Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson/Archive 1

Poor verifiability of fbi.gov announcements
I noticed that ref 1 (a)(b) refers to fbi.gov for "FBI alerts". I tried to verify that there's anything on fbi.gov about Anderson or DiMaggio, and sure enough, their search produces results that there allegedly is some sort of announcement, but clicking on its link causes a return to the fbi.gov home page. I'm not sure this counts as any sort of verifiable source, so some other source should be used instead. --Lexein (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alerts are, by definition, temporary. You might be able to find them through the Wayback Machine. As they are, not very helpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

the cat
lot of questions, who owned it, why was it with them, who has it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, these questions remain. I saw one report that stated the cat, which was grey in colour, belonged to DiMaggio. The asasinated dog's ownership was not stated. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.137.217 (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The cat is fine. According to this news story the FBI found it and gave it Hannah Anderson that same day. I don't know anything about the dog, though. In any case, I don't know that this information needs to be added to the article. It might have some merit as something to flesh out the reasons why the two riders thought things were peculiar, but it's not entirely necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... found it. The dog belonged to the Anderson family, according to this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know its name and/or gender yet? The dog, I mean. But also the cat. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I decided to search to check just on a lark and supposedly the cat's name is Princess. It looks like it was one of many cats he had. In any case, I did see this Daily Mail article saying that the house was rigged with explosives, which is why she didn't see the fire. Of course this is the Daily Mail, so anything they post is extremely suspect.  Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Princess"...meh. I figured it was Hannah's cat, by the way your other link said she was "returned" to her. Kind of cool to hear about a murderer saving a life. I wish every writer would stop saying "a number of" to describe things. It kind of sounds like "many", but could mean three. Maybe three thousand. I'll guess eight. The Daily Mail is a fine photo site. Other than that, yeah, "suspect" is a fair word. I don't think they try to be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no move. --  tariq abjotu  01:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson → Anderson murders and kidnapping – Multiple editors have voiced that the article's current name does not fully encompass the entirety of the situation. I have to agree with that and as such, I'm proposing that if this article is kept, it be moved to Anderson murders and kidnapping. We can keep the old article name as a redirect, but we need an article title that reflects upon the entire situation. Since the murders happened first, they would go first in the title. I thought I'd start a discussion on this separate from the AfD page, as this could potentially become a longish discussion as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Undue weight on the one of five victims affected least, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose News stories and police statements have indicated the murders to be incidental to the kidnapping. there has been no suggestion that he went on a murder spree and incidentally happened to kidnap the girl. Edison (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However at the same time, there were murders. Whether he planned them beforehand or not, they still occurred and have received quite a bit of coverage in the news. I'd say that at times it was about 50/50 while Hannah was still missing and now that she's found, a lot of the coverage has been about the bodies of her mother and brother- especially since the autopsy mentioned that they'd been tortured. Right now the murders are actually getting a little more coverage than Hannah herself, so I think it's more than warranted to cover the two deaths. There are even some reports that he'd been planning this for a while, which presumably includes the murders as well. Even if that's just surrounding the kidnapping, I just think that naming the article solely after the kidnapping puts undue weight on the kidnapping itself when the event is more than just the kidnapping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While we rely on the news for facts, we're not required or meant to mirror the angles the news uses to present them. The article is about the event itself, not the coverage of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose use James Lee DiMaggio murder-kidnapping case instead -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I oppose that name on the basis that we can't verify that DiMaggio did the murders. It's likely, but we can't automatically assume that he killed the mother and son. I know that there are reports of Hannah saying that he killed them, but reports also say that she didn't know that they were dead until she was told a week later. It's entirely possible that he might have had help. Or the nasty (and rather unfounded) net rumors about Hannah participating could be true. My point is that we have no way of absolutely confirming that DiMaggio did the murders at this point in time, so the article should not have a title that infers that he did them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say he did it, it just say it's the case he's involved in, if he's brought to trial and acquitted, it would still be his case. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the name would insinuate that he did it. Besides, the usual standard on Wikipedia is that you name any criminal cases after the victim(s) and not the perpetrator. It's usually very rare that a case, incident, or general article is named after the criminal rather than the victim. In those rare exceptions the murders are incorporated into the overall page on the perp or suspected perp, as is the case with Luka Magnotta or Ed Gein. To justify such an entry you'd have to show that DiMaggio is the central and main focus of news stories and/or other extended coverage, which isn't the case here. DiMaggio is mentioned, but he hasn't received even nearly as much coverage as he would need to in order to justify the article being named after him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Before they found Hannah, he was the main focus of most news stories, since he has died, there's been a dual focus between Hannah and DiMaggio, for most news stories. The manhunt deals with only these two people, and the only names prominently associated with the case are these two. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply then, but I'll reply now: That's not a good argument to make. The media focused on Hannah predominantly because she was the only potential survivor and a live girl is considered more newsworthy than a dead woman and child. However as you can see, once Hannah was found safe the news started turning towards Christina and Ethan. The problem with not including the murders in the name is that it limits the scope of the article and puts some undue weight on the kidnapping. The murders still got quite a bit of news coverage and I bet it'd be incredibly difficult to find a news article that didn't mention the deaths of Hannah's mother and brother in relation to her kidnapping. Even if we were to argue that the media initially focused on the kidnapping, it's pretty clear that the media's scope has gone beyond the kidnapping and has started to focus on the murders just as much- if not more so now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The media has been focused on the kidnapping/manhunt. The murders has been an afterthought throughout most of the coverage. It seems that he killed the 2 family members in order to facilitate the kidnapping, which makes the kidnapping the central crime. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Other editors expressed their views on the name in the AfD. These opinions should be considered, even if those who voiced them don't do so here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title meets recognizable and natural much better than the proposed title, given the emphasis on the kidnapping in reliable sources mentioned by others above.  One can bicker about precision, but the bottom line is that the current title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects..  Conciseness is not relevant to this particular title question.  We don't have specific guidelines for this category of titles, so consistency does not apply either.  So, the current title meets WP:CRITERIA much better than the proposed title.  --B2C 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dogs and humans should not be combined in an inflated "death count" as equally important.
I decreased the "death count" to 3 in the infobox: the mother, the brother, and the perpetrator. This was reverted with the comment " (In some opinions, kids count for less. In others, killers do. Our opinions don't matter, reliable sources count the dog among the dead. From the way it was covered, so did the killer.)" I haven't seen news articles which combine humans and pets in a "death count." They list the dog as killed without throwing it into a "death count" with the humans. I tried a Google News search for "Hannah Anderson" "death count"  and for  "James Lee DiMaggio" "death count" and no news sources were found which provided a "death count" as such. Thus it is WP:Original research to put this "death count" in the infobox, as well as being unencyclopedic and insulting to the human victims. We should not be asserting that a dead dog is as significant as a dead human. I would certainly list the dog as killed by the perpetrator, but I object to inflating the "death count." Perhaps "death count should be removed from the infobox. Edison (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean sources have explicit tables called "Death Count" with a dog in them, such as our infobox. I mean the stories "count" the dog by mentioning it alongside the other victims. Its (his/her) death is a part of the event. That's a simple fact. Acknowledging it doesn't convey any notion of whether it was more or less important a life. Just that it was a life lost as a result of an event (that is, a fatality).


