Jump to content

Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Speedy deletion

This person is being covered by the BBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. and the article establishes that. This is clearly an assertion of importance and this article should not be speedy deleted. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just came here looking for information about this person/case. It's obviously a topic that is in process. Please do not delete. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a major crime story now; it will not be deleted. catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet confirmed but interesting

Sacramento News10 is reporting a grey sedan with CA license plate 1LPR664 or 1LPR644 and front end damage found in backyard could be the car used in the abduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvsrhollywood (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Phillip Craig Garrido's blog linked here

How do you know that blog belongs to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-Kidnapper-Philip-Garrido-has-blog-Voices-Revealed-and-is-a-sexual-predator TJRC (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

tasteless photo

why is the photo of the man accused of raping and kidnapping her prominatly displayed on her page? this is not the national inquirier and it is tasteless to put his pic on here. I am removing it. her photo should be on the page, not his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added it back. It adds to the article, and although I understand where you're coming from, it was added for a reason. I don't object if consensus is reached to remove it, but it shouldn't be removed on one person's whim, sorry. Sky83 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He does not have a page and likely never will. This page is really more about her abduction than about Dugard herself. He is clearly central to this case, it is not really a matter of taste. TigerShark (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I vote that his picture not be prominently included - perhaps in a subsection on the alleged kidnapper. I also second that her picture be prominent. 192.104.54.21 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Once the details of the case come out in a reliable source, it may well be appropriate to change the article title to something like "Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard", which would clearly be about the case in title as well as body of the article. Sky83 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I should have used the word "decency" instead of "taste". Wiki often comes up short when it comes to human decency. if it is her biography the rapists photo should not be inluded. if it is an article about a crime then go ahead. if that is the case then the name of the article should be changed. Wiki should change its name too, something more tabloidish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.54.21 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the photos. They've been deleted from Commons, and because of that, deleted from the article, so the issue may be moot. However, if they're re-uploaded to the File: section of Wikipedia and re-added to the article, I feel pretty strongly that they should be kept to a relatively small size to avoid dominating the article, and oriented horizontally to keep from creeping into subsequent sections. This edit shows how to use {{double image}} to effect this. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Maps Images of suspect in van and tarped backyard (moved from article to talk page)

Zornified (talk · contribs) added the following to the article. I assume he meant it for the talk page. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Google Maps Street View Find Kaycee First ?
On google maps Street View, you can see a "molester van (slang urban term)" [1] follow the Google maps camera vehicle. To watch the action unfold, zoom into Phillip Garido's home address on Google Maps and go into street view in front of Phillip's Home. Move the camera South from his home address while facing your street view orientation north so as to appear as if you are looking out of the rear view mirror. You can see the molester van following the Google Maps Camera for a couple of blocks. If you follow the van from its home, you can see it is pulling out of the kidnappers home address 1554 Walnut Ave., Antioch, CA. Let the van follow you all the way down Bown Ln. until you reach the end of the road at which time the van disappears. Front View of Perps House on Google Maps [2]
A few of the camera scenes show the van with people inside of it, one of them might be Jaycee, someone please confirm image in van.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zornified (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That is good detective work on your part -- it is also freakily weird, to say the least, to see the truck come out of the alleged kidnapper's yard and follow the google camera van. Head shakingly weird. Awesome weird. The very last shot in the sequence, at the end of Bown Lane, has the closest, sharpest view of the van's passengers. I have a strong feeling that someone with photo skills could enhance that final image. catherine yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
We have to wait till a news source picks up on this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I certainly hope someone picks up on this google maps item, publishes it, and credits Zornified for noticing it. I am very impressed with his or her investigative abilities, but, as we all know, WP is not the place to publish original research. I hope that by tomorrow this will hit the blogs and thence will go to a reputable news source. This image of the alleged kidnapper's van following the google van, plus the google maps aerial view of the blue tarps (the latter quite an unspoken condemnation of the laxity of the Parole Board's tracking senses!) is an important part of the unfolding story. Of course, if you watch the long, unedited Fox40 press conference (cited in the article), you'll see that law enforcement is trying to spin their failure to notice the tarps and tents so as to give credit to the parole officer for breaking the case -- which is ridiculous, given that the alleged perpetrator brought his victims in to the parole officer of his own free will. Strange case, really strange. catherine yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
But wait. Does Google have higher-def video/photos for this in its Street View database? The quality of online street view stuff is about in the same level of toy cameras for whatever reasons.--Minimeme (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that he was wearing a GPS bracelet and was under police supervision, yet had Dugard and the two girls living in a shed behind his house. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say "JEEZ!" Amazing detective work. But agreeing that, yes, we have to wait for this to be picked up by Greta Van Susteran or whomever and then we can reference back to that secondary coverage. The Google street views in question might be taken down, so someone should do screen captures immediately. And for now we cannot assume it is him or his van. Edison (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. VERY interesting piece of detective work. We can't use it, but wow...THANK YOU for sharing. Personally, given the proximity of so many other homes and that this wasn't a soundproof "dungeon" ala other similar cases, how in hell did it go undetected for 18 years? Wouldn't the neighbors have noticed crying babies coming from the back yard? Wow. Just wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A local radio station here in Sacramento - Armstrong & Getty - just had a woman on who lived next door to this house from 1991 to 1995. She said that Garrido invited her husband over to look at a soundproof "music studio" he had built during that time. She said that it was a stand-alone building in the backyard.Corsair1944 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Crying babies could have sounded like they were coming from inside a house with open windows, or whatever. Some of the sources do say neighbours, in hindsight anyway, thought the girls' behaviour was a bit odd. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" kidnappers?

From the information I've seen, Mr. Garrido has explicitly admitted to the kidnapping. Do we really need to call them "alleged"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.134.238 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Until he is convicted it can only be an allegation. Unlikely as it may be in this case, people do make false confessions. Also, if at the time of the alleged offence he did not have full mental capacity, he might not be guilty of the substantive crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampben (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah remember John Mark Karr. It just makes sense to keep the word "alleged" in for now. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's also an issue of law. Note that newspapers in the United States always refer to the arrested as "alleged" perpetrators. Any reference to Mr. Garrido as being the kidnapper (as opposed to alleged) is almost certainly a violation of WP:BLP as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"See also" section

