Talk:Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia user[edit]

I think I know him from Wikipedia. Is he Wikipedia editor and if so then should we mentioned that in the article? --- A. L. M. 13:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • He was a prolific wikipedia contributor. When he is back in Canada, I expect he will be interviewed, and will talk about this. I think that will be the time to go into more detail. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know him? Jason from nyc (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I hope he returns here. He was a better writer than I am, and an amazing researcher. I've missed his participation.

    What he should probably do is save all his writing energy for writing a book about his family's ordeal.

    If he doesn't return here I hope to see him. He is supposed to arrive back in Canada tonight. Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says "They married in Costa Rica in 2011 while travelling for 6 months throughout all of the countries of Central America." No problem, but I have problems with how do you finance 6 months of travelling? Just curious, no judgement. If you know him, maybe you know that one. 2001:8003:A921:6300:ED98:A450:F0A9:A5DD (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: That is very interesting to know. I am sure he will read this article, and perhaps this talk page, and have a lot to offer from his tragic yet remarkable experience. It brings to light another recent case, Shahbaz Taseer, who found freedom in a similar way. I look forward to the book, if it ever comes around. Btw, this talk page hasn't been moved correctly, as the article title is different. Mar4d (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know WP:OUTING prohibits revealing personal information about a user. Does it also apply in the reverse situation of revealing the WP user name of someone in the public eye? I am very curious as to who this editor who apparently wrote all our terrorism articles is, but I don't want rules to be broken.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: I believe I have a clue about the username. But yes, as far as WP:OUTING goes, he did not publicly disclose his username, only acknowledged that he edited Wikipedia. Therefore it would be inappropriate to mention that within the article, in addition to it being unsourced. Mar4d (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pretty good chance he didn't write as much as he claims (or thinks) he did.TVGarfield (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TVGarfield: I won't delve too much. But the username I believe to be true was indeed a veteran editor. Noting his previous marriage to Zaynab Khadr, an article which was merged and redirected recently. The details are there to see. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
interesting. I can't say I have much knowledge here at the moment. Maybe a little looking around when I get time.TVGarfield (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper article this morning about his edits. He was User:Sherurcij. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Earl Andrew: Boyle's Wikipedia username is not a mystery. It was identified months ago in the New York Times. When I used it on this talkpage, I was accused of WP:OUTING. When I pointed out the sourcing, I was forgiven but my identification of Boyle was oversighted. You can take a look at the discussion on my talkpage or the one I started on Jimbo's page. You might want to remove your comment until this is settled. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One source is questionable, two points make a line. Consider it settled. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source being questionable was never raised as a justification for oversighting the information. Considering that the source was The New York Times and the identification was corroborated by statements Boyle made about his editing (“Anything related to terrorism on Wikipedia, I wrote, pretty much"), it seems unlikely that was a concern. This isn't the place to discuss it, but this is far from settled. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My choice of wording wasn't great. I meant that one source is not confirmation, even if it is the NYTimes. The OS decision was based on the fact that the connection was not specifically listed as "he said he edited as...", but since there is a second source that's confirmation of a sort. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The rationale for oversighting this was quite clear. It was not concerns about the source or the lack of corroboration. It was about whether Joshua Boyle "voluntarily" disclosed his username. You even wrote on my talk page " the outing guidelines are pretty specific that unless a user has posted their real name on Wikipedia or otherwise disclosed said information, it should be considered outing". That has nothing to do with the number of sources. The Oversight Committee made a bad decision. It was probably a well-intentioned decision, but it was a bad one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just ignore The OS decision was based on the fact that the connection was not specifically listed as "he said he edited as..." from my statement. But as you said earlier, it's over and done with, and we don't need to spend more time debating a decision that has already been discussed to death. At least, not here, because this talk is for discussing the article. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Talk:Oversight. I hope that's the right place for it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

explanation[edit]

On October 13, 2017 World's Lamest Critic moved this article from Joshua Boyle to Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman, with the edit summary "Per WP:BLP1E. Notability comes from kidnapping. Not otherwise notable.)"

