Talk:Steven Stayner

Links to paedophilia in literature / films

This is not a suitable article for such links - I have deleted them: people who want / need to find such references know what search terms to use without the need to link to them from a biography of child abuse victim.SouthernElectric 12:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

that may be your point of view, but is not Wikipedia policy. Tony 12:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Tony

Then you can put your name to their reinstatement, I'm not suggesting that such works are deleted from WP, just that reference is deleted from this article.

Please cite the relevant Wikipedia policy please.SouthernElectric 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I still can't see the rational for including these Wikipedia links, it's a true crime and only incidentally relevant to either literature or films, by all means link to the subject of Pedophilia so that people can learn about the issues & from were the same links to the literature or films will be advailible. (SouthernElectric 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

NPOV

I think it's very important here to keep a neutral point of view. We should remember to write formally, rather than emotively - this might affect whether (or not, as I think) we decide to use Stayner's first name, but not Parnell's.

I've slightly changed "Kenneth Parnell's prison sentence for the abductions of Steven and Timmy was considerably less than the seven years he had kept Steven prisoner.". I think that that's slightly biased in favour of suggesting that Parnell should be given a 'harsh' (for want of a better word) sentence. If someone could replace it with the actual length of the sentence, I would appreciate it.

Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be why Californian state law was changed afterwards (to allow a longer sentences should similar cases ever go before the courts), the fact that Mr Parnell's sentence was considered correct for the crime he committed... SouthernElectric (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What I see now is that 3 1/2 years after this issue was raised, there is still on the face of it NO reason for the statement about the "shortness" of Parnell's sentence to be in there. It is certainly NOT a neutral statememt in itself to make a point that Parnell's sentence was shorter than the time he held Steven, as if this were "unjust". If a popular sentiment held that this was unjust, and spurred the changing of the law, that qualification should be MADE. The statement that DOES follow does not explain this. (And at any rate, the implication is that Parnell's sentence was considered NOT "correct".) 108.1.68.75 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Re weasel words

• re this edit

Not weasel words really, unless wiki expects lists of witness/involved names (which might then throw up other issues about living persons), the mere fact that Edward Ervin Murphy was offered legal assistance - see page 226 of the often cited book - by his employer (the Curry company in Yosemite) at the time of his arrest suggests that many (un-nameable) people did consider him to be as much a victim of Mr Parnell's crimes as Steven, Timmy and the others. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 13:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem kind of sick

to just redirect the "Timmy White" page here?

Certainly Wikipedia can do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PyroGamer (talk • contribs) 20:38, August 24, 2008

Wikipedia doesn't do it. Editors do. Start the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Timmy White article was deleted and turned into a redirect to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is Barbara?

There is a Barbara mentioned at the end of the information about the kidnapping but she is not mentioned anywhere else, only as "not being convicted" and it points back to citation #4. Who is she? 207.10.103.178 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. I thought it might be an error in a previous edit, but don't know how to identify which one and undo it. Jedikaiti (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence: "child...was nonexistent"

[2004] "The child Parnell attempted to kidnap and molest was nonexistent." The paragraph was saying that Parnell "was convicted of trying...to persuade his nurse to procure for him a young boy... The nurse...reported this to local police." So I gather that the nurse did not, in fact, procure any boy for him. The sentence seems like an odd way of putting it. If the nurse did not procure anybody, then there is no antecedent to "The child". But saying "the child was nonexistent" is rather "turning the thought backwards". I did not attempt to change it because I know nothing of the relevant facts of the case myself. 108.1.68.75 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven Stayner Foundation

A section called Steven Stayner Foundation was added by 71.161.62.204, but appeared to have been copied directly from the Steven Stayner Foundation website. I deleted it and will leave a message on the IP user's talk page. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of some cited material about CARY Stayner

At first I looked at this diff and considered it to be simple vandalism, but I looked further at the material and the links it contains and have concluded that it is marginal to the main article at best. I believe we should discuss the material here with a view to determining whether it is suitable for inclusion or not.