I just removed this section from the article. The listing of "See also"s was becoming a long list of vaguely related cases. There's tons of these cases worldwide. We do not need to have a long list of cases having some similarity to these cases. We have categories like Category:Children kept in captivity and Category:Kidnapped American children for that. I ask anyone considering re-adding this section to identify tightly related articles and add only those. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who appreciated those links being there earlier today, I strongly disagree with this removal. Reading the Colleen Stan story, which I did not know, provided some helpful context to making some sense out of this story. The connection to the Fritzl and Smart cases was so obvious I was going to put those in, but they were already there. These are very rare and highly unusual cases (thankfully), but they all share the common theme of kidnapping and keeping the victim alive for long periods of time. I'm tempted to restore the section immediately, but I'll wait for others to chime in. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with putting it back. Some readers may find it helpful to read up on alikened crimes and may not understand how to look for stuff in categories. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards agreeing with Born2cycle if I'm honest. There needs to be some kind of guideline inclusion criteria because the section does not need to include any kidnapping case. Personally, I feel that the most useful guideline would be to include cases that include a kidnapping, long-term captivity, and the victim being found alive. Fritzl, Staynor, Stan and Hornbeck all fit this, possibly others as well but I can't remember who was on the list. Anyone agree with this? Sky83 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of these cases to be found in the relevant categories. The cases in the "See also" section had no connection to this case in any way except in vague similarity. This is not how we do things here. We don't have "See also" section on albums listing all other albums. We don't have a "See also" section on a Chevrolet car model listing all other car models by Chevrolet. We don't have a "See also" sections on state fairs listing all other state fairs.

I could readily see such a section having links to Child abduction, Stockholm syndrome, etc. These articles have a relation to this article. But the "See also" section that was here was becoming a long list of vaguely related cases. The latest addition was drifting into including a murderer who kept his victims in a dungeon and raped them before eventually killing them. There are THOUSANDS of cases where murderers rape their victims and then kill them. Where do we draw the line?

If you feel the need to satisfy your interest on similar cases, there's scads of them to be found in Category:Kidnapped children, Category:Child abduction and more. There's no shortage of all sorts of similar cases. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"I truly can't understand why one wouldn't want to put in a highly notable crime wherein the victim(s) wound up dead. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)" I understand what you mean, but what makes this case notable was that the victim was found alive, which is what makes the Smart, Dardenne, Fritzl etc cases so notable as well. I think there has to be a limit on what is included and capping it at the reason for such notability, which happens to be, apparently, the fact that the victim is alive, seems as good as anything. By the way, I'm quoting your comment Gwen, because it didn't seem to appear when I tried to edit and I didn't want to accidentally remove it! Sky83 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In going through the various categories I've been noting, I've been finding a slew of cases where a child was abducted, kept for a while, and later found alive. The "See also" section should not be used as an all inclusive list of such cases. There's too many. (think of all the cases involving the various Amber Alert children) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I reverted it because after thinking a bit more, I don't stand by it as worded (please remove it?). However, to Hammersoft, I must say that two of Marc_Dutroux's victims survived. Either way, I think it would be much more helpful to readers to have a few of those links in the SA section. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless the list becomes too long, the criteria outlined by Sky83 above, or something similar, is a fine way to draw the line: "cases that include a kidnapping, long-term captivity, and the victim being found alive". It appears that there are a number of people leaning for restoration, and only one supporting its removal, so I'm going to restore it, at least until consensus is established to support removing it. We can of course further discuss refining the criteria to be used to warrant inclusion. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I vote for keeping those links. I found them useful and intersting.Corsair1944 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Seeing those links, I would like to say, how dumb and unhelpful I think it is, to put kidnapping of in front of the name of this kind of article. I understand the reasoning, but think it is mistaken. Readers search for names, most will come through the redirect or a Google search for the name only. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus developing that people do want a "see also" section, which certainly warrants further discussion on the subject. If Hammersoft could possibly provide a list of the cases that (s)he thinks fit the criteria(?), then we can see if the list would be too long or the criteria too wide. I think it's definitely useful to have some kind of section though. And to Gwen, just to be clear the name of the article is such because it's about the case and not the person, which makes it the most appropriate title we currently have available. While the name is likely the way people will stumble across the article, it would be misleading to not state that the article is about the kidnapping and not the victim's life in general. Sky83 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the article is about the case at all: Readers will only come to it because it is indeed about the person. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is about the case. People will come to this article because of the kidnapping, not because of the woman. There is a distinction. Think about it in these terms; what makes the subject matter notable? A girl/woman from California, or the fact that something extraordinary happened to her? It's the case and the circumstances, not the person. Sky83 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I wholly, canny understand the reasoning but don't agree with it. Jaycee Lee Dugard is notable for what happened to her every bit as much as Michael Jackson is notable for what happened to him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not the same thing. Michael Jackson reached notability over a lifetime of multiple notable events and acheivements. Dugard is notable for one event only, and it follows that the event is then the thing we recognise. If she goes on to have a public career, or writes a book or something of that nature, she could be eligible for her own article. As is stands, she is not currently notable, but the event she was involved in is. You may not agree with that, but it's policy I'm afraid. Sky83 (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Something tells me Lifetime career of Michael Jackson would be awkward. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Your point being....? Sky83 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You're the one who said "Michael Jackson reached notability over a lifetime of multiple notable events and acheivements." Hence, it wasn't MJ who was notable, but his lifetime career, hence Lifetime career of Michael Jackson. This is spot on the same thinking as kidnapping of.... Again, I understand the thinking behind "one event" but believe it to be much flawed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, you weren't clear before. I understand where you're coming from, but this is something you need to take up on the policy pages, not here. I think you're just misunderstanding notability and how one acheives it in their own right. Take a look here. This is not really a point that needs to be discussed in this section, or even this talk page. Sky83 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For the third time, I wholly understand the thinking and the notion of "their own right." Readers search for the person (criminal or victim, however it happens), not the crime. I was only bringing it up, hoping someone would agree with me, I can dream. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to be snippy, I was trying to explain something to you, I repeated it because you didn't seem to want to accept it, and you kept repeating yourself. I've made a suggestion as to what you could do with your opinion. I don't think this needs to go any further :). Sky83 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said, there was no need to explain the reasoning. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, from the re-added "See also" section, the supposed related cases:

Didn't father any children by the victims. Also murdered some of his victims, which didn't happen in this case. (Although law enforcement officals are looking at some past murder cases and there is some circumstantial evidence that points to Garrido.)Corsair1944 (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Victim was not a child at time of abduction. Victim never had children by perpetrator.
Did not involve an abduction. (and by the way, that article's "See also" section has almost as many listings as the article has sentences. Wow!)
Did not have any children by her abductor. Escaped. Jaycee didn't escape.
Wasn't abducted. Wasn't a child at time of beginning of imprisonment.
Did not have any children by her abductor. Wasn't ever imprisoned.
Not female, and obviously couldn't bear children. Escaped.
No abduction. Victim didn't have children. No apparent imprisonment.

