boy whom came forward: "But the source clearly says someone was found "alive and well". What sources have debunked this claim?" It is not up to anyone to debunk the Rasmussen assertions. It is up to Rasmussen to cite her sources for her claim. Were Rasmussen's claim to be true, it would reverse the verdict handed down by the State of California, and prove that the State hung an innocent man. The trial testimony shows us that only 3 boys were ever held in the Chicken Coops at wineville. Walter Collins and the 2 Winslow brothers. They were all murdered. In order for another boy to come forward, as Rasmussen suggests, he would have had to have been imprisoned at the Chicken Coops and seen Walter Collins. Trial testimony from a boy whom was Gordon Northcott's cousin and present as a prisoner at the Chicken Coops, indicates that there were never more than 3 boys ever held at the Chicken Coops and they were all murdered. Trial testimony shows us that there was never an escape made by any boy ever held in the Chicken-Coops. Trial testimony of eye witnesses to the actual event should take precendence over an article that has no proof information or citable source. The Rasmussen statement is unprovable and impossible to have happened. Being generous, I am simply going to state that the Cecilia Rasmussen mis-interpreted her notes when she wrote that article. She is the one whom has to provide the credible source information, not anyone else prove that she was wrong.

"self-published books are not reliable sources, and this was self-published through Xlibris. We can't use that." All this self-published book does is to condense the trial verdict and quote the testimony given that establishes the fact that Walter Collins was murdered. We don't need to use his book for the truth. The State of California is the truth and it carries much more weight than the Rasmussen article with no citable proof sources for the claims made.

By chance are you related to Cecilia Rasmussen?

Beaconboy (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Professional journalists do not have to prove anything to you; because they are reliable sources, we trust that they are true and report their conclusions neutrally here. We don't add language like someone "chose to believe" something and ignored evidence – these are attempts to water down what the sources say. When the Los Angeles Times says that something happened, we report it. You have not provided any sources that debunk this statement, and are just removing it because it disagrees with your own opinions. Accordingly, I have restored it. I don't care whether Rasmussen's statement is unprovable. What I care about is whether a professional journalist made the statement, and she did. That is the important thing, not whether you believe the statement is true. If you continue your POV-pushing, there is a very real chance that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia or topic banned from this article. I have attempted to explain Wikipedia's policies to you. It seems as though you simply don't care about neutrally reporting this case, and you are here to push your POV – that Walter Collins was murdered. As I said, that belongs elsewhere, and your beliefs can not go into this article. And, no, as I already explained to you, the trial records are a primary source, and you are forbidden by policy to engage in original research related to that. It is bizarre that you are trying to apply Wikipedia's rules to a journalist; they apply only to us. You are the one who must cite sources for your claims, not a journalist at a respected newspaper. If you think the Los Angeles Times is not a reliable source, you are going to face a very quick and strong consensus from the Wikipedia community. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37,

21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have read you comments in the several responses, and yes, you were/are correct in the fact that I do not seem to understand how Wiki works. I just always thought it was about the truth and seeking the truth for any page. I understand that Wiki's position (cited in their rules), is that any reasonably published source can be allowed on the pages, truth or not. I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed in Wiki's rules that allow for the preclusion of truth on any particular page, but I don't make up the rules, Wiki does.

I am not a journalist. I am not an English Major with a PHD in editing and such. Clearly you know your way around Wiki; its rules and how to seamlessly bounce in your writing from one topic to the next easily. Not so for me. I am just a layperson attempting to contribute facts and such, but again, I do defer to your rules that you cited regarding Wiki.

The very least you could do is to cite your source and footnote that the comments came from the Cecilia Rasmussen article that you reference. Isn't that a wiki rule?

It wasn't what you wrote to me, it was how you wrote it. You condescended to me, you attacked me, you barely could contain your anger and frustration with my rebuttals, you insulted me, you acted quite arrogant implying that I am nothing more than a nuisance fly on Wiki's arm. I expect more from the higher-ups at Wiki, as you purport yourself to be. Your comments are not how a person with any kind of professionalism would have responded. Your words say so much more about the kind of person you are, than my attempts to clarify and insert the truth of the matter, will ever say about me.