The basis for my thinking is that it is about Cary Stayner, with passing references to Steven only, and the references appear to be conjecture about him (Steven).

I see that the material has been removed before and the removal reverted. I believe we should discuss its suitability for inclusion whether it happens to be in the article at the time of our discussion or not. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I should state that I am 60:40 in favour of the removal. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clearly about Steven; not about Cary. The Cary connection is that it came out at Cary's trial; but was about Steven. There is, of course, the point that criminal defendants produce a lot of testimony at their trials, not all of it truthful, in order to escape or mitigate the consequences of their misdeeds; so perhaps the allegation ought not to be given a lot of weight. So, that being said, I'm only 60:40 in favor of its inclusion, and I will neither reinstate it nor kick up a fuss if it remains removed. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reverted this material, as it is clearly about Steven Stayner and about his own family life and parents. The deletion removes public-record information about an (unfortunately) public figure. The news link in question also said Stayner was "believed to have" engaged in said behaviors, not that he was "alleged to," and while there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the specifics of the defense in other publications, this is conscious choice on the part of a journalist writing in AP style. My argument for inclusion is based on relevance and completeness. (I am also concerned about the timing of this edit, coming as it does after the administrator of a Facebook page devoted to Steven Stayner became aware of the content of this entry and of the articles linked. The administrator is in Europe and the IP is a European IP. Forgive me if that sort of thing is off limits for Wikipedia, I'm new. The timing is suspect to me. I've edited this comment a few times for clarity and specificity as well.) Herckles (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Herckles: I wish to state very clearly that I do not know of nor am I at all interested in whatever the facebook page is that you refer to. It appears that you must be referring to me since I have started this discussion, and I find such reference to be impolite at best.

I can tell you that you are not discussing the matter but have taken a unilateral view. New here or not, when it says "We should discuss" then we should discuss. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle: Apologies again, I'm really just now getting the hang of things after having edited a few things years ago without participating in the community aspects here, in my post I was referring to an anonymous person who twice removing content. I didn't see your user name under those edits? There was an IP address only. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding. By posting here I was adding my explanation for why I reverted it back: solely for clarification, if that's unnecessary I am sorry...I was explaining my own reversion and the logic behind it. I thought that was helpful but if that's not necessary in this case, my bad. I'm certainly not unilateral on this, I just came to look at SS's page with a hunch that it had probably been changed by people who are. I am an admirer of Stayner and also of objective sources, that's all. My intention was to check for objectivity, the FB issue was ancillary and could very well be coincidence. Herckles (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. SS had a lousy break when a kid. I am an admirer of good articles, no more and no less. I am unsure that the material on CS adds more than prurient value to the SS article. This is why I feel it requires discussion rather than insertion/removal. reinsertion/re-removal. We work on consensus and one is not really established here either way. Fiddle Faddle 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is my frist time editing and "talking" so I have no idea if I am doing it right... but let me tell you one thing: It doesn't matter what some article says. Steven is celebrated by his family (INCLUDING HIS KIDS) as a HERO and I have spoken to them personally variuos times and they are shocked to know what people think. Thousands of people visited this site according to statistics in the last few weeks, I think damage has already been done. It is harder to "find proof that something didn't happen than finding proof something did happen". So you can't "prove" that Steven didn't abuse his kids, how can you prove that, but I guess we can take his family's words on that case. So I will keep deleting those parts because that family has had to experience pain too many times. Lots of lies have been made up. Cary's defense tried to proof that he came from a fucked-up family and just because some "witnesses" claimed some things doesn't mean they were also true. People continue even now to attack Steven's family members on various social media sites because "they read this and that here and there". I will not tolerate that, I am sorry. The only way to get that allegations down is to delete them, I can't write "Steven's family denies this" without quoting a source. And I won't post my personal conversations with them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofpatience12345 (talk • contribs)

@Outofpatience12345: your point is well made from the perspective of the family and the young gentleman's memory. The problem you and they face is that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and anyone does edit. Steven had to face an almost unendurable time. Anyone who can live through that and come out the other end at all is an astounding person. The difficulty is that all matters reported about him here must be cited in what we term reliable sources. That which is reported is by no means always the truth, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Unfortunately this means that some truly awful things may be included in articles which are not true, because they are verified in reliable sources.