 * Just like a lot of people might say a dog's life is insignificant, a lot might say the same of a child killer's. Once we start picking and choosing subjectively, it's a slippery slope. And, like you say, if no sources provide a "death count" for anyone, it would be just as much OR (and it isn't) to have anyone in our infobox. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the perpetrator had hit a deer on the way to Idaho, and then shot a couple of squirrels while camping in Idaho, then caught 3 trout, should we add those 6 animals to the "Deaths" infobox? I think not. Edison (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends. If he'd brought their corpses inside and covered them with blankets, and reliable sources noted the discoveries along with the human bodies, sure. Also keep in mind, even those that are generally biased toward humans tend to differentiate between pets (especially "man's best friend") and wild animals. Hitting a deer, shooting a squirrel or catching a trout wouldn't get DiMaggio in legal trouble. Had he survived, he may have had an animal cruelty charge added for the dog (not exactly sure how it works in California). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why does this article even display the "Infobox terrorist attack?" No news media has called the perpetrator a "terrorist," nor have they called the murders and kidnapping a "terrorist attack." Therefore i will remove the infobox entirely. Any editor is welcome to add an appropriate crime related infobox. Edison (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed it to Template:Infobox civilian attack and put DiMaggio as the perpetrator of the kidnapping and the suspected perpetrator of the murders. It's 99.9% probable that he killed the mom and kid, but they haven't absolutely proven it yet so I think we should put him as a suspected perp for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, as far as the law goes, if a case is closed due to the sole suspect's death, that makes him as "officially guilty" as a conviction would have. The presumption of innocence (like all rights) only applies to living people. As far as Wikipedia goes, WP:BLP is a bit stricter about "recently deceased", but I don't think this runs afoul of that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not correct. Death of a suspect does not make him "officially guilty". Only a trial can do that. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a source, but hard to figure out the query phrasing. Regardless of whether it makes him guilty, there is no longer a requirement (beyond Wikipedia) to presume he's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that the example is the World Trade Center bombing, but the template is also used at Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard as well, so I thought it might be appropriate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The death count should not include the dog.  D r e a m Focus  23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reason why not, excepting your personal bias toward humans? If there's some sort of accepted rule, that's cool, but if dogs just don't count because you feel they shouldn't, despite the sources, that's not neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we count every bug they stepped on while out in the woods, or microscopic organism that they breathed in? Seriously, what's wrong with you?  Consensus is to not have that in there.  Kindly stop edit warring.   D r e a m Focus  01:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did a single source note an ant's body discovered with the rest of the family, covered with the same dignity given the mother's corpse? If so, I'd include that ant. Seems significant. But there is no ant, just the family dog.


 * It lived, it died, this was widely reported, should be simple. You seem to see several opposed here, I see two, but it doesn't matter. The only argument I see is that counting the dog's along the humans is somehow disrespectful, and dogs are inherently inferior. Isn't that clearly a bias, and don't we have a neutrality policy against that sort of thing? Do we have anything to the contrary? If not, it's about as good an argument as "Women are property, and I consider it disrespectful and emasculating for a man to be listed among them". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dogs, and other pets or livestock, are not counted in any "total" body count or list of casualties. They are listed separately, such as horses in battle. Dogs are not people. Dogs are not human. This is not POV, this is not bias. There is no legal or ethical argument for raising dogs to the same status as humans. They have more rights than other animals, in our culture, but there's barely a logical reason for that. List non-human animals separately or not at all. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence sounds like a rule, but without a blue link, it looks like opinion. Dog is pretty clear that they're not humans, but death comes for all living organisms. As our infobox parameter says "deaths", not "human deaths" or "important deaths", there's no need for a legal or ethical argument for inclusion. Included by default. Can you convince the broader community that excluding the dog on personal reasons is the thing to do? If not, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override WP:NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@IncredibleHulk (18:51 UTC Aug15), you seem to be saying that sources "mention" the dog, not "count" the dog. If the sources say explicitly that there were "4 deaths", then that's what we should use, but IMHO that would be very unusual. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the infobox to read "deaths: 3 humans (including the perpetrator) 1 dog" if reliable sources usually mention the dog as well. Also, the dog should be included in the lead. (The 2011 Ohio exotic animal release is somewhat related, though that gained notoriety more for the release and subsequent killings of the animals than for the death of the one human.)--Wikimedes (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit pedantic. As far as I see, we have no source at all for the infobox, "counting" rather than "mentioning" (I use "count" in the 2 or 3 sense). We include the two Andersons and DiMaggio because sources in the body are clear that this event killed them. The dog meets the exact same criteria. I figured "including the perpetrator and dog" was enough, but if you'd like to go the extra mile in differentiating, that's acceptable. Ignoring the fact altogether is not. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dogs, and other pets or livestock, are not counted in any "total" body count or list of casualties that I've ever seen. But ok, policy: at the page on Civilian Attack Infobox, "fatalities" are defined as "Number of people killed during attack(s)". Dogs are not people. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends how you define the word. Merriam gives "lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation" for "people", and "a single organism as distinguished from a group" for "individual" (which is the second word in the "person" definition). Stanley Coren has done the hard science behind dog personalities. Any data to refute him? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "...of a specified kind or situation." The template does not specify the "kind" or "situation", therefore that definition does not apply. Also, in my experience, people most often adhere to the first definition of a dictionary entry as the most applicable. The first definition from the same link: "human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest ". Definitions 2 and 5 also indicates humans explicitly, and definitions 3, 4, and 7 implicitly. Dogs are not people, and the policy does not specify that they are an exception to the definition. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't disregard one definition because there are other definitions. If you stick to the first, there are a ridiculous number of "set"s we couldn't/shouldn't use. The specified kind of animals is deceased, and the specified situation is killed in a civilian attack. There's no exception in the policy, because there doesn't need to be. Dogs meet a definition, by default, unless it's stated that only the human definitions apply here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case, the original complaint has been addressed. Cali is now distinguished from the humans, her secondary placement indicating the general opinion that the killer's life was more important (and his parentheses indicating it was less important than his victims'). The numbers aren't "inflated", but augmented (3 and 1, not 4). Not perfect, but OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as Hannan's own view on the matter may be, there's this quote from her on Ask.fm: "Do you really think I would be Ohkay with being kidnapped and hurt Nd finding out my dog lil brother and mom was killed.?"


 * Listing it first, after her own trouble, seems to mean she found the death personally significant and wouldn't feel "disrespected" by us counting Cali with the others, either. Hopefully that eases some concerns. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the worst thing that happened on her trip was apparently "Findin out about my mom Ethan and my dog." That's more a point for the people who are against moving to Anderson family murders and kidnapping. The worst (in a crime article context, most significant) part of her kidnapping was hearing about the murders. Who better to know than someone who was there? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it does not "ease concerns". That would be a primary source; and your interpretation of that primary source lends no validity. Regardless of Hannah Anderson's or your point of view regarding the anthropomorphic quality of the animal, it does not alter policy or infobox definitions. - Boneyard90 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an attempt at altering any policy. Purely appealing to emotion there, for those who'd done the same. Can't reasonably call it insulting to the victims if the only surviving victim counts the same way.


 * The policy and parameter definitions are fine. NPOV says write without bias (pro-human or anti-dog) and even if we disagree on which definition of "people" to use, it says "Optionally, you can split this into different types of people". So we don't need to choose one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You've accidentally given me another point, now that I think of it. Primary sources are absolutely fine, for making straightforward and descriptive claims. The grammar's not perfect, but the claim is clear: Her dog, her little brother and her mom were killed. That quote would work as a source (if needed), regardless of her views on the anthropomorphic qualities of anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I already considered that. Read the policy again. You can not interpret the primary source. Besides, you got your "split this into different types of people" with the compromise arrangement, the "people plus dog" format currently in the infobox. If you want to consider the dog as a type of "person", it has been split off from the other "type" (the actual people). The situation is resolved. Let it go. - Boneyard90 (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I had let it go. I'd only added the quote for people who were genuinely worried we might be insulting the survivor. And then a bit for the folks who like this title, based on the focus the media went with. Maybe they'd like to know the first-person view instead, if it comes up again. You can have the primary source argument, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You got the compromised change, and I didn't reply to your last comments (Aug 20) so you'd have the satisfaction of the last word, if that's what you wanted, so what is your point? If you're trying to surreptitiously bring in new points to revive the debate at some point, then let it go. If the new comments were really to add a quote to the Talk page for the benefit of other readers (which I find ridiculous, as people rarely read through all comments before posting an opinion), then you have moved away from discussion on improvement of the article, and are now just discussing the topic. And if that's the case, we may have to delete everything since Aug 20, and I'll thank you for wasting my time this evening. - Boneyard90 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one here. Edison, who started this, seemed to have a problem with significance and offensiveness. Rather than have him think the compromise let an insulting, insignificant dog into the article, I thought he'd like to know it's not that bad. Others can see how Cali wasn't collateral ant, squirrel or trout damage, but loved and mourned like a family member. Nicer to understand the wrong side didn't win than to treat it as a loss.