I am reverting this undiscussed move, because reporters first started covering Boyle over three years prior to the coverage of the kidnapping. as in this article, about the break-in at his parent's house, A break-in, a slaying, a Khadr marriage mystery.

Boyle's first marriage, to Omar Khadr's sister, is repeated in just about every article in a newspaper that is right of center. Geo Swan (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2016 in reference to the kidnapping of Boyle and Coleman. Although Boyle's marriage to Zaynab Khadr may be mentioned in news reports, it is not in itself notable. There would never be a Joshua Boyle article here because he was married to Khadr. Zaynab Khadr is itself a redirect to Khadr family. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. It is the event that is notable, not Boyle (or Coleman or their children or their kidnappers). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article was started in 2016. So what?
  • Please don't conflate the date of notability with the date the article was created. Lots of individuals were notable for years, or had notability that preceded the creation of the wikipedia, but had articles about them started relatively recently, because that is when a good faith contributor noticed their notability, or found the time to do the research necessary to start the article
  • I started a google news alert on Boyle in 2012, shortly after I learned about his kidnapping. I think I could have started an article about him then. I was conflicted about doing so, and, in the end, I did not start it, out of deference to his family. Someone else started the article.
  • Joshua is a complicated guy. His history is complicated. His personal intellectual positions are complicated. And he was captured by the Taliban, a group known for being simple-minded fundamentalist zealots. I'd have hated to be responsible for him and his family receiving worse treatment if one of his barely literate captors googled him at an internet cafe, and got pissed off by wikipeda coverage he didn't really understand.
  • Please remember that notability is cumulative, not binary. Some of our special purpose notability guidelines establish a few loop-holes. When an individual wins a Nobel prize, or is awarded a Victoria Cross, that alone is sufficient to establish notability . But the notability of almost all our BLP articles is calculated by adding up multiple notability factors. Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is someone you know personally, so please do not interpret my comments about notability as being in any way disparaging toward Joshua Boyle personally. The news reports about Boyle and his family only exist because they were kidnapped and then freed. It is the event that is notable, not Boyle. A similar case might be Death of Linda Norgrove. There is no reason why Boyle could not have his own article in the future if it is warranted, but if he was not notable before he was kidnapped then he is not notable now. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning sounds illogical. The news report given was before he was kidnapped, at that time you'd argue that he was not notable as he was associated with Khadr (here you'd see that that what he was best known for - [1]), in that instance you would say that WP:BLP1E would apply. Now he is involved in two separate incidences, therefore arguing that WP:BLP1E should apply is illogical. He is the major part of this event, but in this case he was also known as a spokesman for the family and his marriage to Zaynab Khadr and there were coverage about him before this event. Hzh (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boyle is "a major part" of this event only because he was taken hostage. Again, it is the event (the hostage taking, captivity, liberation, and aftermath) that the media is reporting on, not Boyle personally. There is currently no article for Caitlan Coleman, but had she been in the news prior to the kidnapping for accidentally falling down a well or winning a spelling bee, I would make the same argument that BLP1E applies here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't argue in reference to another article (because if one is wrong, then every article that is argued based on it that would also be wrong), you argue in reference to guideline. Given that the guideline says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" arguing based on WP:BLP1E is obviously wrong when he was covered in relation to other events. Hzh (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the question comes down to this - if an individual is involved in two or more separate events that would fall under BLP1E, does BLP1E still apply? I would agree that it does not, but neither is that individual automatically notable and we should use editorial judgment based on that guidance. The other two points in the policy are whether the person is "a low-profile individual" and whether the event and the individual's role in the event is significant. Joshua Boyle, as an individual, is a low-profile individual. His media coverage is in relation having married someone with their own associated notoriety, and having been kidnapped. As far as the marriage goes, it was not a significant event. As far as the kidnapping goes, it is a significant event, but not one that Boyle initiated or controlled. So his role is not significant (or no more significant than his wife or their children). As WP:BIO1E says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to