Jump to content

Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bt1159 (talk | contribs)
48 edits
Tag: Reverted
Bt1159 (talk | contribs)
48 edits
No edit summary
Line 111: Line 111:


The vandalism on this article resumed immediately after semi protection was lifted yesterday. The same disputed edits are being made by new user [[User:Laycee jay]] and an anonymous IP address after [[User:Alizabeth blon]] was indefinitely blocked yesterday. I suggest that the page be protected. [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] ([[User talk:Bookworm857158367|talk]]) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The vandalism on this article resumed immediately after semi protection was lifted yesterday. The same disputed edits are being made by new user [[User:Laycee jay]] and an anonymous IP address after [[User:Alizabeth blon]] was indefinitely blocked yesterday. I suggest that the page be protected. [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] ([[User talk:Bookworm857158367|talk]]) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

== Clarification in the first paragraph about the two daughters ==

I suggest editing the following sentence, which appears in the first paragraph of this article:
{{Quote |"Dugard remained missing until 2009, when a convicted sex offender, Phillip Garrido, visited the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, accompanied by two girls, now known to be his daughters, on August 24 and 25 that year."}}

When I read this, I did not understand that the two girls were now known to be Garrido's daughters WITH DUGARD. Their ages and the fact that he was visiting a police office on the campus are not mentioned until much later. When reading this first paragraph, if you have very little background knowledge on the topic, I read this sentence and imagined that Garrido was taking two teenaged daughters to visit a college campus and these two daughters were probably Phillip and Nancy Garrido's daughters. I suggest the following, or something like it:

"Dugard remained missing until 2009, when a convicted sex offender, Phillip Garrido, visited the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, accompanied by two adolescent girls, now known to be the biological daughters of Garrido and Dugard, on August 24 and 25 that year."

[[User:Bt1159|Bt1159]] ([[User talk:Bt1159|talk]]) 13:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:40, 10 June 2021

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 June 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

contradictory news reports -

Both of these would seem to be at odds with the wording of the article: 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jaycee-dugard-shuts-biological-father-kenneth-slayton/story?id=10930464

https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/04/06/dugard-expresses-no-interest-in-her-biological-father/7184283/

... yet the article categorically states " . . . Dugard's mother, Terry Dugard, that resulted in a pregnancy of which he was unaware." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.216 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding kittens

The article indicates that on 2 occasions, Dugard was presented with "kittens" that later "mysteriously vanish". This information is cited (citation #20 http://abcnews.go.com/US/jaycee_dugard/jaycee-dugard-interview-describes-giving-birth-phillip-garridos/story?id=14021938) The news article clearly states that there was a single occasion with a single kitten that was taken from Dugard for a reason that was clearly expressed. The phrase "mysteriously vanish", despite being presented in quotations is not present in the news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerTheSeeker (talk • contribs) 06:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant info

This article is about the Dugard kidnapping, not a biographical article about Dugard. Therefore, I fail to see what relevance this has: 

 When Dugard was rescued, Slayton expressed an interest in meeting his daughter and taking a paternity test. Dugard expressed no interest at the time in having a relationship with Slayton.

I think we should take it out.—Chowbok ☠ 15:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior of the perpetrator before, during and after Dugard's experience is relevant for inclusion. Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Slayton's not the perpetrator. He had nothing to do with the case at all, except that he was briefly a suspect (which is appropriately noted).—Chowbok ☠ 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confusing Slayton with Garrido?—Chowbok ☠ 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove this, but I would welcome other opinions. MPS1992 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok, regarding this unjustified revert you need to stop right now. Reverting during a talk page discussion is a not how talk page discussion works, and no, doing so because the person you disagree with hasn't responded to the last thing you said less than 24 hours since you said it is NOT a valid rationale. Okay? And given how long you've been editing here and your edit count, I don't think any other reasonable editor is going to buy the notion that you somehow didn't know this, and thought that this move on your part was made in good faith.