 * Now I'm only replying to you because you're replying to me, and it seemed like you were trying to start something with the Wikilinks in your second sentence. If you're cool, I'm cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dog fatality
How come the dog fatality counts here, while it doesn't NOWHERE ELSE? I've decided to test it out, adding four dogs to the infobox of the Geneva County massacre article, and doing similar edits to articles that involved the additional deaths of animals, and ALL OF THE EDITS get undone. Meanwhile, here, the edits to remove the dog fatality from the infobox have been repeatedly removed! What's supposed to be so special about this article that doesn't apply to anywhere else, huh? 98.155.17.222 (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One person keeps putting them back in. Most don't seem to care one way or the other, as long as the number of people and dogs killed are separate.   D r e a m Focus  10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on the narrative of the case being documented. In this case:


 * The dog in this case wasn't just a bystander to the incident or "collateral damage." Cali, along with the rest of the Anderson family, was a guest in DiMaggio's home. A conscious and separate decision was seemingly made to kill the dog, possibly before the humans were killed (since the dog's body was reportedly hidden).
 * Media have prominently mentioned the dog and its fate in describing the tragic events in Boulevard.
 * Media reported that a photo of the dog was present on the altar at the services for Christine and Ethan. This may not seem remarkable or even unusual, but media felt it was significant.
 * In this case the dog represents a greater part of the narrative than animals in some other incidents of this type. However, I don't feel strongly that the dog should be counted along with the human fatalities in the info box. I think it's enough to mention Cali in the narrative. The fact that current law makes it impossible to charge someone with "murder" for killing a non-human animal (though killing a police service animal is a felony is a number of US states) suggests a distinction that should be maintained in an article about a violent criminal act with human fatalities. See WP:STICK. Dwpaul (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * However, I also direct User:98.155.17.222 to WP:POINT, a Wikipedia guideline which I think s/he has unquestionably violated. Dwpaul (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the infobox fatalities are restricted to those who are legally murdered, DiMaggio (and other similar perpetrators) also wouldn't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that only those humans whose deaths can be legally defined as murder should be included in infoboxes (I would have said that if that was what I meant). I was pointing out that our society makes a clear distinction between intentional killing of a human versus intentional killing of a non-human animal (as reflected in the law), and that convention should probably be followed when it comes to death tolls in infoboxes (except where the number and/or type of animal fatalities is the reason for the event's notability in the first place, e.g., 2011 Ohio exotic animal release). Dwpaul (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. It read that way to me. In any case, I don't think the law or general social tendencies should carry much weight here (even a widely-held bias is a bias). It's a question of whether Cali died, and whether multiple reliable sources report this as a significant part of the story. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability?
I'm glad that the girl in question is alive, but I can't help but wonder if this would fall under WP:ONEEVENT or not. I'm not going to nominate it, but I do think that we need to establish more notability for this kidnapping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this seems like a routine news story, not an encyclopedia article. Only getting major coverage because of missing white woman syndrome. We don't have that here, do we? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability of this story is actually due to the suspicion amongst most observers that she had a relationship with the alleged kidnapper ("alleged kidnapper" being not my words but those of the Associated Press in one of the article's citations) and that she contributed to the murders. All you have to do is read the discussions under news articles to see how widespread this view is. Of course, that's not cite-worthy; nonetheless, I have found a few proper articles and added them. ThVa (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2 murders/deaths as well. Skewed coverage is a problem, but we dont decide what stories are notable, the media and public do, so we report them. agreed that this is not a cut and dried case, though.