stretch what is meant by the guideline into something it is not meant to say. A "low-profile" individual is someone a national media outlet would not normally report on, if he was covered by the media, then he was not low-profile. It would not make sense for a newspaper to say that he is "perhaps best known for his brief marriage to Omar Khadr’s older sister." - [2] (how can anyone be best-known for something if he or she is low-profile?). In any case point two is about whether he remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Given the current global publicity about him, of course he does not remain low-profile. As for the future, I have no idea how you'd know what would happen, but it is irrelevant anyway given that he is already known for more than one events. It also renders your point about with WP:BIO1E irrelevant, because he was previously known for something else. I have no idea where you get the idea that he needed to initiate or control the event before he could be considered significant (presumably by your argument only the aggressor could be notable, the victim never? I'd like to see you back that up with guidelines. I'd guess you might want to delete articles on victims like Daniel Pearl, Leon Klinghoffer, etc.). Hzh (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:BLP1E that says "if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". We can disagree on what is meant by that, but if someone falls into a well (or is kidnapped), I would say that their role is incidental, not substantial. It happened to them, not because of them. I haven't suggested this article be deleted, so why would you assume that I would want to delete articles of Pearl or Klinghoffer? But since you ask, I would suggest either reworking the Klinghoffer article to be about his murder or redirecting it to the Achille Lauro hijacking. Klinghoffer is a clear case of BLP1E. Perhaps start a request for comment because we seem to be going in circles now. If you're looking for a guideline that addresses this particular situation, there isn't one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid all you have demonstrated is a very odd and idiosyncratic interpretation of the guideline. I very much doubt there is anyone who will agree with your understanding of what "individual's role" here means, all the news outlets see the main focus as Joshua Boyle and his family, rather than their captors. I'm here to be convinced, but all you have demonstrated is a particularly idiosyncratic interpretation of the guideline, and a lack of understanding what constitutes notability (Leon Klinghoffer for example is notable enough to become the subject of an opera The Death of Klinghoffer), or even what BLP1E means (you do realise that the L in BLP stands for living?). Read WP:BLP1E carefully: WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals (Leon Klinghoffer has been dead for over 30 years). As you have singularly failed to demonstrate a case for changing the title based on a clear understanding of the guideline, others would be entirely justified to change it back, and it is you who needs to gain consensus and wider support from the Wikipedia community if you want to keep this title. Hzh (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Hzh, I should have said Klinghoffer is a clear case of WP:BIO1E, not BLP1E. And he is. I don't know why anyone would waste their energy arguing over what this article is titled since there will doubtlessly be an article here about the event. I would not be surprised if there is also a separate article on Joshua Boyle at some point. It seems like a lot of effort to end up in the same place, but you do whatever you feel is right. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, it is worrying that you are not fully aware what the guidelines are meant for. The notability of Leon Klinghoffer has already gone beyond his initial killing, yet you are still arguing that the article should be reworked or redirected. I would suggest that you read carefully the guidelines and understand them before you attempt to change another article again. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, Hzh? I am pretty familiar with the policies and guidelines here (especially as regards WP:BLP). We are arguing about editorial discretion, not policy. There is no explicit mention in BLP1E of what happens if someone is involved in two things that would separately be considered as meeting BLP1E. So we are left to discuss and interpret. As for Klinghoffer, it really should just be a redirect to the main article, but it is a sacred cow so I have no intention of touching it. Can we agree to disagree, unless you have something new to bring to this? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page and article are now at seperate locations. The equivalent talk page has had an edit, so only an admin can really fix this so I've request help at WP:RM. Note this is not a statement in support nor opposition to the move. If the article is moved page to Joshua Boyle and this fixes the issue, please feel free to remove the request at WP:RM Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert POV renaming[edit]

The article on Joshua Boyle was boldly renamed. This bold renaming, without prior discussion, was a serious mistake. I reverted this, and the bold renamer reverted me, also, IMO, a serious mistake. Policy says when there is a disagreement over a bold rename, the article should be left at the original name, until the dispute is resolved.