My accidentally confusing Slayton and Garrido aside, information on major developments in the life of the article subject following her rescue is obviously relevant to the article, and interest expressed by her biological father in meeting her and establishing paternity is indeed a valid example of this. If you want to have a consensus discussion with other editors, then I'd be happy to set one up for you. If that's what you want, then say the word. But please do not delete content before such a consensus is reached. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I waited literally months for you to respond originally. It's pretty clear that you only respond when the page is not how you want it.—Chowbok ☠ 08:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing "clear" here is that you don't seem to have much regard for WP:AGF. Why am I not suprised?
The truth, once we put away your ad hominem false accusation, is that I was not aware of your attempt to start a discussion here until days ago.
Again, do you want me to invite more editors to this discussion for a proper consensus? That is, after all, one of the proper ways in which editorial disputes are settled here --y'know, for those editors who do not merely edit articles according to the "how you want it" approach. That's why I made this suggestion above, though I notice you haven't responded to it. Why is that? Nightscream (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting awfully hostile. Do you always deal with content disputes in this manner? I don't have a problem with recruiting other editors to this page, as long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:CANVASS.—Chowbok ☠ 16:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your ignoring this discussion for several days now demonstrates what I said above; you only show up here if the page isn't how you want it. You're not interested in discussion, clearly.—Chowbok ☠ 03:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. That's just your ad hominem assumption.
The truth is simply that I, like every other editor here, have other things going on my life, and don't visit Wikipedia every day, and if I do, I may not recall every communication I'm having with others, especially if I don't receive a notice for it in my Notifications. If you can falsify that, then do so. If you can't, then your accusation is exposed for rhetorical comment that it is. Bottom line, you're just attacking someone you disagree with ad hominem, believing what you jolly well want to believe. That's what precisely what WP:AGF prohibits us from doing, and you're ignoring it because you don't feel like reining in your tendency to react emotionally. Nightscream (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're being quite disingenuous. I know that people have lives outside Wikipedia, and if you hadn't been doing edits during this time, I wouldn't have said anything. But clearly you've had time to be working on the site, as you have had many edits since you last posted here. What you're doing is clear; you edit the page to your taste, claim that it can't be reverted because it's under discussion, and then ignore the discussion. Convenient how that works out. As for your accusations that I'm not assuming good faith; projecting much? Pot, kettle.—Chowbok ☠ 06:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again. That's just your assumption.
One that you're mindlessly glomming onto for emotional reasons, and not because you eliminated other possibilities, or even showed how yours is the more likely one. You're just believing what you jolly well feel like believing, deluding yourself into thinking that this is somehow a truth. Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it is worth, I agree that information about Dugard’s father is completely irrelevant and I will also remove it if it is added again. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to add the names of the daughters

I see that a user keeps adding the names of Dugsrd's two daughters, which hardly seems necessary. THis has been discussed in the past and it was consensus to leave out their names as they are private individuals. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has continually reverted and added the names of Dugard’s daughters, despite repeated warnings from several editors and requests to discuss this here on the talk page. I have reverted it again, but I wonder if the page should be protected for awhile. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's now semi-protected for a while. Not wanting to say too much per an approximation of WP:BEANS, but we might end up being back and forth with blocks and page protection a couple of times on this. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alizabeth blon has returned and is making the same edits she was previously banned for. I have warned her that naming the daughters in the article without discussion on the talk page could be a violation of the Biography of Living Persons Policy. The daughters are private individuals known only for being daughters of a famous kidnapping victim. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bookworm857158367 It's happening again. In the past few days I have reverted two potential edits by different users who added the children's names. (I hope it was appropriate to add your Wikipedia username here so that you would see my message. If it was inappropriate, feel free to revert it and let me know. Thank you.) Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure it’s the same person coming back with different accounts and IP addresses. It’s a Biography of Living Persons violation and persistent disruptive editing by the same user, who persists in making the same identical disputed edit without discussing it on the talk page. I would say we need to request that the page be protected again and perhaps that the IP range be blocked. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it is locked and only Wikipedia editors with "pages with edits awaiting review" rights (I have them) are able to approve or disapprove the edits, so I think the protection is working. I just wanted to let someone know that it's still going on. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just made a request that the article be placed under temporary full protection. Temporary semi-protected status was lifted yesterday and the user immediately returned and resumed making the disputed edit without discussion. I also warned the first editor who made the first edit you reverted yesterday. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection still required

The vandalism on this article resumed immediately after semi protection was lifted yesterday. The same disputed edits are being made by new user User:Laycee jay and an anonymous IP address after User:Alizabeth blon was indefinitely blocked yesterday. I suggest that the page be protected. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Dugard&oldid=1027869301"