You will serve Steven and his family best by working rigorously within the arcane Wikipedia rules to show that some additions are outside policy rather than feeling you have a carte blanche licence to delete them. WHat happens to folk who delete material repeatedly is that they get a reputation and become blocked. That will not serve your purpose.

May I suggest, since you know the family, you counsel them to avoid organs such as Wikipedia and concentrate on the good memories they have of Steven. Unpleasant facts and pseudo-facts do creep into articles. High profile victims attract unpleasant rumours like flies, and the best thing one can do is to ignore them unless and until one can counter them with hard facts. I very much fear that deleting material out of hand fails here. I hate it that one finds it difficult to remove "well authenticated slurs". Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle: The problem is that there are too many stupid people out there who believe anything they read on wikipedia or ONE/TWO SINGLE article(s) [from the same website/newspaper that is]. Most people who check out his Wikipedia page won't do more research which means they'll read it and assume it's true. And what would "counsel them to avoid Wikipedia" help the family if THOUSANDS of other people now think that Steven and Del are monsters? It's not what the family thinks about these articles, they know what happened and what not, but what visitors and readers think about it. I don't want Steven's (or his family's) name get insulted like that, esp. because they have been insulted so much already. And tell me, how do you want to prove that he did not abuse his children? There is NO WAY you can prove that, not even the kids or the rest of his family themselves other than say: "It is not true". Another point is, that these are the only article ever which claim these things. No book (not even Echol's one, who put every little rumored scandal he could find into it) or documentary about either Steven or Cary mentioned anything about it (because I guess they did check their sources!). The only public "abuse information" concerns an uncle of Cary and Steven but that's a whole different thing. Even the author of another Steven Stayner book got "attacked" on amazon by a reviewer who insulted Steven and brought up those allegations. You see where this is going?

It's not my fault (or Steven's or anyone elses) that the person who first put the articles here thought "oh, great, time to fuck-up the Stayners/Steven now. Let's just post something I found on the internet which could cause anyone pain." Seriously? Whoever put that up and is all about "this is so cool, let's leave it there forever": I hope someone makes up really bad rumors about your family too (after a lot of other shit happened as well) and that some stupid journalist who wants to create a scandal or just likes to print whatever he thinks that might stir up conflict makes an article out of it. And let's hope there is someone else who will post that to Wikipedia without the possibilty of ever getting it off again because the only proof you have that the rumors are not true will be: "But this didn't happen". I don't know if it was the person who claimed to be an "admirer" of Steven was the one who put those up but let me tell you: you are not an admirer or you would have done more research and found out that no other source stated something like that. Or you would have discussed it somewhere else but NOT put it on Wikipedia right away. I also like nice objective articles and I know that Steven had his flaws too (as everyone has) but these allegations are about the worst thing anyone can do to another.

I am sorry Fiddle, I am not insulting you or anyone else (except the person who put it up first and is writing here now I guess) but I feel kinda hopeless here. I understand Wikipedia rules, I do, but this just makes me mad. Just because someone wanted to be important once in this life and cause pain to that poor family again we are having this problem now.

So I really don't know what to do because - again - you can't get proof that this allegations are false, except for what I just posted. But this is not what Wikipedia allows, I get it. But Fiddle, you said before that you would be in favor of it being down and okay with it if it didn't get put up again? And TJRC said that he would neither "reinstate it nor kick up a fuss if it remains removed".