Above the bold renamer made some claims, specious, IMO, that BLP1e required this renaming. But Joshua was not a BLP1E, as he had meaningful coverage dating back to his first marraige, to Zaynab Khadr.

Today breaking news is that Boyle was arrested, and faces 15 criminal charges. There is a publication ban on who the alleged victims would have been, but one detail that has been published is that the acts occurred after his return to Canada.

I think that Joshua merits a standalone article, as per BLP3E. Does Caitlan Coleman also merit a standalone article? Less clear, but I think she does as well. If we undo the inappropriate eventizing of what started as an article on Boyle, and create an article on Coleman, should they both link to an article named Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman? I dunno.

Boyle was a friend of mine, in the 2006-2010 period. COI rules apply to me actually editing an article on Boyle. I don't know Coleman, so I think that means COI does not apply to edits that concern her, and not Boyle.

Boyle is a former wikipedia contributor, a prolific contributor, so I would like to see us comply very strictly with NPOV and other policies to make sure we don't imply he is guilty of these charges that we know practically nothing about. I think this is best done if Boyle has his own article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Boyle should be treated in the same way we treat any living person on Wikipedia. It is obviously easier to monitor one article than two, but it may become necessary to have a separate article on Joshua Boyle. We haven't reached that point yet. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't use to strawman arguments. No one requested wikipedia policy be set aside for Boyle. Rather I called for us to comply with NPOV and other policies. Your BLP1E arguments, in the sections above, were specious, as Boyle was the subject of on-going press coverage prior to his capture.

    As to your assertion that "it is obviously easier to monitor one article than two"... The wikipedia is written for its READERS, not for the convenience of quality control volunteers. If we allowed every quality control volunteer to call for the elimination of every article they weren't personally interested in, based on a claim it wasn't "easy" to monitor them, we would eventually have no articles left.

    In response to your assertion "...it may become necessary to have a separate article on Joshua Boyle. We haven't reached that point yet..." Since Boyle was the subject of on-going press coverage prior to his capture, and the Joshua Boyle article was NEVER an instance of BLP1E, the point where he merited a stand-alone article was prior to your counter-policy bold rename, when Elyeri first started the article in October of 2016. Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: As you know, Joshua Boyle was created by User:Sherurcij, not Elyeri who moved that original article to create this one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • World's Lamest Critic, there is a crucial point, which several of us have repeated, several times, which you still haven't addressed. BLP1E only applies to individuals who are known for a single event. Boyle was already known for serving as spokesman for the Khadr family. Boyle was already known for marrying Zaynab Khadr. Boyle was already known for the break-in to his parents house, where his laptop was stolen, with some commentators suggesting it bore all the signs of a traditional "black-bag job", committed by rogue security officials. A highly alert reporter on the Ottawa crime beat read the apparently routine police report of an apparently routine burglary, and noticed that one of the victims had recently married the sister of Omar Khadr. This is how the world learned of Boyle's marraige to Khadr.

    It doesn't matter if you regard all those as a single event. It doesn't matter if you would have argued, prior to Boyle's capture by the Taliban, that the reporting of Boyle's connection to the Khadr family didn't measure up to the GNG's criteria for a stand-alone article. There are no real grounds to deny that Boyle is known for more than one event, that he was known for multiple significant events, for the entire duration of being covered in a standalone article. I think that makes your bold renaming both indefensible, and, well, a lapse from policy. I think it has to be said that you don't seem interested in trying to make a meaningful effort to offer a substantive, policy-based defense of your claim that Boyle falls under BLP1E.

    Please understand, we are all fallible. I understand that I am fallible, that is why I explicitly own up when I realize I made a mistake, or when someone I disagreed with, made a valid point. I encourage you to try to simply acknowledge when you find you have taken a position you can't defend.