In short, these cases are all loosely related to this case. If we were to include the parameters of all these cases as grounds on which to include things in the "See also" section, we'd be left with a list hundreds, if not thousands, of articles long. That's absurd. All I'm asking is come up with a very focused list of similar cases and/or articles related to the subject (such as the ones I noted earlier). Haphazardly adding related cases is not the direction to go. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget 1974 kidnapee "Tanya" (la Guerrilla -- a/k/a Patty Hearst). ↜Just M E here , now 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
They're not related at all. Some are alikened. Some aren't and can be trimmed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? (I'm not trying to be snippy) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If we're going on the criteria I mentioned, victim Sabine Dardenne (not Dutroux), Colleen Stan, Natascha Kampusch, Elizabeth Smart (goes to the definition of captivity, she wasn't exactly free, was she?!) and Steven Stayner all seem suitable for inclusion. With some of the others (Fritzl for example) it again goes to the definition of kidnapping and captivity, as well as the level of relation to the Dugard case. With Fritzl, Elisabeth was kept in captivity, she had children by her captor, she was found alive. All happened with Dugard as well. Also, the term 'escape' is perhaps misleading, for victims to escape their captors, it won't always mean they physically escaped by scaling a wall or jumping from a moving vehicle (to pluck out two random examples). This is not an easy subject lol. Sky83 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As mentioned below, what makes this case unusual is the birth of children by the victim. That to me makes it a criteria. That eliminates quite a number from the list. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Right now, the criteria seems to be (1) if an abduction is involved, OR (2) child rape is involved OR (3) imprisonment is involved OR (4) rape is involved OR (5) unwanted pregnancies were involved, etc. There's precious little "AND" being involved, leaving us a massive list of so-called "related" cases. Sky83's heading in the right direction. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec fun) Please do (again, not being snippy). I think your having listed more of them here was helpful. Consensus can sort out what to keep later. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's get it to the basics, Hammersoft. What's your suggestion for inclusion criteria? Sky83 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think children being born to the victim should be a necessary characteristic of a case to be listed here. These cases are (again, thankfully) unusual and related by involving kidnapping and long-term "sex slave" imprisonment within the kidnappers residence or property, with or without that aspect. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with you again, Born2Cycle! I don't think this case is especially notable because of the children, I think it's media notability is because of the long-term captivity and Dugard being alive. I actually stand by the three points I gave previously; kidnapping, long-term captivity and a live rescue/escape. I don't think this leaves too long a list as I've seen, although we may need to decide on the definition of kidnapping for the purposes of this (specifically in the Fritzl case....maybe kidnapping/imprisonment would be a better description since the Fritzl case is closely related but a standard kidnapping wasn't strictly present), as well as the length of the captivity. The other option of course is to have four points, the fourth being the children born during captivity and have the cases included match three out of four. I'm leaning towards that to be honest. Sky83 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
+1 for "the other option" (3 out of 4). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that those other cases do not belong in the "see also" section. They are kidnapping cases, but entirely different. That's like including everyone who has ever been murdered on the same page describing a specific murder. Alanasings (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So trim some, add some as y'all see fit? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth I added the first one to be added chronologically, Kidnapping of Colleen Stan, because it was an extremely long kidnapping (7 years), also in the state of California, and in both cases the form of captivity was quite crude and a wife was an apparent accomplice. Neither kidnapper built bunkers or anything, they just kept the victim around, probably through massive abuse in both cases. I still think that case has more in common with Dugard's than any of the others. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More victims of "Christian Ritual Abuse"

However, because the Wikipedia is very biased, doesn't have any entry on this; though it does have a lot of information about "Satanic Ritual Abuse" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.238.69 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is there a reference to religion being used to justify the original kidnap and rape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.77.236 (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See also criteria proposal

I am proposing to make a slightly modified version of Sky83's suggestion above the "official" criteria for including a link to another kidnapping case in the See Also section of this article.

To be listed in the See Also section another article about a kidnapping case must be a kidnapping/imprisonment case and must meet at least two of the following three criteria:

  1. long-term captivity
  2. live rescue/escape/re-emergence
  3. children born during captivity

Does that sound reasonable? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That does eliminate having to define the kidnapping point (which might've been a problem with Fritzl, as we discussed above). Maybe make the second point "live rescue/escape/re-emergence" just to cover all bases on that score. But yeah, that sounds good to me, nice work :). Sky83 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This case was breaking news well before it was released that she bore children during captivity. I think your points 1) and 2) are the reasons this was such a big story. 3) is one of many unique features of this case, but not necessarily a defining characteristic. I would replace it with the criteria