So the only person against it (besides Wikipedia? As I said, this was my first edit and "talk" so I don't really know how this works) is the one who put it up there, is that it? Why can't we just agree to leave it removed if everyone except that guy (Herckles?) is against it or at least okay with it not being up? Outofpatience12345 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are moving towards a consensus for removal, no bad thing. On a personal note I appreciate your frustration. IT can be enormously frustrating. This is where I believe Wikipedia falls down badly. Fiddle Faddle 14:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding where my anger/frustration comes from.. I really appreciate it! Outofpatience12345 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle: :@Outofpatience12345: I understand all too well well where anger/frustration comes from on something like this and have actually been on the other side of public matters and felt exasperation that my perspective wasn't well-enough represented by the public debate, but with regard to things in the public record and the objective recording of them, anger/frustration/emotions should not come into play, and they certainly shouldn't be a factor in encyclopedia articles. Obviously the source of reporting on a trial taking place in the San Francisco Bay Area and covering crimes committed in Northern California is going to be the dominant daily publication in that region. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence: the Las Vegas Sun not covering a Northern California, Santa Clara County trial in the detail that the San Francisco Chronicle covered it is not a valid argument that the issue is a single article: what we are looking at is that the San Francisco Chronicle was in the courtroom when these allegations were made under oath. Under oath absolutely does not mean something is true. It simply means that these are allegations made in the public record, available in public-record testimony any of us can obtain to read (and to rebut: it is not true that you cannot rebut this...how was it presented, why, etc? Things in court records can be rebutted). Concern that "damage has already been done" to a person's reputation is *not* unbiased, and concerns about protecting the reputation of the subject of a Wikipedia article are *not* objective. Obviously this was not covered in Echols' book *because Echols' book, including its exploitative, rushed re-publication of details about Cary Stayner, came out before any of this was public-record testimony*. I am a journalist myself, one who has many times covered sexual abuse as an investigative reporter fighting for victims (and yes, I am a huge admirer of Stayner: you can be an admirer of someone while also understanding the important issue referenced in the disputed text as "cycles of sexual abuse," and if you elide that information or call people "monsters" you are actually doing a disservice to victims and to the public's understanding of a crucial, huge problem). Saying a journalist covering trial testimony didn't "check their sources" is in itself a non-objective argument. The source was trial testimony. This is using journalistic language as gobbledygook obfuscation. "Cycles of sexual abuse" are an inherent evil of sexual abuse. I understand being loyal to a person's legacy; I don't understand *not* understanding sexual abuse to the extent that you think addressing its realities is making someone a "monster." *This* is the emotional, biased language, not the judgment-free reporting of public-record allegations of something that is incredibly common with sexual-abuse victims. The legacy of sexual abuse is often a continuation of that abuse, and this is unfortunately one of the most infamous cases in U.S. history. Of *course* it's relevant. Omitting it is carrying on a non-objective silence that does a horrible disservice to victims every day. Omitting allegations made in the public record and reported by the local press covering that trial because of emotions and admiration and concern about what people will think when reading it is restricting the public's right to understand something fully (they are merely allegations! What is wrong with saying "allegedly" and linking and letting people *see* something?)