(mercurywoodrose)99.157.206.85 (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't something like 2,000 people murdered in California each year? Seems like it should something that sets it apart to justify having it here. I don't doubt there's a lot of coverage, but from what I see it doesn't go WP:INDEPTH. Just repeat the story, and add their own news fluff. That repetition also makes me think of WP:DIVERSE (how many stories have AP or Reuters in the byline?). Not a huge deal, and I won't argue it further. Just my two cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my concern- that the coverage has mostly been a lot of repeating of the same thing. I figure that we can give it some time to unfold but I'm just worried about whether or not someone else will nominate this. The coverage has been relatively heavy, but not as heavy as I'd like it to be and the coverage hasn't been as in-depth as it could've been. I got sort of thwapped over the Caleb Lawrence McGillvary article over WP:ONEEVENT so now I'm sort of skittish about articles like this. I figure it'd be a good idea to get this concern out in the open now and then we'd have a stronger argument against WP:ONEEVENT if someone tries to argue that later on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ONEEVENT doesn't really apply here. That's for articles about people involved in one event, not one event involving people. You could use that to argue against creating Anderson, DiMaggio or the dog's articles. Did that dog even have a name? Must have. If no sources mention the dog's name, that's clearly not deep enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * About repetition, This is leading on my Google News. It's from about twenty minutes ago, and says the same things others did six hours ago or more. Looks like our article, pretty much. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This most definitely falls under WP:NOTNEWS or anything related to it. It reeks of somebody rushing to be the first to write up whatever they see in the news. How could this possibly have any sort of lasting effect whatsoever?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you gotta just go ahead and do it. I'm going to nominate this for deletion. (I see a PROD was denied on the basis of "racism." Huh?)  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was because I mentioned missing white woman syndrome. It doesn't take much sometimes for someone to get offended and miss the point. No big deal, a PROD can be shot down with any reason. I would have gone ahead with a nomination, but said earlier I wouldn't argue further. I guess adding a "Support, per talk" wouldn't be arguing further. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

ARTICLE NEEDS SECTION ON PREDATORY PRESS COVERAGE OF TRAGEDY & HANNAH
The media frenzy on this case is raising legitimate questions about the ethics of how the media covers victims of horrendous crimes, especially when they are children. I think at this point a section on the medias coverage of the tragedy should be added to this article. Specific editors and reporters should be mentioned who are making judgment calls to pursue the case in an overreaching manner, without any sensitivity to the fact that Hannah Anderson is both a child and a victim of a horrendous crime that took the lives of both her mother and her little brother. This can be done with proper citations while also following Wikipedia rules.

There is no question that the Hannah Anderson story is now also about media excess, as well as media insensitivity and possibly even cruelty in a few cases as a number of credible, cite-able sources are now beginning to mention. Hannah Anderson is a child but the professional media are all adults. The decision to disengage and give space and privacy to a victim should not be left in the hands of a child. The professional media needs to be the responsible party here, and disengage at some point, at least to some degree, if she, as a child, is not able to. This is an appropriate subject for this article, so long as proper citations are used. 64.134.237.38 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Make certain to click the reference button when you edit, and add in the source of any information you find.  D r e a m Focus  20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and do it as you add stuff, not after. Also consider WP:NPOV and Manual of Style/Words to watch.


 * You didn't read my edit summary which said "Sources are coming". Under Wikipedia rules, generous time to add sources must be provided. You may however add a "Citations needed" banner in the interim. That is proper Wikipedia procedure  in this case. 64.134.237.38 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does it say anything like that? The top of this talk page says "must be removed immediately". Could you share even one source you plan to use? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pre-approval is not required for any Wikipedia editing. It is also a violation of Wikipedia policy for you to set yourself up as the "Editor in Chief" of any article. Nobody has to run anything by you before editing. 64.134.237.38 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not pretending be the chief. I'm just another editor. The problem was with the content and Wikipedia's rules, which have nothing to do with you or I. Don't make it personal. Source things and stay neutral, like we're all supposed to. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that so far there are not really any news posts about the way that the news has handled the way they reported the case. There has been some small amount of coverage over the way people have speculated, but very little about how the press handled themselves. I do agree that it has been very poorly done, but unless we can back this up with reliable sources that discuss the poorly handled press we cannot and should not add anything to the article. It would be considered to be original research and considering how you've phrased things it would run a very, VERY high risk of coming across in a non-neutral point of view as well as a soapbox against the press. The problem with this sort of thing is that such coverage doesn't usually come about until far after the actual incident in question. You won't get many news outlets/papers/websites talking about their competition in such a way because it means that they'd have to put into question their own tactics. The only time I've seen