"it was a stranger kidnapping", it seems like that's more of a defining part of this case than that she bore children. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The bearing of children is not important. because some folks are naturally infertile. Religious fanaticism, like childbearing, seems an added issue. Stranger abduction is an optional issue, but, again, not central to the crime profile The main issues are long term captivity and live rescue/escape/re-emergence 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the children born during captivity is interesting, but I don't think it's as crucial a point as the long-term captivity and the live re-emergence, which seems to be the way most of us are thinking. It is relevant though in terms of this article. Public outings of the children were what lead to both the Dugard case and the Fritzl case being exposed, probably others too. I don't think abduction needs to be added to the list (since there is an implied aspect of this in the fact that the victims were removed from their previous lives) although I don't particularly object if the majority want this added. Religious fanaticism is another rather interesting aspect, but IMO I don't see it as especially notable enough to have it as a criteria here. Sky83 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah hell with it. Just add in whatever the hell you feel like. I can't believe we're even debating this. This is pure insanity. I think I'll start adding in every case that's vaguely similar. Adults and children kept in captivity, abductions without sexual assault, abductions with sex assault, abductions that ended in murder, just plain murders, just plain rapes. What the heck. It's all crime. It's all relevant. Woohoo! Here I go... --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You brought it up lol! And if we're back to the original list, maybe that's because it was okay in the first place? Of course it's crazy it's still being debated, but at least a consensus was being developed. Your comment made me laugh though, I see where you're coming from, but careful, someone might take that seriously and just add anything lol :P. Sky83 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not add anything? I'm serious. Right now the criteria is basically anything goes. So, I will continue to expand the section. There's no reason not to. If I were to suddenly add several hundred related cases, that of course would be out of line. But adding one a day for the indefinite future, I don't see a problem. As of now, anything goes. The live re-emergency bit is worthless as well. If we had a case that was similar in many respect to this case, but the victim hadn't made it out alive, we'd still be talking about including it. Seriously, anything goes. Have at it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really agree, although again I can see where you're coming from. There is a limit to the kinds of cases that are closely related, and those included are. There aren't that many cases like this one that involve a long period of imprisonment where the victim is found alive. Those are the two criteria I still feel are the crucial ones. If we go on cases that involve a captivity of more than say...six months (?) with a live re-emergence at the conclusion (which would eliminate cases where the conclusion is unknown), there really wouldn't be too many on the list. I'll willingly take that back if you can find many more cases that contained those aspects, but I don't think I see it happening. Sheffield wasn't a captivity case, so that wouldn't fit. I don't think what I've said is unreasonable. Sky83 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion was headed in a reasonable direction, and then it derailed leaving us with anything goes. The criteria for inclusion are not at all limiting. I've already found a significant number of cases that are worthy of inclusion in this list under the current criteria (which are basically non-existent). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Then would you mind listing these cases you think fit what I asked? A period of captivity (six months minimum is what I suggested, but vary this if you like) and a live re-emergence. I'd be interested to hear what you think is a significant number. Since you are objecting so heavily to what everyone else seems to find somewhat reasonable, I'd personally like to know exactly what we're dealing with so we can move forward/on. Cheers. Sky83 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already listed a number of related cases above. I will continue adding those and all the others I found. Hopefully it will eventually become obvious that the criteria you seem to be certain everyone agrees to do not make sense. I also note that the six month criteria is completely arbitrary. A case isn't going to be any less notable in the press because it's five months vs. seven months. And, as I previously noted, a similar case that resulted in death would still gain considerable notability once discovered. Neither of these criteria that you are attempting to establish are valid in terms of notability view. They're quite flawed. I'll continue adding. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I did say the six months was variable in my mind, no strict focus on that from here. A deceased victim would be notable, but not related here. I can't believe we're still going through this, but what makes this massively notable is that the victim is alive after such a long time. I still see no reason as to why this criteria for other cases to match is too wide. The cases you listed above were (in the majority) already in the article and you've done nothing to prove that there are a massive amount of cases that fit the criteria I asked you to give examples of, and certainly not enough to make it a super-long list. I don't think you're going to be satisfied until you get to remove everything. Adding randoms will not help prove your point. Please, let's all get a perspective on this. Sky83 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • At the time I suggested other articles, none were in the article. They are not random. They fit the overly broad criteria being loosely applied here. I've pointed to multiple categories containing many examples that could, under the current criteria (basically anything goes) be added. I'll continue adding. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "Right now the criteria is basically anything goes." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these histrionics are helpful. People were productively trying to agree on 3-4 selection criteria before this temper tantrum... --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't be so sensitive... geeeze. You made a whiny, unproductive comment and got called out for it. If people do that to you so often you had to write an essay on it, maybe the problem is with you, not the world. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You already killed the discussion by promising to engage in passive-agressive WP:POINT editing of the article. And, although I'm sure you've been told this before, not all criticism is a personal attack on you. I have criticized only your actions, not you personally. If you can't take criticism well... write an essay about it, apparently. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Settle down now, Sancho. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hammersoft is editing the article with the goal of disrupting it. At a slow pace, but that's just because he imagines that will allow him to get away with it. Are you going to let him be right about that just because he's been around longer than me? If that's the case, enjoy the 30+ item see also section he will slowly create, just because we didn't instantly agree with his proposal... --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
We do need to keep things civil here, but in essence I'm with Sancho on this. Hammersoft seems intent on doing the exact opposite of what he wants (which was to remove the entire list) just to attempt to prove his point. I, for one, can understand why someone may get a little upset about that. I don't understand the change in attitude from Hammersoft either. I'm not expecting an explanation, but he was civil not so long ago and seemed to be engaging in the debate in a considered manner, then things went off the deep end rapidly when everyone else tried to reach a consensus that didn't match his opinion. Then when that was commented on, he took it too far and started throwing his essay about. I don't know what else there is to say on the matter, other than to voice that if there is hostility in this debate, I don't think Sancho started it. Sky83 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If read from my view, I did attempt to engage in rational discussion. I don't particularly care if people agree with me or not. I do care when the rational discussion falls apart, as it did here before I supposedly went off the deep end. I thought the direction Sky83 was going made some sense. I wasn't happy with the final result yet, but the direction made sense. Then there was an undermining of that position and a revert back to "essentially anything goes". My intent at this point is to continue to operate in a manner congruent with the apparent consensus; anything goes. I've added two links. Both are related to this article under the metrics that other people are applying. If that counts as disrupting the article or violating WP:POINT, then so be it. In my opinion, I am disrupting nothing and I'm certainly not violating WP:POINT, which requires disruption. If you don't like me operating in congruence with the consensus here, then it is not my fault. I am just an editor. I will continue adding the links. Nobody has provided any reason why I should not, other than that adding links in congruence with the consensus here is disruption...which doesn't make sense. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I also want to make it crystal clear that I have absolutely no intention of discussing anything with an editor here who sees fit to insult me personally as a means to conducting debate. I do not and never have insulted anyone and I am not about to start. None of what I said in this thread is in any way a comment on any editor. Nevertheless, I was attacked. I refuse to enable people who use personal insults by way of responding to them with further debate. If they can not debate without using insults, they have nothing to debate and further discussion with them serves only to embolden them to insult people in the future. I will not be party to that. Therefore, yes I am going to "throw" around my essay. I'm sorry if my stance on how I handle people who use insults somehow offends you. It is not my intent to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
"Ah hell with it. Just add in whatever the hell you feel like. I can't believe we're even debating this. This is pure insanity. I think I'll start adding in every case that's vaguely similar. Adults and children kept in captivity, abductions without sexual assault, abductions with sex assault, abductions that ended in murder, just plain murders, just plain rapes. What the heck. It's all crime. It's all relevant. Woohoo! Here I go..." This was not rational discussion. This was a comment that was inflammatory, and when it was commented on as such, you concluded that you were under attack for it. You were contributing very respectfully before that. It was a decent discussion, but after a good consensus was proposed that was in stark contrast to what you wanted, everything nosedived. This is all the more ridiculous since the point you are arguing is pretty much redundant, since there is certainly no 'anything goes' situation here and the criteria of 'long-term imprisonment' and 'live re-emergence' would have been more than enough alone to weed out the similar cases. If there was something that irked someone from there onwards, it could've been brought up here. We've totally drifted away from that though. Whether or not you are adding cases that are relevant and related, you are not doing so in any apparent good faith. You are doing it because you wish to get to a stage where you can speak your point more sufficiently, something you have readily admitted to yourself. When even you yourself are editing against your own opinion, surely we can all see that this has got to end? I enjoyed debating this with you before all this started. Sky83 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • When it was commented on by the person in question, I was personally insulted. No amount of explanation from you can take away from that fact. I have no intention of further debating the issue with that person. I absolutely refuse to cater to people who use insults as a means to an end. I'm sorry you apparently find this offensive, and insist on me accepting these personal insults. I will not. As to me, you are now accusing me of not editing in good faith. You've already accused me of violating WP:POINT. If you do not like my additions to the list of "See also"s, then please revert me. I will not un-revert you. But, before you do so, I encourage you to consider why you would be removing cases that are apparently relevant on under the very criteria you have established here, and why an editor in good standing (me) is forbidden by you from adding links to the article that are perfectly in congruence with your very own established criteria. There have been many times that I have edited things here in ways that I do not personally agree with. That means I'm working within consensus. That doesn't mean I'm somehow not editing in good faith. I'm sorry you found my consternation at the apparent unraveling of any standard of acceptance here as insulting to the process of debate. It was not my intention to offend anyone, but more of a reductio ad absurdum. I'm sorry that apparently was not conveyed clearly. Both with that and other comments I've made, I think I've made it clear that the criteria are essentially anything goes. And so it remains. And so I continue adding links. I don't want to add links, but there are plenty to be had and consensus apparently insists we have them. Therefore, I add. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It now seems perfectly obvious that you will never be willing to compromise on this. I have never attempted to tell you what you are allowed to add (or forbidden you from doing so, to use your accusatory phrasing), I have simply pointed out that you are not adding in good faith because you are adding to try to prove a point, not to improve the article, you have already admitted this. I still do not believe you were 'personally insulted' and even if you feel this way, you may want to consider why someone would respond to you in that way. You responded sarcastically and rudely and the only reason I can see for your sudden change of tone was that the conversation was not going the way you liked. I'm sorry for that, but I don't think you were ever going to be happy unless you got your own way. You didn't 'unravel' anything, nor have you made it clear that "anything goes", you just started trying to pick holes where there weren't any, and I can, again, only assume this is because you didn't agree with what others had said. You literally flipped your conduct so suddenly and radically that it shocked me. Oh, and I just want to point out that, while we're actually on topic, the Sheffield case didn't fit the criteria. There was no kidnap, there was no imprisonment. It was an incestuous abuse case that resulted in children, which wouldn't have been included under the proposed criteria. Either you didn't read the case, you didn't read the proposal, or you just wanted to add something. Like I said, you were interesting to debate with before it nosedived, now I just feel like no one can make you happy or settled, so I frankly don't understand why anyone is still talking about this. We need to go back to the issue at hand, instead of this rubbish, which will probably continue while you proceed with your daily additions. So is there anyone in favour of dropping this now, and just coming up with a list that does fit the criteria to see if we can reach a compromise? Sky83 (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm done discussing my conduct with you here. It is not pertinent to this discussion. If you wish to continue to discuss my conduct, then feel free to do so on my talk page. The Sheffield case was referred to as the British Fritzl case. Certainly plenty of people thought it quite similar to that case, and you don't seem to question the presence of the Fritzl case. The Fritzl case didn't involve a kidnapping either. Neither did the Lydia Gouardo case. Neither did the Mongelli case. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood the proposed criteria. Fritzl fits because there was long-term imprisonment and live re-emergence. The imprisonment was not a factor in the Sheffield case and while the daughters survived the abuse, they didn't emerge from captivity. It doesn't matter that the media referred to it as the British Fritzl case, as far as I know, no one, not even you, has suggested that media-imposed titles or media-based opinion should be a criteria for inclusion. Gouardo fits because of the captivity and the live re-emergence also. Mongelli also fits for the same reasons. Therefore, under the proposal, the only currently included one that is not relevant is Sheffield. And I do not wish to discuss your conduct anymore. I have made my feelings perfectly clear on that point. Sky83 (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Sheffield case, they were kept isolated by other means. Regardless, both the Fritzl case article and the Sheffield case article currently contain "See also"s referring to each other. Yes the media does seem to think they are similar. So it seems Wikipedia editors do as well. It would seem only you are making a case they are not similar. I could just as well make a case that this case isn't similar to Fritzl because, so far as we know, it didn't involve incest. Fritzl also didn't involve an abduction. It also involved a real prison. This case did not. A hidden compound, yes, but readily escapable. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. In Sheffield, the father practically encouraged them to be a part of outside life, namely so they could claim benefits for the children. Even so, isolation does not equal imprisonment, especially not in the sense of the Fritzl case. Sheffield relates to Fritzl because the father abused the daughters, resulting in multiple pregnancies and births of children whose biological father was also their grandfather. Just because Sheffield is similar to Fritzl doesn't mean it is relevant to everything Fritzl is relevant to. It's not me that's distancing them, they are just distanced. And with regards to the "hidden compound" comment, it really goes to the definition of prison I suppose, but she was, regardless, kept captive. Incest is one of the things that related Fritzl to Sheffield, it doesn't have to be one of the points that links things here, and as far as I can see, it hasn't been mentioned before now (by anyone) as something that should be a criteria. Sky83 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand you added Sheffield and you clearly want it for some reason, but you are the one who is insisting on fitting the proposed criteria that we came up with and Sheffield, as I have already repeatedly detailed, does not fit that. It's not splitting hairs, they are entirely different types of cases. The Sheffield girls never went missing, there was no captivity and there was no re-emergence. It was an abuse case, and there were children born, this is what fits it to Fritzl, but this isn't what was proposed for Dugard. I just don't think you want to hear that there is a case that does not fit the criteria, as this would disprove your "anything goes" theory. I'm not removing it for now, I'll leave it for a bit to see what others think, but I think I've proved both this point, and disproved yours, so I'm hoping that we can leave things now, and just agree to disagree. Sky83 (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (partial de-indent) You know, earlier you accused me of "adding randoms". Now I've added two cases, and you can't find a clear reason to remove either of them. Obviously I'm not adding randoms. You seem very bent on disagreeing with me. Why, I don't know. Regardless of your motivations, I'm not seeing further discussion between us aiding our purpose here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've given you a clear reason to remove one, but so as to not upset you further I have left it for now for further discussion. You just don't seem to be able to accept anything I've said because I've proved that your theory was flawed. I'm not trying to disagree with you, please stop accusing me of things just to deflect the issue. The point now is that you've tried to prove your point and I've disproved it. By refusing to acknowledge that, and instead ignoring my valid points, you are only further adding weight to my previous point, that your aim here is to be right, and not to improve the article. I've already said I hope this can end now and since you say you don't see this getting better, I will take that as an agreement on your part. To repeat, I will leave Sheffield in for now, to see if others have an opinion on it's inclusion. I do not make rash decisions here, and will not remove even though I have proved my point according to the proposed criteria that you claim you were trying to stick to. It is now clear that the criteria that Born2cycle suggested was sufficient (and was not an "anything goes" policy). Regardless, I consider this conversation with you at an end, I hope this is something we can agree on. Sky83 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, you've accepted nothing I've said. And now you are putting words in my mouth. So long as you continue to apply conclusions never made and put words in my mouth, I will not consider this over. If you don't want this to devolve into more discussion of your behavior, I suggest you cease discussion and attribution of my behavior. I attempted to lead us in this direction earlier, even allowing you the last word on my behavior. But, you can't seem to resist commenting on my behavior, and even drawing conclusions not in evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave it now. You've made it clear to me that this is not going to go in a positive direction and frankly, I'm not interested in debating something with someone who won't or can't understand. I acknowledged everything you said and addressed it directly, no one has removed your additions, you just seemed to get mad that I proved you wrong and now you've ignored the core issue again. You insisted on continuing in this manner, I commented on it, at the time thinking that I could either difuse the issue, or somehow have a decent conversation with you. It's now clear that that has become near impossible. Let's just say you think you're right, and I think otherwise. Since you are not going to change your mind, we will get nowhere. I've drawn conclusions based on your own admissions, if you've changed your mind on that, I can't help it and if you don't tell me as such, I've got no way of knowing. I tried to stop this personal commenting, you at first seemed to agree then things went downhill again, I don't know what to say on that, I still don't understand it. But I know I'm not interested in talking to you anymore because conversation with you is not going to improve the article. With any luck you'll agree on that and this can be the end of it. Fingers crossed, this is goodbye. Sky83 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Have at it with your essay, Hammersoft. Meanwhile there is nothing untowards about giving readers links to other articles which show the many ways this kind of thing can happen (given the very smallest, slightest sliver of people in the world are driven to set out and do this kind of wrong). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Tthe relevant articles for "See also" seem to be those in which a child was abducted (or imprisoned in the Fritzl family dungeon), raped, held for many years, and recovered alive. Rape occurring seems more relevant than giving birth to children. Edison (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the only relevant exception to that would be Colleen Stan, because it's closely related in almost all aspects apart from the fact that she was an adult when kidnapped. As says in the article, she was kidnapped in a vehicle by a husband and wife, kept as a sex slave at their property, and emerged alive several years later. Sky83 (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, Elizabeth Smart. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The Smart case is a weird one in terms of matching up to this. There was a kidnapping, there was a nine month long disappearance, and there was a live re-emergence. There was also a religious aspect to it, although that part of the Dugard case is not currently thought to have been a motivation for kidnap, as I understand it. It's different because they were travelling I guess. Do you mean you want to remove it? Sky83 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Not. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Cases of confinement often involve "re-education," or, if you will, brainwashing.