    Elyeri started the article on Joshua Boyle, the human rights worker, and someone else started an article about someone completely unrelated, except that they also happened to be named Joshua Boyle. This is not a substantive defense of your claim that Boyle is an example of an individual known only for a single event.

    If you try to offer sincere and unsarcastic acknowledgement of your fallibility, I think you will find this earns the respect of good faith colleagues. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I am not interested in debating this with you. History shows that it is a waste of my time. If you feel that Joshua Boyle has enough notability for his own article then go head and start it. This article is about the kidnapping and confinement of two people. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reverting to Joshua Boyle. Objectively, is this article more about the kidnapping, or more about Boyle? A quick word count gives:
  • lead - 158
  • 1 Background (intro) - 135
  • 1.1 Boyle's conversion to Islam and first marriage - 291
  • 1.2 The Boyle-Coleman marriage - 70
  • 1.3 Criminal charges - 259
  • 2 Taliban captives - 942
The non-kidnapping parts are about 135+291+70+259 = 755 words, compared to 942 for the kidnapping part. So the non-kidnapping parts are nearly half the article. These parts are (I presume) presently called background to make sense in relation to the title, but would easily stand alone if the article were reverted to Joshua Boyle (which I presume was the former title). More qualitatively, the Khadr family is clearly WP-notable, and Boyle's marriage to Zaynaba Khadr predates the kidnapping.
As for the early history of the article (as pointed out by Geo Swan), this Dec 2016 version has in both the lead and non-lead sections ratios of about 1/3 kidnapping and 2/3 non-kidnapping events in his life.
WP:BIO1E has a useful pointer to Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Pseudo-biographies for some tests:
  • Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?
  • Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage?
    • In gn2, yes, he's in the title: "Canadian held in Afghanistan: Who is Joshua Boyle?", and the article does focus more about him than on the kidnapping.
  • Is the person notable for any other events in their life?
    • Yes: As the present structure shows, Boyle's conversion to Islam and marriage to Khadr, and the criminal case against him, both qualify as notable events. Obviously, the kidapping is a factor in mainstream media's choice to bring attention to the criminal charges, but this is worldwide interest in Boyle as a person (whatever the result of the court case will be) rather than interest in the kidnapping.
So I don't see how this qualifies under WP:BIO1E.
Wikipedia:BLP2E is relevant too: "The important part of BLP1E is the number 1. If reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event, then BLP1E does not apply.".
World's Lamest Critic - if you oppose the revert, then probably a formal WP:RENAME will be needed to get wider consensus. Boud (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I object. The word counts reflect the fact that the article was originally focused on Joshua Boyle. I think you will find that Canadian sources such as the ones you chose are more likely to focus on Boyle since he is a Canadian. We should remember that Boyle was not alone when he was kidnapped and did not spend his captivity alone. He was with Caitlyn Coleman (and then with their children as well). This is not something that happened only to Boyle. BLP1E arguments relate to Boyle being notable enough for a separate article, not to making this article solely about Boyle. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) to[reply]
I just wanted to point out that Geo Swan had noted above that they know the subject in question very well. Would this.not be a conflict of interest?
  • Leave as is. Since the criminal charges, all interest is around Boyle, but if the article is about the freeing of the family, then both names should be included. BUT (devil's advocate): should the article be about an event or about the persons? The latter is more common on Wikipedia and as Boyle's life develops post-freedom, it might make more sense to have two articles, one about him and one about her. Instead of this one about the freeing of the family. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I added more specifics from Coleman's perspective, including comments she made in interviews, such as this one: http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/freed-taliban-american-hostage-mom-describes-brutal-treatment-51268834 Peter K Burian (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been transparent about knowing Boyle, from about 2006 to 2010. I have made close to two dozen edits to the article, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], they were all edits to the article's references, and none were to the article's actual content. I believe this means I was not making edits that lapsed from compliance with COI. WP:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends offers guidance to those who know the subject of a BLP, to refrain "from editing those articles directly" but explicitly allows us to "comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." I did make edits to the article, in early October, before I was reminded of COI, which had not occurred to me. But, since they were edits to fix the references, not contributions of actual content, I don't think any reasonable person could have a problem with those good faith edits.