something like that get brought up is back during initial Sandy Hook reporting where they gave the wrong person's name as the killer and plastered his image across the internet. Even then that was sorely underreported upon as far as the negligence angle goes, as each agency just wanted to get the scoop out before anyone else. It's not up to us to right the wrongs that the news have done, and believe me there are many. You're right in that you don't have to really ask before editing, but I can guarantee that things of that nature will be removed if you don't source it with reliable sources and phrase it just right. You can say that sources will come eventually, but you can't guarantee that. In the end it'd still be an unsourced addition to an article and one that would be pretty likely to violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, which we can't allow. Want to add it? Find the sourcing first. However if you do add it and it gets removed, don't re-add it. That would run the risk of an edit-war, which could potentially end with a block- especially since you were warned to look into why adding non-sourced and potentially hazardous sections to the article is not a good idea. I'd work on hashing out a proposed synopsis of the section and find the sourcing for the section before adding it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just read your additions. I have to say that Inedible Hulk was right to remove it. You are using the section as a soapbox against the media. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the media is incredibly negligent and that they handled this poorly. The problem is that this is an opinion on your part and mine and has no place on a Wikipedia article. Please do not re-add the information. You've tried to add this two times now. A third time will make it into an official edit war and I have to say that in this instance you are in the wrong. Your addition is unsourced and non-neutral. You've been given a warning and an explanation, as well as a recommendation for another option by another user. If this goes to the edit war noticeboard then you run a serious risk of getting blocked for a short period of time if another administrator thinks it is necessary. It will also result in the page getting locked down for any edits and I can guarantee that your material will not remain on the article. Please stop adding this section back to the article. Wait and find the sources, then work on making it neutral. Fighting to add it now will not end well or in the way you want. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I will sandbox it first. Thanks also for the suggestions. Any help from anyone out there would be appreciated. There are people in the psychology / therapeutic community that have criticized the coverage. You are right that no media outlet will full-out attack another (except for Left-Right political attacks between Fox and the more liberal news outlets-- but those are about politics-- this is non-political which is different). But there are sources and I will get them. I am very busy though so I will have to do it around the edges of my schedule.64.134.237.38 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm... this will probably get coverage in time, but it'll undoubtedly be from the scholarly journal angle since they have slightly less to fear from the media. The problem with that is that it'll likely take a longer period of time for that to handle. The problem with the communities criticizing the coverage is that much of it has been in locations that can't really count towards notability here on Wikipedia. They'd have to be quoted in a paper or in a television show, but the problem there is that you'd have to be very careful about where you take it from. I know that Fox had someone on their show criticize the media coverage somewhat, but in a very roundabout way since they were, of course, on a media show and subject to their whims. In other words, it's phrased just vaguely enough to where you know they were criticizing the media, but also vague enough to where they could argue that they weren't criticizing the media but the public opinion. The closest I've seen so far are sources like this one by the NY Daily News, but you'd need more than that. It's really the type of thing that you have to wait upon. There are undoubtedly journal articles coming, but they'll be somewhat slow going since that's sort of the way this thing works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The real story isn't "predatory" media coverage, but the media's minimal discussion of her plausible involvement in the alleged kidnapping and murders, something that has received some mention (and I've added a couple citations), but suspected by most readers, judging by the thousands of comments in news pages discussions. ThVa (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

allegedly abducted is slanderous horrible BLP violation

 * I removed the addition of the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted" on August 23rd with the edit summary (BLP rules are clear on this. Also the police records show she was abducted.)
 * On August 29th I had to remove it again with the edit summary (Removed slander. No one has alleged she wasn't kidnapped. Unless you find legal documents saying otherwise, don't add that in) . This time that word was in three places. August 30 I had to remove it yet again.
 * with the edit summary (BLP violation. That is slander. You can't claim someone was lying about being kidnapped. The police have already closed the case. We don't say her mother and brother were "allegedly" murdered by the guy do we? Police say he murdered them & kidnapped her).