"On the night of the kidnapping, Mitchell had forced Elizabeth to hike four miles up into the canyon where he had previously constructed a concealed shelter for his new bride. He had dug a twenty-foot long trough and built a lean-to over it. [...] He tied a cable around her leg and tethered her to a tree so she wouldn't run off. [... ...] Mitchell and Barzee kept Elizabeth imprisoned at their makeshift compound in the canyon from June 5 until August 8 when Salt Lake City residents started seeing the familiar robed couple, who they sometimes referred to as "Joseph and Mary," with a similarly dressed young girl."---TRU TV's ANTHONY BRUNO

↜Just M E here , now 00:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Category

I've replaced the list with a link to the relevant category. Let's have our computers do the work for us, and put our energy to more productive work. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea :). Let's hope we can all agree that this is a decent compromise at least for the time being. Sky83 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is essentially what I suggested at the very beginning of this thread [1]. Ironic. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Many readers will never click on a category, it's a loss. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the best interests of readers or the article itself, I agree Gwen. But until things have settled down on the talk page etc, it might be the only thing we can do to avoid disputes. It's a shame it's got to this point, but I think Andy Mabbett certainly was suggesting in good faith. I'd prefer the list, but I also don't want anyone to get upset. Sky83 (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, waiting for things to settle down is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I entered the link as [[:Category:Children kept in captivity|Cases of children kept in captivity]]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
At the very bottom of the page, in a banner box, in a long string of text, I dare say most readers won't see it and of those who do, many won't know it links to articles and won't bother to try it out. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong in every respect. Please look at the article as I left it, before making further pronouncements. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me, never seen that done before, two links to the same category. I think fewer readers will be stirred to click on that title, for sundry reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A friendly reminder on the matter of this current event.

I see a lot of deletes and edits in this article and of which concerns me, some pointing to the biographies of living persons page. I want to remind everyone that in this article we are talking about an event being that the name of this article is "Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard". As the title says it is about her kidnapping and the events around that. As people post about these events lets remind ourselves that an event is the documented actions surrounding an occurrence and not about the persons in the event. So the "Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard" is about her kiddnapping and not about her as a biography.

I'll give two examples of the style of phrasings you should look for the distinguish the difference between documenting an event and a person(which wouold make it a biography):

Good documentation example-

-Three bodies were found at the home of John Smith.

Bad documentation example-

-John Smith had 3 bodies on his property.

In the first example it’s about the event; the discovery of 3 bodies. In the second example it’s about John Smith. Sometimes the more, eager editor, will point to the the biographies of living persons page to justify deleting something. I wanted to mention this to help improve the article and other suggestions are wanted.

If you don’t don’t understand or see the facts surrounding a statement or submitted content, follow the the talk page guidelines as ask for a verifiable reference to support a statement, which is often better than arguing against it. We can make this article better, lets do it. --SRobbins (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice opinion. Try to find it in a guideline, the MOS or something, and then you can advise that others follow it. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did we get the make of the car?

"He saw two people in a gray sedan (possibly a Mercury Monarch or Mercury Zephyr) " This is uncited in the article. Did we get the possible make of the car from somewhere or does this need to go? Padillah (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As with many citations, along with the sloppy and overbroad rewrites, it got heedlessly rewritten with the source shifted somewhere else in the text. Here's a citation for the car, although I'm unaware of any cite saying what the make of the car might be, that could be WP:OR pulled from a pre-reappearance source. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Please mind, though, that 28 Aug articles says there's no evidence the girls left the backyard before they showed up at UCB but the Internet has since become awash with snaps taken of them at a party in mid-August. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not only is the source muddled but it does not mention a make for the car. It simply states: "Parked in the backyard was a vehicle matching the description of the one involved in Dugard's abduction." Not what kind of car that might be. I'm gonna give it a bit and then look at removing the make and model of the car. Padillah (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled onto this whilst looking into the car source, The Garridos back in the day, posted only for background. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading an article from a major source that said the car was either a Mercury Zephyr or a Ford Grenada. The problem with citing breaking news articles, especially from CNN, the AP, or Reuters, is that when they change the article, they just write right over the old article, taking old info out and changing new info, without ever noting that they changed anything. There's still things like this out there [2] that say the same thing though.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I added the car make information right when the story was breaking, from this URL. Indeed the citation gradually got separated from the sentence. I believe the information made it to the web from the "Project Charlie" site which archived police releases on the crime. I could be wrong on that last part though. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