    Transparency is required, and I have been transparent. My comments about the article are explicitly allowed. Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I don't think there is any reason why you should not continue to make comments and suggestions here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Revise only citations and continue good faith in comments about the content here in the Talk section. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When should our article describe Boyle as a convert to Islam?[edit]

When should our article describe Boyle as a convert to Islam?

Yes, some newspapers have characterized him as a convert to Islam. Some of those characterizations have focussed primarily on his wearing of an "Islamic style beard", as the clincher, forgetting that he attended Mennonite schools, as a youth, and traditional Mennonites, just like the Amish, wear exactly the same style of beard.

I have not seen any press reporting where Boyle himself, or his lawyers or relatives, have said he ever converted to Islam. Yes, it is possible he may have converted to Islam: (1) prior to marrying Zaynab; (2) when he was married to Zaynab; (3) after he was married to Zaynab, but prior to his capture; (4) during his capture.

But until someone who is not a speculating commentator, like Boyle himself, or his wife Caitlin Coleman, his parents, siblings or lawyer confirms this speculation, it remains speculation, and should not be stated in the wikipedia's voice. It particularly does not belong in a section heading.

I would not challenge responsible coverage of the speculation that he was an Islamic convert, so long as it was properly attributed to the actual speculators, and was clearly marked as unconfirmed speculation. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Boyle's conversion to Islam and first marriage[reply]

I did not find a reliable source that said he is a convert. Interviews with one friend said he MIGHT have converted, but that was very vague. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article guesses that he might have converted. No evidence. http://www.businessinsider.com/people-held-captive-by-terrorist-groups-convert-to-islam-isis-taliban-afghanistan-coleman-2017-10

Another article says, Joshua has a loose connection to Afghanistan, a deep respect for Islam — he may even have been in the process of converting http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/joshua-boyle-hes-perhaps-best-known-for-his-link-to-khadr-family Peter K Burian (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AND Coleman, who continues to wear a hijab, declined to answer whether she had converted to Islam. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/us-hostage-caitlan-coleman-pakistan-rescue Peter K Burian (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn Coleman's pregnancy when captured[edit]

This article currently says that Caitlyn Coleman was "was five months pregnant at the time she was kidnapped". This is confirmed by the references currently used. More recent reporting states that Coleman was seven months pregnant when she was captured ([8] and [9]). Another source calls her "well into the third trimester of pregnancy". Yet another source quotes her husband referring to her as his "heavily pregnant wife" at the time of their capture. It seems obvious that since their release more detail is now known about the circumstances (including Coleman's pregnancy), but what is the best way to address this detail in our article? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how relevant the exact stage is to the article. These two reports indicate she was due in December. Neither states where the info came from.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/a-chronology-of-the-captivity-of-joshua-boyle-and-his-family-1.3629607 .... https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/10/12/a-timeline-of-the-captivity-of-canadian-joshua-boyle-and-his-family-in-pakistan.html
This one says she was 7 months pregnant, according to whom? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/12/who-caitlan-coleman-and-joshua-boyle-family-kidnapped-5-years-afghanistan/757168001/ As does the Washington Post
In any event, the 7 month figure does seem to be the consensus. I have revised the article. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual way to deal with something that multiple sources report, when they differ in the details, is to first state the thing they all agree on, and then state that sources differ over the detail where they differ. In this case the thing all sources agree upon is that she was well into her pregnancy. The detail they differ over is how pregnant.

    Is there some reason why we shouldn't follow the example of just about every instance of covering information where sources agree on some basic information and differ about the details?

    I agree with Peter K Burian in questioning how relevant the exact stage is to the article.

