Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard

Jaycee's children

Not living in California, I don't know how the legal situation is with naming the children, but if anyone does find out the names of the two girls, can we refrain from adding them to the article? I don't see that it adds anything real, and as minor children, even with their role in this case, it could be a privacy infringement. Let's just exercise some caution here, yes? Sky83 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the traffic this article is getting, that at least seven living persons are mentioned (named or otherwise) in the text and that it will very likely take some time for all the background on this to unfold in reliable sources, editors are reminded to please carefully abide by en.Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. Keep in mind that although the legal names of any children caught up in this could very likely be changed later, to protect their privacy, the names of underage children would most often not be given in the text of an article of this kind unless the children later become notable in themselves. If the media do begin widely publishing their names, this may need further discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm just concerned about the Fritzl precendent here, where the children were named. I imagine privacy laws are different in America, much like they are in the UK. In the Sheffield incest case last year, names were protected for example. I would be happy to take part in a discussion if the children are, like you say, widely named in the media, but I can't see this changing. Sky83 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given this kind of crime stirs up so much lasting woe, the names of the children are wontedly changed by the time they become adults. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

They should not be named, regardles of it beeing legal and widely publisised elsewhere and likely to be changed. It's not highly relevant for the article to know their names and Wikipedia is not a taboild that need to push the boundries of the freedom of the press to sell more issues. We can't controll what "the media" and other websites do, but Wikipedia haven it's own guidelines with regards to naming non-public figures that get chaught up in these kinds of events. If the only reason to publish names is "everyone else is doing it" that's no reason at all per WP:BLP. --Sherool (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If either child later becomes notable in and of herself, such as by granting interviews, her name will be on en.Wikipedia. So far, WP:BLP straightforwardly supports not naming them and this could easily be so throughout their lives. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment these girls are considered potential victims and will not be named in the Associated Press, which does not use names for victims of sexual assault unless they have already been widely publicized, as in the case of Jaycee. That would be a wise policy for Wikipedia as well. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one AP article revision today named the two children. CNN and MSNBC have both reported their names on TV today. I disagree that it is irrelevant to this article, but overall I agree that its not worth the downside.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to pile on here, but I agree that the kids should not be named unless and until they attain the same level of notability that would warrant their having an article independent of this event. For example, should one of the children grow up to be elected Governor of her state, she would merit having an article about her, and something as significant as these circumstances of her birth and adolescence would naturally be mentioned in that article. In such a case, there would obviously be no problem with naming her in this article as well. But absent such an independent basis for notability, the children should not be named. Even if no Wikipedia policy prevented them from being named (and as I read it, WP:BLPNAME does prevent them from being named), certainly no policy requires that they be named, and I see no fault in erring on the side of decency and privacy. TJRC (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

---

In any case, I don't believe they have any legal names yet. Presumably they don't even have birth certificates since they have never seen a doctor, and were most likely to have been born at home. In such conditions it is likely that the children don't have a last name. The kidnappers called Jaycee "Alissa", but I don't think Jaycee will want to keep that "Alissa" name; it remains to be seen whether they will also want to keep the names they were using for the two girls. --76.199.138.226 (talk) 20:00, 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)

• If we developed such a list, that's a clear argument for a new category covering such cases. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 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:

• Marc Dutroux

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)

• Kidnapping of Colleen Stan

Victim was not a child at time of abduction. Victim never had children by perpetrator.

• Lydia Gouardo

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!)

• Natascha Kampusch

Did not have any children by her abductor. Escaped. Jaycee didn't escape.

• Fritzl case

Wasn't abducted. Wasn't a child at time of beginning of imprisonment.

• Elizabeth Smart kidnapping

Did not have any children by her abductor. Wasn't ever imprisoned.

• Steven Stayner

Not female, and obviously couldn't bear children. Escaped.