Beaconboy (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I admit that I get too irritable at times. I've tried to say this several times, but apparently I'm not doing a very good job of it: Wikipedia is not about exposing the truth; instead, it merely summarizes what professional journalists have said. This is what an encyclopedia does. If you want to expose the truth, that's what a blog or a newspaper does. When someone exposes the truth, we can report it. But we ourselves can't do that here. When you say "The very least you could do is to cite your source and footnote that the comments came from the Cecilia Rasmussen article", do you mean like WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? The source for the statement is already cited, but I think what you mean is that you want to say that it's Rasmussen's opinion that a boy turned up. WP:YESPOV says not to present uncontested facts as opinions, however. If something is presented as a fact in a reliable source, we can't weaken it by presenting it as merely their opinion. If other journalists contest this, it would change things, though. The key is that they have to contest it, not us. If a journalist looks at the evidence you've provided, including the trial, and they say, "Yes, that makes sense. The kid was definitely murdered, and Christine Collins was wasting her time," then we'd have to accomodate that point of view. If that doesn't show up in reliable sources, we can't accomodate it. We are slaves to the POV taken in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your last comment accomplished so much more for me to better understand how Wiki works than all before. Thank you for being civil. What I meant (in the Rasmussen comment that you posted), that you footnote it and attribute it to the author. I did not see any footnote, but I may have inadvertently just overlooked it. If it is footnoted and attribute to her, then that is all I was asking for. Thanks for helping me to understand Wiki's mission and how the events between Rasmussen's article and the truth (trial transcripts) fit into the Wiki format. It all makes sense to me now, with your professional response. Thanks!

Beaconboy (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the tone of my writing. It looks like I was not explaining myself as well as I thought I was, which led to frustration on both sides. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that there is minimal reliable information about Christine Collins outside of the context of Walter's disappearance, and thus that the article should be rescoped to be about the event and titled accordingly. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Christine Collins → Disappearance of Walter Collins – most of the article is about the son's disappearance and there is nothing else notable about this woman, though the article would need major revisions if it gets moved. 2603:7000:26F0:74B0:A57F:FA57:37B0:6DD7 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Schierbecker (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have fixed a typo in the suggested title. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Did you check reliable sources for WP:COMMONNAME? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Ngram shows no matches for "Disappearance of Walter Collins" but has many for "Christine Collins". Although the latter may also refer to other unrelated topics, in Google Scholar there are no matches regarding "Disappearance of Walter Collins" but it has many matches about "Christine Collins" in direct relation to the topic. Although if we look for Walter Collins we may find results regarding the topic. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Thinker78 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is a descriptive title. This makes it less relevant whether the exact phrase in broad use, because as noted at WP:AT, "these are often invented specifically for articles." The title suggested by this proposal is a good fit under WP:1E. Dekimasuよ! 09:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:NDESC, Even descriptive titles should be based on sources. A descriptive title that has no appearance in sources certainly doesn't seem to outweigh a subject title that is commonly found in reliable sources.

  Also, per WP:1E,

  If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

  Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what is intended by WP:NDESC, as indicated by the rest of the paragraph you cited; instead, it points out that we would want to see "Walter Collins" over "Wally Collins" if the boy was normally referred to as "Walter Collins", etc. The only question here is whether the topic of this article should be the disappearance (in which case Disappearance of Walter Collins is a completely suitable title under article titling policy) or whether the topic should be Christine Collins. In the case of the latter, the proposal is correct that we would expect there to be a claim to notability aside from her son having disappeared. It is possible to make that argument, but it has not been done here or in the article. Note that almost all of the information in this article is already available at Wineville Chicken Coop murders#Walter Collins (September 23, 1918 – 1928), which is also about the "disappearance of Walter Collins", so this could also be redirected there. Dekimasuよ! 22:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NDESC is about mainly neutrality. It is about "Non-judgmental descriptive titles".

  I think the topic is about both, Christine Collins and the disappearance of her son. And also, per WP:1E, the topic merits its own article due to the notability of Christine Collins separate case. Therefore, I oppose turning this article into a redirect. Although it could be modified to highlight the challenges, stonewalling, abuses that Christine Collins went through in her quest to find her son. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support name change and rewrite. The main subject of this article is the disappearance and the situation of the imposter. Christine is a main character in this, but the topic is the disappearance. Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.