    If Boyle and Coleman were being kept in underground holes, they may not know the birthdate with any precision. So, interpolating how pregnant she was from the birthdate may not be possible. Boyle and Coleman wrote letters home. Some of these may state the specific date Coleman peed on the pregnancy stick, or showed other signs of pregnancy, like morning sickness... or they might not. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Geo Swan. Are you suggesting any revision to the current text? Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe our article reflected what sources said at the time, but it did not reflect current reporting. I think it has now been established now that Coleman was seven months pregnant when she was captured. And that's what our article now says. Virtually every piece of reporting that I have read includes the fact that Coleman was visibly pregnant. Her pregnancy is discussed in relation to whether it was advisable to venture into Afghanistan and whether her pregnancy made them a target for kidnapping. It seems reasonable to include what details we do know. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, according to this report, Coleman knew she was pregnant before she and Boyle left for Asia, although her friends and family did not know. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert disruptive renaming...[edit]

World's Lamest Critic renamed the article named Joshua Boyle to Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman. Policy stated that the controversial renaming should have been discussed first. I reverted the undiscussed renaming, and WLC edit-warred over this.

Boyle already had a strong notability factor, due to his first marriage to Omar Khadr's outspoken sister, Zaynab, -- which had nothing to do with the kidnapping, so the renaming was inappropriate.

Even though the inappropriate renaming, which WLC kept arguing against, took place months ago, I still think Boyle, the kidnapping, and Caitlan Coleman, would be best served if there were three separate articles, or two separate articles, if Coleman isn't seen as sufficiently notable, on her own.

I made about a dozen edits to this article, that were almost entirely innocuous edits to the article's references, and other metadata. Something I overlooked was that, as Boyle's closest wikipedia collaborator -- I could be seen as being in a conflict of interest by editing this article So I can't fix this mess.

All of the material in Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman#Boyle's interest in Islam, the War on Terror, and Guantanamo Bay, for instance, with the possible exception of the last brief paragraph, belong in the Joshua Boyle article, not in the article on the kidnapping.

World's Lamest Critic has been indefinitely blocked, for WP:Outing yet another individual's real word identity. So they can't play any further role in this discussion.

Am I correct that there is no one else who would argue that the renaming was defensible? Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, if you want to rename the page, start an RM. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

I am going to list some errors here.

  1. The article currently says: "They lived in New Brunswick until travelling to Central Asia in early July 2012."

    I believe this is incorrect. They did not proceed directly to Asia. They travelled through Latin America first. Neither one of the references provided actually state they left Canada directly for Asia. Geo Swan (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An image[edit]

An image of Joshua Boyle, from 2007.

File:Toronto snow angel.JPG is not a headshot, but it is a free image of Joshua Boyle. As someone who knew him I have agreed not to edit the artilce. But I can suggest others consider making use of it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information - request for edits[edit]

I'd like to suggest that this article is modified to include up to date information about the allegations made by Caitlan Coleman of assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, etc. by Joshua Boyle (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-one-just-goes-hiking-in-afghanistan-american-woman-gave-birth-to-three-kids-as-a-taliban-hostage-she-now-seeks-to-end-the-mystery-surrounding-her-saga/2019/08/23/d036c346-8939-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html). I'm not a Wikipedia editor but I am a consumer of the information here, and in this circumstance I think that omitting any information from the last 4 years has the effect of dismissing that information. Pophealthresearcher (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the kidnapping of the two, and I do not think we should be discussing their post-rescue life in too much detail. That being said, I think it would be reasonable to add in a sentence about how Coleman moved back to Pennsylvania and has custody of the children. Not sure about the most-succinct wording, though. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither of those statements are true, I'd recommend against adding either of them. You'd be shocked to know the media selectively chooses facts to stoke your outrage and fails to mention that what they're deliberately leading you to believe is not actually true :) Onetimer99 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Joshua_Boyle_and_Caitlan_Coleman&oldid=1205843852"