• Mongelli case

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)

• Under the loose criteria we seem to be using right now, we might as well include Alvarez case, Sheffield incest case, Eleuterio Soria, Murder of Nathalie Mahy and Stacy Lemmens, John Jamelske...shall I go on? We need better criteria for inclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? (I'm not trying to be snippy) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Then you have no objection to me adding all those cases (which I found in just a few minutes) and any other cases similarly "related"? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 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 think you're on the right track Sky. I'm out of time now. I'm inclined to generally agree with what you come up with, as you seem to understand that a willy-nilly list isn't the way to go. I think a good starting point would be to remove cases where there was no abduction or not a child when abducted. I think it would be good to include cases of imprisonment with children being born. This obviously overlaps to some degree. But, it's a starting point. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Looking back over the list generally using my suggestions, we'd remove Marc Dutroux, Kidnapping of Colleen Stan, Natascha Kampusch, Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, Steven Stayner and Mongelli case. I can see a case for including Fritzl case, and the removals would leave Lydia Gouardo. I think one of the things that makes this case uncommon is the birth of children by the victim from the acts of the perpetrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 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)

• Sadly, long term sex slavery isn't unusual. In fact, it's all too common. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:46, 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)

• I would add that it is an abduction to the above list, and make it 3 of 4. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:14, 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)

• And if you keep the criteria to that, we're back to square one; an incredibly long list. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 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)

• And for those of you about to scream WP:POINT!!!!, I've only added one case. But, I see no reason to not add a case a day. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 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)

• WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW Have a nice day. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 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)

• I'm sure you can read the third corollary of WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. When you decide to have a civil tongue, I'll be happy to discuss things with you. If not, then have a nice day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 30 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)

• Including Fritzl and excluding Sheffield is splitting hairs. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:22, 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)

"Alleged abductors" section

The sentence "His brother reportedly said that as a teenager, Garrido had taken LSD and had met his wife Nancy in prison." seems entirely irrelevant. I vote for its removal. 173.11.74.233 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)pfadfaog

It's sourced. I've also seen at least one other source with his father saying rather much the same thing about the LSD. Please keep in mind, the text doesn't assert that LSD brought about these woes, the text only asserts that a family member has brought it up in public. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of irrelevant though, unless someone ties it to his future actions. If we need to trim stray details that should be one of the first to go. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Garrido's father and brother assert that his accident and LSD use changed him, neither was especially surprised to hear he was arrested, and neither has seen him in a long time or been to the house where the girls were. Multiple reliable sources contain this information, and as short background on Garrido, it's relevant. I don't think there's any need to try to create a full biography of the man, but these few details do seem relevant.  Frank  |  talk  18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't object to it staying if it what you say there is eventually reflected in the article, but right now it just says he used LSD at one point with no information about why that might be important. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:40, 29 August 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)

the talk page

Editors should be posting about their sweeping edits here, before making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article, owing to too many sweeping IP edits having been made without first gathering consensus on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please mind however, if experienced editors carry on making sweeping changes to this article without talking about them first on this talk page, I will protect the article from all editing in whatever version I happen to find it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to separate out a factual narrative of "what happened". That does not require commentary and quotations and analysis by the media. I think that the problem is here is that the tent living that the three victims endured, even though it may sound unacceptable to us, attained (for lack of a better phrase) a sense of normalcy for them. In particular, for Jaycee, having had two children and a private life with the biological father (and who-knows how much religion filling in the gaps), we have yet to determine why she did not attempt to escape as an adult. My point is: after around 2002, we do not know that she was being held in physical captivity. She certainly was not being starved or physically tortured. It is not for us to say that "some sense of normalcy set in", but it is for us to inform the reader that it no longer occurred to her to try to escape (perhaps because she did not perceive herself as suffering or in immediate danger). All of the psycho-babble in the press in Monday-morning quarterbacking. Matters is: after some point there is some basis for that guilt she is not feeling and I suspect it is because she did not try to escape as an adult because she just adjusted to it and muddled through. I think that my biggest problem with the press/law enforcement is the "house of horrors". Where is the torture, the chains, the dental caries and missing teeth, the scars of untreated disease or tragic accidents because of the ignorance these people were kept in? Were they living in their own filth or in squalor? If you offer that situation to one of Jimmy Wales' "children in Africa" or some mentally ill homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk in San Francisco, they might find it to be a step up. The "horrors" have yet to become available to us, if they exist at all. Are the perps going to prison for decades if not the rest of their lives? They are likely to get the book thrown at them and the some. These three victims were kept in some ignorance and thereby were they captives. Again: the facts point to this: some sense of normalcy set in and we have yet to find that the "house of horrors" is anything more than verbiage for the district attorney.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am suggest that we avoid:

• quotations (WP should find it own voice to say "what happened" to what degree of verifiability)
• experts who have not been officially involved (Bill Frist about other events comes to mind).
• anything but the NPOV facts (which does not include he said... she said... analysis, pyscho-babble and blah blah blah)

--76.199.103.224 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotations of witnesses are ok. "Experts" in this "field" can be dodgy. I happen to agree about "psycho-babble" but the pith is, big edits should be talked about here first. You're very welcome to carry on making sourced input here on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 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)

Infobox

Jaycee Dugard
Born	Jaycee Lee Dugard (1980-05-03) May 3, 1980 Garden Grove, California
Nationality	American
Children	Two daughters Born c. 1994, c. 1998
Parent	Mother: Terry Probyn
Relatives	Stepfather: Carl Probyn

"Emotion does not trump logic at Wikipedia. We are not trying to "win" what Steele and Beasor characterize as a "game". Wikipedia is not a business deal. It is an encyclopaedia. Well-argued statements do beat personal, subjective tastes."--"WP:I just don't like it"

The removal of the infobox on the right margin with the rationale of WP:BLP is not the type of precise deletion rationales envisioned by WP:Preserve. In my opinion, if an editor has an wholesale aversion to infoboxes, s/he should be honest with hi/rself and say so. (This is not an attack. It is, rather, a statement of my sincere belief.) ↜Just M E here , now 21:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't even mention infoboxes... and all the information is available in the article anyway. Unless an actual explanation can be provided I think the infobox should be restored. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Comment on content, not the editor. I've already asked JMHN to gather consensus here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Person infoboxes" within our encyclopedia should not repeat details found elsewhere in articles where they're used? Gwen, if this isn't what you getting at, please explain what it is you do mean.

Your deletion rationale is where BLP was brought up, Gwen. If I have exasperation with the arguement you've presented (or, in this case, not presented) -- please don't interpret it as exasperation with you personally. ↜Just M E here , now 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Infoboxes can be helpful, but they can also quickly narrow a topic's PoV if not carefully sourced. This is not about a lone, sparse infobox on JLD. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some pertinent questions: Anyone have suggestions on making any of them more sparse? Should one or another be removed altogether? (And if so, why?) ↜Just M E here , now 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't wait for consensus, but it'll have sway either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy discussion of this at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The consensus there was that when the article is about an event rather than a person, person infoboxes are not appropriate. Same conclusion was reached on Fritzl case and other similar articles. Are we going to be consistent on this article? Harry the Dog WOOF 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont agree with you because for example Josef Fritzl has an infobow, Meredith Kerchers attackers has infoboxes, Casey Anthony has infoboxes. And remember that without Jaycee there wouldnt be any kidnapping at all so to say that she isnt entitled to an ifnobox when most people is interested in her as a person it not correct either i think. I say lets keep the infobox. anything that can makethis case clearer is in favour of this article.--Judo112 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I alos personally like the Garridos infoboxes as that establish more of who they are in comparison to their victim. In some articles without infoboxes you dont know who is who sometimes its just a long article which doesnt establish my interest atleast.--Judo112 (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fritzl case info box was added against consensus and has since been removed. This is a major problem with Wikipedia, and one of the reasons it is not taken seriously in some quarters. Despite all the policies and guidelines that exist, there is no consistency across the encyclopaedia. If most other articles of a similar nature don't have infoboxes as a result of carefully built consensus on those articles, surely a new article like this one should take guidance from that. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A project-wide guideline would be useful. Someone should initiate a discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes (although, until then, we should remember WP:Other stuff exists). I've started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Should there be a project-wide policy wrt bio infoboxes in "event" articles? ↜Just M E here , now 18:02, 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 [2] Martin451 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

Huh?