"Gods´ Desire Church"

This phrase is redlinked, and strangely punctuated. I also can't find it anywhere in the sources, except that Garrido uses "godsdesire" as an email handle, and, I guess, a website name. Can someone who knows more clean it up a bit? Huw Powell (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Stockholm syndrome

I do not object to the mention of Stockholm syndrome but I think that we should confine such mentions to a single paragraph within the entire article. Based on the Stockholm syndrome article, the captive does not track of the notion that they are captive and that the captor is a law-breaker (rule-breaker, bad conduct, undesirable, whatever). I guess I am asking for some adult judgment here and that you attempt to appreciate where Jaycee found herself: two kids whom she loves and a wierdo man who "gave them life" (or however you might want to phrase it). I am not trying to suggest that Jaycee was stupid, lacked initiative (or whatever... ambition? self-esteem? whatever it is that she was "feeling guilty" about later) but think about the choice she faced if it ever occurred to her: run away, break the only family the kids have ever known... blah blah blah. My point is that we do not know that this another Fritzl case. We are here at WP because we love sharing knowledge and, in a sense, education. We are horrified that these three victims did not get to go to school. My point is: the Fritzl case is clearly one of captivity and this is not yet so. Furthermore, we have not yet heard that Phillip Garrido drilled into them that they lives with without meaning or purpose without his approval. How was it that Jaycee ever did any "excellent artwork" without some sense of purpose? Did the artwork give her live a sense of accomplishment (and that possible "sense of normalcy" that I suggest)? Again: my point is: why did she not effect an escape and why did she "feel guilty"? Under we understand that better, avoid surrendering the "verifiable" verbiage of "house of horrors".--76.199.103.224 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please cite sources, or stop altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
76.199.103.224, this is not a blog for general discussion of the subject. The talk page is not for our speculation. It is for determining how reliable sources can be used to create an encyclopedic article consistent with our policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Privacy

My notion is that law enforcement always has to couch things in a framework of conspiracy. The backyard was "hidden" and objects were "strategically placed". How about using the more typical language that the backyard was "private". Other words such as "secluded" do not apply in such a dense urban setting. If in trial or some books we find out that it was all by design, then great; but until then I think that the backyard was simply "private" (at least to the degree that the Google satellite photos allow it to be). Again, you can easily "verify" that the police worded it as such, but I suggest that such an approach is a little to easy and I encourage you to remain skeptical even of law enforcement verbiage.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Keystone kops, unhelpful parasites. However, you're still not citing sources, so there's nothing an editor can do with your input. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Gwen: there are enough sources in the article already. I am not going to micro-cite my own talk-page notions because reading all of the existing sources is, at most, a one-hour task (and, in my opinion, time well spent). Plus, I expect that you have already read them all and I am merely cuing other editors and talk page participants to do the same.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
IP, last time I heard, Ms Dugard and her kids were human beings and readers of en.Wikipedia are a lot smarter than some editors think. There's plenty of time to sort this out and meanwhile, article text on this privately owned website, edited by volunteers, must be cited to reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Gwen: what I am saying is: despite the dramatic nature of this story, you might be disappointed with the ability of the human psyche to accommodate change. My advice: anticipate such and accommodate such for the sake of NPOV.--76.199.102.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
You are an anonymous IP and yet I ackonowledge you. My advice: recognize this! Not everyone will acknowledge you!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.102.151 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism

Here is good example of a lead sentence in an AP story that raises an issue (that they article already cites): http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/912827.html

"Jaycee Lee Dugard has been subjected to what police say was nearly a lifetime of torment in a backyard compound set up by a religious zealot with a rap sheet dating to the 1970s."

Read the rest of the article. How is the "torment" (say, beyond 2002) demonstrated? My point is: where is the torment in their minds? Is the torment, more properly, in our minds? There might have been such torment, but we may have to wait years for their trial or books to provide evidence or such assertions. My expectation is that the two perps will plead guilty to slightly reduced charges months from now and then we will have to wait for press releases or books for more information to demonstrate "the torment". I admit that I am looking beyond the abduct and rape and dwelling upon 2002 and beyond. I am doing so because we have little evidence about exactly "what happened" after the felonious abduction and statutory rape (I phrase it that way because we have yet to understand (and we might years or forever to wait, but we do not have to exercise much foresight and judgment to develop reasonable expectations about how this is going to play out for the perps) how much "torment" Jaycee felt about "what happened" up to about 2002.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a recommendation: 12 Angry Men . I will require 90 minutes of your time (I have not yet found the TV script online, probably a copyright violation). You can see the first 2/3 of the film at Google video, but the entire film is at this link. I expect that these perps are guilty and they are likely guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. What I ask is that you remain skeptical about the system and to view the case through eyes unclouded by emotion.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well uh, what does any of this have to do with changes we should make to the Wikipedia article? For better or for worse we're stuck with the information and opinions that news sources report on. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I am asking you to surrender to their emotional dialog. Hold them to the same standard of evidence (or even beyond) that we hold ourselves to.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
IP, please see WP:SOAPBOX . Please start citing sources, or stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Being held for years by a kidnapper/rapist is torment per se, except perhaps in the minds of pedophiles. Edison (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I glark she did what she had to do (so to speak, as Californians have put such things to me), whatever happened, which we do not know. Editors must be ever so heedful of WP:BLP, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Citations

Why are there ten citations for one sentence in "Reappearance"? It looks weird. I can't remember how to do it but isn't there some way to like group them?--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

DOB of children

Is there a reference for the DOB of Jaycee's children? There is a claim that Jaycee got pregnant when she was 14, but this could be 13 or even 12 (If my maths is correct). Martin451 (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of a vaguer way to phrase it so its not an issue? Its not entirely necessary to the article to include her specific age instead of a vague approximation.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Garrido earlier release from prison

The article mentions that Garrido was paroled in 1988, however a search on the Federal Bureau of Prisons site reveals that he was released on August 31 1993. Anyone know what this refers to? Is this a different term in prison, or something related to his previous conviction? --Ferengi (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Parole violation [3] Martin451 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


The following is part of an entry on CBSnews blog. The full link is below the excerpt.

"In 1993, a violation of Phillip Garrido's parole conditions sent him back to federal prison from April to August.