...this is a serious concern. And it was concern about bias that compelled me to sign up for Wikipedia again, being a great admirer and daily reader who forgot my years-old login. I hate that those details are in the public record, but they are *in the public record,* and that record did not begin and end with some reporter in San Francisco: it is literally part of a public record testimony maintained by the state of California that any one of us can read. It is not a rumor, it is an official under-oath allegation. And I hate it, but saying that I cannot be an admirer of Stayner, who is objectively a hero and whose Wikipedia page shows ample evidence of this, because I hate bias and obfuscation of publicly available information is ridiculous, and is in itself a bias: I do not think victims are "monsters" for being caught up in a hugely common cycle, that is bias on your end, a belief that the public can't be allowed to learn about the whole record for fear that they will come away with the "wrong" idea. The person who maintains the aforementioned Facebook page, which I only even know about due to my admiration of Stayner, is himself in contact with the family due to family members posting on that page...having spoken to them does not objectivity make. And I came to continue this conversation because of concerns that objectivity was being disregarded here. Before you start in with concerns about what people might think or what people's knowing about public-record testimony (public! record! testimony!), read the many scholarly articles about cycles of abuse. One of the top Google Scholar results you should get is one about suppression of awareness. I fully understand debate about *relevance* with regard to the Chron article--and of course think there is a huge case to be made about the deep relevance of allegations of cycling, though I think the detail about the father is unnecessary and unrelated--but aspects of the above argument are about legacy, besmirching names, someone's herodom, etc. etc. Arguments that it's impossible to contest an allegation hold no water: by saying it's not true, you've contested it. If there is no publicly documented dissent, is that a valid argument? Write a letter to the Chronicle; get the court testimony and dispute it. Either there's a source for it or it's libel. That's where such arguments belong, is it not? Link the Amazon debate. Link anything. Saying "I believe and family believes that this is untrue, therefore people should be kept in the dark" is disingenuous, and we *are* in fact talking about one of the people by which an entire nation learned what it knows now about sexual abuse. This is important. And it should go without saying that "what of the reputation?" complaints should be beneath the concern of an encyclopedia. Apologies for being long-winded, but silencing information because you don't like it, suppressing debate about not only cycles of sexual abuse *but also* about truths and falsehoods w/r/t defense testimonies at criminal trials, seems anathema to the very cause of objectivity and to the cause of stopping sexual abuse. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve allegations, and of course I'd rather they were untrue (and my own bias and admiration make me in all honesty lean that way), but allegations made in court and reported by the major local newspaper are in every way part of the public record and the publicly known and debated aspects of this person's life, and if the allegations were to be true it would make me grieve for Stayner *even more*. Sexual abuse has horrible consequences we don't want to know about because they complicate easy narratives. Stayner sought to counter that: he even spoke of feeling sorry for his sick, pitiful, despicable captor. Abuse is *complex." And heroes aren't one-dimensional; as an advocate for abuse survivors and for public-record truths I've seen this again and again. Remove the allegations made against his dad, but erasing allegations made directly against the subject of the article is same-old, same-old suppression. I am not sure about etiquette for reinstating disputed content but will read up on it. (For disclosure, I have never worked for the SF Chronicle and know no Chronicle writers. I do have industry knowledge of the Chron's reputation. I have done journalism in Steyner's home region of the Central Valley and am a Californian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herckles (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have the time right now to create a long answer, I am more than exhausted about this topic. Please don't tell me anything about objectivness, I know everything about that but if you are close to those people who can get hurt by something DENIED and "PROVEN" by WORDS by themselves you can't be all like "for the sake of objectivness, let's post it". Like a judge can't judge someone who (s)he knows too well or cares about too much. What the point is, no matter how often you answer me and give *good* reasons (yes, I am saying your reasons may be *good*, this doesn't change the fact that we have a problem here) that the Stayner family says it's not true. Yes, you may not believe them. But I do and I want to help them by not putting something up that hurts Steven reputation based on ONLY ONE ARTICLE. Because they can't prove it!! THAT's the problem we are having. And I think it would be stupid to leave the articles on the site and add: "Family denies this" lol because that's not a "source" as in "Wikipedia standards". And please don't forget that a very big majority of people believe anything that's on Wikipedia and don't "do research".