Gwen, can you explain this diff? [3] 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)

FBI "files" data removed -- and restored

This was removed from the article tonight because it was cited by the NY Post:

A few day previous, Garrido had visited the San Francisco office of the FBI and left a four-page rambling essay on his own ideas about religion and sexuality, suggesting that he had discovered some social or religious solution to problem behaviors like his own past crimes.

The citation is an assertion of its factual existence, but editor Frank, calling the NY Post a "tabloid," takes it out of the article with no discussion. However, it is very interesting, the NYPost has often been cited by WP, and if a second ref can be found, it should be reinserted. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I found a Yahoo News ref in which an FBI agent admitted that Garrido had indeed dropped off the file to the FBI, and so i added that to the article, but in that source the agent refused to divulge the nature of the contents or the file length, so the above is still unreffed. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: I found the mention of the FBI file contents on ABC News, here: [4] and will now reinsert the above writing into the article, with slight editing.

My point is that if a piece of text such as the above is poorly cited, it is better to cite-tag it than to delete it without any comment here. It took me half an hour to find another cite, but it was worth the trouble. And it would have taken less time had i just been able to do the work without having to drag the text, and my questions about it, to the talk page as part of the whole process.

Thanks for reading this. --cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability. That does not mean we add stuff we heard and hope we can then come up with citations in reliable sources later. This article directly covers at least five living persons whose rights and privacy must be respected whether they are criminals or not, whether they are Internet-savvy or not, and indeed whether they care or not. We have a responsibility to disseminate responsible, accurate, properly sourced information. Whether any individual source is or has been used as a reliable source is quite beside the point; the specific article was as tabloid as they come, starting with the first word in its title ("fiend") and moving right through "insanity" and "twisted rapist". I am not making any judgment as to the accuracy of those descriptions, but I most certainly am making a judgment as to whether or not they represent that article as a reliable source regarding the subject. They show such a skewed, sensational view of the topic matter that the article cannot, by itself, be considered a reliable source.  Frank  |  talk  11:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

On another note regarding the New York Post-as-tabloid question, see New York Post#Criticism.  Frank  |  talk  16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank, i understand your loathing for the New York Post, but that is not relevant. To repeat what i wrote earrlier: "My point is that if a piece of text such as the above is poorly cited, it is better to cite-tag it than to delete it without any comment here."

In other words, please alert one of your willing colleagues to the need for a better citation from a more reputable source by using cite-tag mark-up, rather than deleting an entire paragraph of factual material from the article. Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Loathing" is your word, not mine; I merely referred to whether or not it is a reliable source. As for your point, I am usually one to call others to task for invoking WP:BLP, but I think it applies in this case. We are always bound by WP:V as one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, but when what we are writing is potentially legally actionable against the Wikipedia Foundation, there is an urgency attached as well. My judgment was that the edit in question could not stay as it was written, with only the Post as a "source". I stand by that judgment. Nothing prevents a willing colleague from re-adding information...after a suitable source is found.  Frank  |  talk  19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seed ref for "see also" development

Pursuant to what should be proper for the "See also" list, here is a short compilation article on similar cases: Child kidnap victims who escaped or were found published by the Contra Costa Times, 08/27/2009. Among other things it gives details of the two chilld kidnappings by Luis "Tree Frog" Johnson, which, for some reason, has not been written up here at Wikipedia. Here's a quick overview of that case, also known lcoally in the SF Bay Area as the kidnapping of Tara Burke and as the Alex Cabarga case: [5] and here is a longer,15-year retrospective on the Tara Burke side of that complex case from the San Francisco Chronicle [6]. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims

I have added a comment from Elizabeth Smart about the situation. Jaycee's situation is more complex because Phillip Dugard's well-loved children are clearly the biological offspring of Phillip. My mind informs me that the children will soon ask when they will next visit their father. While this complicates the separation of good and evil (e.g. this person is "good" and that other person is "evil"), I think that we should use our judgment. While Phillip Garrido might spend much or all of the rest of his natural days in prison, his two children would not exist without him. I did not invent this World; I am just pointing out that his children might require that such psychic dissonance be minimized. They might still love their Daddy for giving them Life at all. They might accommodate visiting "Daddy in jail" and otherwise get on with Life. Even Jaycee is still sorting out the logical dissonance of her situation (note her supposed "guilt" in not attempting to escape) and take the advice of Ms. Smart and forgo "years of counseling" and whatnot. She might just start with some minimum-wage job bagging groceries, go back to school and proceed (and ultimately say: "What of it?") For now: she was clearly abducted but we have yet to determine how many years of "captivity" and "abuse" she experienced. I hope that she finds her voice and expresses hersefl about what happened, especially in the sense of to what degree was she "confined".--Thalustan (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above is speculation that has no reliable source. Did the rapist truly "well love " the children of him and his victim? Reliable non-pedophile sources, please? Edison (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?

There is no reason to move this article to a title beginning with "alleged". As reported for 18 years by reliable sources, she was kidnapped. Whether or not a particular person or persons committed the crime is not the point. At the moment, while they have pleaded "not guilty", there are two suspects in custody. We refer to them as "alleged kidnappers" - as is appropriate, but the crime itself is widely reported to have occurred. If this is changing, let's have some cites to support it.  Frank  |  talk  13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC) (I reversed the move already.)

I agree with Frank's reasoning. I see nothing wrong with leaving this article at "Kidnapping of..." The courts will decide if the suspects are criminally guilty so they should be refered to as "alleged" but the article title should stay.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No reliable source has indicated that it was anything but a kidnapping. Edison (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Jaycee Dugard had access to phone and email at the printing business these people had. She had email acquaintances via that business that she was able to carry on email conversations with. Please keep that in mind when you are tempted to write that they were "held captive" or were "abused for 18 years" or other such notions. Like it or not, in those two girls minds, these people were a family and that was their home. I think that we have yet to determine which phrases are the most appropriate when talk about these felons, but I encourage you to remain skeptical.--Thalustan (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism is usually a good thing. However, it's one thing to be skeptical; it's another to jump to conclusions. The function of Wikipedia is to summarize what others have investigated and written. If multiple reliable sources are saying that she was "held captive", we can hardly do otherwise. If it changes, then we change as well. There is absolutely no question that "held captive" is the right phrase to use right now, because that's what the sources say.  Frank  |  talk  19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And I encourage you to provide citations for these pieces of information and incorporate them into the article. "We" are not making allegations. "We" are not determining states of being or legal precedence. "We" are documenting what others are saying. Acepting the inevitability of Godwin's Law I must refer to Hitler. He said the German's were a superior race. That doesn't make it true, it's just what he said. The police and others say she was "held captive", not I. In point of fact, I have yet to refer to the person at all. Padillah (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaycee Dugard, at times, answered the front door of the home. I expect that, from time to time, she was living in the main structure and at other times was in the series of sheds and tents in the back. Maybe they were too noisy for Garrido's elderly, senile mother. The backyard looks messy, but perhaps, after some point, it was not exactly a prison. One of the sheds *could* be locked from the outside, but was it and, if so, when? Was it locked such that they would be trapped in case of a fire? It will still be some time before we get some of these answers.--Thalustan (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And, when we do, then we can write about them. In the meantime, with all due respect, what you "expect" is not what we write about here. We write what others have written in reliable sources.  Frank  |  talk  19:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We do, of course, refer to observations of Dugard's apparent Stockholm syndrome. (That a sex slave kidnapped from an early age, who has, by degrees, been allowed more and more freedom in recognition of her felicity to the promises she had made to her captor, might feel ambivalence/guilt were she to violate this adopted belief system should not be surprising, nor that she might never have gone out of her way to do so. After all, such as it was, these mores would appear to be her adopted culture, even "religion." Cf: ancient Romans' worship of their emperor whereas Christians' not doing so; -- many Hindus' refusal to partake of beef; many Muslims and Jews, pork; many Americans, horsemeat; -- &c.... ) ↜Just M E here , now 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Without sources, it's all original research and shouldn't be brought here. This page is for talking about how the text can be built with sources, please take care to cite them. This is even more meaningful on the talk page of a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are,in the news, with regrettable frequency, reports of lunatics murdering children, even their descendants. The threat of this would have been an effective countermeasure against a kidnapped female fleeing alone from her captor, or calling the police. Rapist/kidnappers commonly threaten harm to the victims and their loved ones if the crime is reported. Edison (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed content that was not in sources