The role that Nancy Girrado played in keeping Dugard in captivity while her husband was in prison for four months is not yet fully clear. But what is clear, is that when Phillip Girrado returned, Dugard was still imprisoned.

He impregnated her shortly thereafter, according to the age of Dugard's first child, 15."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/31/crimesider/entry5277289.shtml?tag=pop 67.142.166.27 (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Sally

Restoring lost facts

In his blog, Garrido said he had "demonstrated" the control of sound waves with his mind and that this control this was apprehensible through a "device" he had made. I was away one day and some editor took away his very clear statement and replaced it with some silly wordage that said he had "claimed supernatural mental powers."

No claim of "supernatural mental powers" was asserted in his quotation. He claimed that he had a scientific or mechanical "device" that demonstated his work. You can believe him or not, but in no way can a claim for a "device" that "demonstrates" things be equated with a claim of "supernatural mental powers."

Obviously, the stripping away of his actual quotation has led to serious twisting of his meaning and degradation of information, and could in no way be considered adequate coverage of the subject, so i restored his original quotation.

Editors, please be more sure of the difference between unusual scientific claims and unusual mental power claims before editing the statements of anyone who makes unusual claims. Thank you. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Page Status

While I do not consider myself a great contributor on Wikipedia (I read much more than anything else) I thought it would be proper to comment on this page. In all honesty, it is an absolute mess. There are spelling errors, run-ons, improper statement of the facts, and so on and so forth. Instead of leaving this page essentially "open" to editing from the general public, it may be in the best interest of maintaining the encyclopedic nature of this article to partially lock this page and only have authorized editors/admins have the ability to edit. Not sure if there is a function for this to occur, just a thought. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article is faring worse than other current-events-true-crime articles of similar scope which have been developed during the past couple of years. The semi-protection isn't helping, and there seems to be a bit of OWNership going on as well. Admin blockage of IP contributors leaves no one to blame for poor work but us named "editors." Sigh.. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless non-stuff removed

I have removed this from the article.

The case has received much coverage in the press and among child advocates. Georgia Hilgeman-Hammond, who founded the Vanished Children's Alliance in San Jose, California in 1976 after her 13-month-old daughter was abducted and found four years later commented on the case.[3][4][5]

So Georgia Hilgeman-Hammond "commented." Okay. And...? WHAT DID SHE SAY? Why did this article contain a meaningless paragraph in which a non-notable woman from a non-notable organization "commented" with no quotation and THREE REFS? Come on. That's just dumb. Perhaps what she said was notable because it shed light on the event, but her relevant quotations were purged by the "quotations are bad" editor -- but THREE REFS for the fact that someone un-wiki-linkable opened her mouth and WP won't let us hear what she said? Please. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Either make Hilgeman-Hammond relevant by rephrasing somehow or including a quote, or it has little relevance here. Sky83 (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The revised text regarding Hilgeman-Hammond is an improvement, and hopefully it will continue to improve. Until then can we remove "some sort of" from the line? The tone is not up to standard. --Nrehnby (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Gwen, can you explain this diff? [4] I'm hoping it was just a mistake and not an attempt to refactor the talk page in a misleading manner, but it has already excited commentary on my own talk page, so i restored it and i'm just checking in to see if all is copacetic. With cordial good wishes, cat Catherineyronwode (talk)

Article tags

I added the tags to this article because it needs help, and not just from one editor. I've tried to make some changes but there is so much interest in this article that it may be a case of "too many cooks..." Some changes have been edited out wholesale; I don't take it personally at all but the article needs help, plain and simple.

At any rate, a high level of attention can have a beneficial effect, if we try to address what is already in the article. There are plenty of details - with cites - but some of the citations are incomplete or don't actually go with what they are attached to. There are many missing commas in sentences. The word "reportedly" appears four times in this article, and with its close cousin "reported", that makes about five times too many for either to appear. Either something is being quoted and cited, or not. "Reportedly" is a WP:WEASEL word; let's get rid of it.

Please don't remove the tags just because you think the problem is fixed; let's generate some WP:CONSENSUS and tighten up this article. We can do far better, especially if we discuss. Removing the tags is not a discussion. :-)  Frank  |  talk  03:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification ("reportedly"): The word reportedly is a journalist's way of including information in a publication that cannot be verified and therefore might be challenged. It is similar to "allegedly", in that the use of the word enables an editorial board to have "plausible deniability" regarding whether or not its actions cause damage to an individual. So, if they write "John Doe reportedly has three arms", they are not actually libeling him. It may be acceptable for news/web/TV journalists, but it is not encyclopedic. The word allegedly is more acceptable, however, because that has long been used to signify that someone is accused of something - most often (in the US) in the legal sense - but has not been convicted or acquitted. Reportedly does not carry such a narrow, accepted connotation; it basically means "somebody said it and we think it's interesting enough (broadly construed) to repeat it."  Frank  |  talk  03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There is only one instance of "reportedly" in the article at this time. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
More specifics need to be provided about what needs to be fixed, or the tags should be removed. The tags currently state:
  • Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
    • Examples? I have no idea what you mean here. What about the tone may not be appropriate? What about the style?
IMO, the only tone problem that persists (as noted in my comment under Meaningless Non-Stuff Removed), is the use of "some sort of need" "(Georgia Hilgeman-Hammond... focused on the emotional turmoil of the experience and some sort of need for years of counseling.") Could we simply clean it up to "turmoil of the experience and need for years of counselling?" --Nrehnby (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
    • As far as I can tell, each edit is being closely watched, and many people are looking after the article. Are there still places with commas missing? Other problems?
  • It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
    • It is in progress so at any given time the latest edits might need some cleanup... what else?
--Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this article has a very high level of input, without the need for the tags. Tagging just to get extra people to look at it when it does not have significant problems is a bad idea. I don't think the article has any real problems, which is why I removed the tags. Martin451 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Good riddance. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=molester%20van
  2. ^ http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1554+WALNUT+AVE,+antioch,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.71116,114.169922&ie=UTF8&ll=38.008744,-121.770544&spn=0.00038,0.000871&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=38.00865,-121.770545&panoid=9puRgUC6nCMR5Xzneuujjg&cbp=12,272.43,,0,10.4
  3. ^ "Challenges ahead for Jaycee Dugard's recovery from long ordeal". http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13226665. 2009-08-28. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  4. ^ "Editorial: On the plight of Jaycee Lee Dugard". San Francisco Chronicle. 2009-08-29. p. A9.
  5. ^ "Barnidge: A little suspicion might have closed Dugard case long ago". http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_13225584. 2009-08-28. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Dugard/Archive_1&oldid=1074832738"