And yes, it is a problem that it's the San Francisco Chronicle but that doesn't mean that it's true. Witnesses can lie, as you pointed out. And guess what? I don't even think they were deliberately lieing. But you know how people are. Steven got shit from a lot of people back in his hometown. When he was a teenager and when he was older. So of course people were talking, whispering, gossiping. And I am sure he had enemies who spread stupid rumors about him even back then and those witnesses were called by the defense. That's what makes a good lawyer. He had to try to find a way to prove that it's not "Cary's fault" he was "so messed up".

If Steven had abused his kids and the "public knew about it" then don't you think state authorities would have done something? If Steven "was believed to having abused his kids" then this clearly means that some people spread those rumors when he was still alive.

There is still the fact that no other newspaper was talking about it or ANY OTHER Cary book/documentary which came AFTER everything was over. And there are a lot of "non serious" newspapers out there which print every scandal they can find, true or not. So maybe the journalist interpreted more into those witness testimonies than other journalists or (s)he was just the only one believing it.

Anyways, I am so tired of this. You are saying that it is in the public interest to know because of "objective" reasons etc.?

Well I don't see how this is in the public interest. And this is not about denying abuse, please don't tell me anything about sexual abuse, I am MORE than familiar with this topic. Not that this matters anyways. But fact is and remains that his family denies everything and that there is no other source than that article. And that's something they can't prove and it is horrible, that someone puts those articles up all those years after everything had happened just because in their/his/her opinion it is "in public's interest".

If you only manage to believe something stated in ONE article and nowhere else (and ignore the family's denial) then I am afraid I can't help you. And for the record: That's why I have a problem with you journalists. They come across me and my work often. Just becaues you think that something may be interesting to the public or that they have a "right to know" you don't care about if the content may be true. And yes, please obtain the public records from the trial for me. If you had any "other proof" than that one article please feel free to present it to me. Or maybe you should contact the family yourself and see what they have to say about it. LOL. Please don't bother them with your nonsense, it is hard enough for them to talk to me about anything concerning this matter and I am not someone who "wants to harm them". (Yes, maybe you don't "want" to yourself but you do with what you're saying). Poor Steven. He will never find his deserving rest. Bad enough that Parnell harmed him. It is sad that the "public" who "has a right to know everything, even if it's not true" won't leave him and his family be. It would be so easy...

(Okay, this got kinda long again but I am just.so.exhausted.by.everything.)Outofpatience12345 (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are in the realms of WP:TLDR. Unfortunately WIkipedia talk pages work best when pithy and short. Now, whether it is a matter of public record or not, whether it is true or not, WIkipedia works upon consensus. The arguments are pretty much equivalent right now if we look at it as a ballot, but that is not the way consensus works. To me it looks very much as if further eyes, unbiased and experienced eyes, are required here, but I think the dust needs to settle for a few days.

Since there is no consensus, and since there is no deadline, it may as well stay out of the article as be in it. However, by including it we do harm. We should thus weight the scales against inclusion unless consensus says it needs to be present. Doing harm is bad, after all. We do our very best to do no harm. Fiddle Faddle 00:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fiddle: Yeah, I totally understand and I don't plan to write long replies anymore, don't worry... Thank you for being resonable and well I guess we'll see what a third party has to say in that case. And I agree on letting things rest for a few days!Outofpatience12345 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Stayner's picture

A picture exists with a Fair Use rationale in the article at he:סטיבן_סטיינר and is to be found at he:קובץ:סטיבן_סטיינר.jpg. I am unsure of the licencing and wonder whether we might also just use it. I am presuming it cannot be ported to commons? Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done uploaded under Fair Use. Fiddle Faddle 15:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steven Stayner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120080112/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/criminal_mind/psychology/kenneth_parnell/10.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/kenneth_parnell/10.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/09/stayner.kidnapper.ap/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306014705/http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/08/30/1549099/statue-honors-steven-stayners.html to http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/08/30/1549099/statue-honors-steven-stayners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Youngest kidnapping survivor?

I have been thinking about adding the fact that Steven Stayner, at the age of 14, became the youngest survivor of a kidnapping case lasting more than one year or 52 weeks, but I want to gain consensus first. He was even younger than Shawn Hornbeck, who was 15 years, 6 months old in January 2007 when he escaped Michael J. Devlin, who had been holding him captive for four years. There have been a handful of long-term (one year or longer) kidnapping cases in which the survivor was under 25 when the ordeal ended. The following are a list of kidnapping survivors, from youngest to oldest, based on the age when they escaped their captors.

• Steven Stayner (14 years, 10 months, 12 days)
• Shawn Hornbeck (15 years, 5 months, 26 days)
• Natascha Kampusch (18 years, 6 months, 6 days)
• Gina DeJesus (23 years, 2 months, 23 days)
• Tanya Kach (24 years, 5 months, 7 days)
• Amanda Berry (27 years, 0 months, 14 days)
• Jaycee Dugard (29 years, 3 months, 23 days)
• Michelle Knight (32 years, 0 months, 13 days)

173.76.246.128 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely this is just sensationalism and tabloidism? Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)