I've reverted this edit because the two sources provided do say that "[i]nvestigations began in late August 2009 that Phillip Craig Garrido also killed various girls whose bodies were found over the years nearby offices of clients to his printing business", but they do not say "Not soon after public speculation in the form of blogs and forum posts began that over the many years Jaycee drew a strong bond with her captor and it was possible she was somehow involved." Where do these sources say that Jaycee was involved in the deaths of the other girls? SRobbins, please do not restore this information until you establish consensus on this talk page to so. Cunard (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, public commentary on a news article is at best a primary source the use of which to support content about what is being said in public is arguably original research. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:SOURCES. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The content is in these sources. If you read the public comments you would find one here "http://abcnews.go.com/US/comments?type=story&id=8451296" under comments by "ZeeCupla" and one here "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/31/earlyshow/main5276887.shtml" in public comments by "MarioGelman". This is clearly not original thought, but a developing public reaction and as such belongs in. Because this clippet is about public reaction and these are direct public sources for wiki to refence public reaction, it is relevant.

Not only that I will remind you that the good faith guide requires discussion before deleting, and as outlined by the vandalism page, deletion of content is vandalism and therefore is punishable. Its unacceptable to delete information on wiki with out discussion as outlined by wiki guides(this is called vandalism). Cunard, you should know before everyone here that you do not delete before discussion. Last Warning both of you! --SRobbins (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please understand and appreciate the difference between primary and secondary sources. Please read WP:SOURCES, in particular:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

A public comment on an article is a primary source. An article about such commentary, for which we have no citations, would be a secondary source. We rely on secondary sources here.

As noted by Gwen below, content removed in good faith, especially with reason specified in the edit summary, much less explained on the Talk page as is being done here, is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. See also the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle essay to learn more about how articles naturally evolve in Wikipedia, and what is appropriate/inappropriate behavior in that process. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

More: Posts in comment sections and blogs are almost always not allowed as citations because they were not made by reliable sources through editorial means. These can be removed with a straightforward edit summary with little or no followup discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's different. Posts in comment sections are not reliable with respect to the veracity of what they're claiming, but they're very reliable with respect to what is being claimed (accurate or not) in them. Even so, they are primary sources, and we can't use them. We have to wait until someone writes an article about such commentary.

This is an issue of notability, not reliability. What is at issue here is not whether people are speculating about Dugard in posts in comment sections - that's established. The issue is whether these speculations are sufficiently notable to mention in this article, and, until someone picks it up in a secondary source, we assume it's not. This is similar to the google maps discovery above. We editors don't decide whether the issue is notable - we wait until secondary sources decide that it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content in good faith is not vandalism, but can quickly become disruptive if it carries on in disagreement and there are no BLP worries with the deleted content. This said, I've seen a lot of careless editing here. Please slow down, watch how text and cites match up before putting in more text and cites and try to talk about sweeping edits here first. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, its all clear now. We need a source like a news paper or article that points to this trend first. That makes sense. Thanks. --SRobbins (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We only follow the pack of reliable sources, we never lead. Edison (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)