 * I think I was quite clear. IP addresses, probably the same guy, keep adding this back in without discussion, without any reason given, it right now added back in yet again.  Opinions please.  Does anyone believe the word "allegedly" belongs in any of those places in the article?   D r e a m Focus  17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP may have the notion that any description of a crime of which the facts (even if unchallenged) are not proven in a court of law requires the qualifier "alleged." This may be the (misguided) sense in which the IP means the edit, rather than actually implying that no kidnapping took place and/or that someone is lying. Even so, no, I don't think the word "allegedly" belongs before every instance of the words "abduct[ion/ed]" in this article. No creditable law enforcement source has so far publicly expressed doubt that an abduction took place. Even if some other source has, it would not be appropriate for this theory to be introduced or promoted here (see WP:FRINGE.) There may be other assertions in this article (and/or in cited news reports about this case) where "alleged" or "allegedly" would be appropriate to indicate that they are not indisputable facts, i.e., are unproven and/or unconfirmed. Such labeling is not libelous or slanderous, but prudent. Simply because the (alleged) perpetrator is dead, and so there will not be a trial, does not mean that we should assume they committed every criminal or other act attributed to them. Dwpaul (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I also got the feeling the IP is doing it in "presumption of innocence" way, rather than slander. But while it's not really slander, it's also not needed. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not absolute truth. A citation beside a claim is symbolic for "according to this author". The only time we have to add "alleged" is when we're dealing with a living person who hasn't been tried for his alleged crimes. There's no point affording this right to a dead man, in light of the reliable sources saying he did it. He'll never have a trial, fair or otherwise, and no longer has a reputation to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're right from a legal perspective, but from an ethical perspective I suggest that even a dead man has a reputation and a family that may wish to protect it. I don't think it hurts to take the trouble to describe allegations that are now (and may forever remain) unproven as what they are, rather than incontrovertible facts. Also not sure every Wiki reader completely understands the implications of a cited source, or necessarily quite the way you described them. (But on the question posed, we agree.) Dwpaul (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"James DiMaggio had allegedly invited Christina Anderson and her children to his home at 2071 Ross Avenue in Boulevard to say goodbye because he was planning to move to Texas"


 * So, we're doubting that she was really kidnapped, that perhaps the police and media got it all wrong, and also doubting that he invited them over to his home.  D r e a m Focus  03:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To expand on my edit summary, everything on Wikipedia is technically an allegation. We could say police allegedly found the bodies, or DiMaggio was allegedly killed by FBI (we didn't see those things happen). The only reason we sometimes do it for crimes is to not taint a fair trial. Without an upcoming trial or living person, that part's gone. So how do we decide where to draw the line without it? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would use "alleged" or "allegedly" only in repeating assertions that can (now) never be proved or even probed, and which no person now living can state as fact (or dispute). Examples are what James DiMaggio may have said to Christina Anderson at some private moment, since both parties are dead; or what DiMaggio's expressed (or real) motivations were for inviting her and her family to Ross Avenue -- or for that matter for taking Hannah to Idaho, unless Hannah can state this with certainty (and so far I don't think she has). The question of whether Hannah was kidnapped was already investigated and official sources concluded she was, so no need to describe this as an "alleged" kidnapping. Dwpaul (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And to clarify: the use of "allegedly" in the example you give above doesn't express doubt that DiMaggio invited the Andersons to his home -- it leaves open the possibility that he did so for some reason other than to say goodbye because he was moving to Texas. (We will now never know for sure.) This is a perfect example of the difference between fact (and/or reasonable assumption) and allegation. Dwpaul (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it safe to assume police asked Hannah why they were invited to his house? And safe to assume "saying goodbye before Texas" was at least the expressed motivation? Police concluded this just like the kidnapping conclusion, through questions and answers. Wouldn't hurt to add a comma and "ostensibly" after "Boulevard", I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, you did exactly that before I suggested it. Nice! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's cosmic, Man. BTW, the authorities wouldn't have learned of DiMaggio's "ostensible" motive for the invitation by talking with Hannah, as this was already being reported in media prior to Hannah being found and interviewed. According to the article at that link, Christina's father made this allegation. Dwpaul (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was mostly guessing there. I stand corrected. Still, questions and answers, like all news stories. As Heather O'Rourke said in her final chapter, "If you talk about things, they happen." Same basic deal with our verifiability policy (and my/your suggestion). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding that "even a dead man has a reputation and a family that may wish to protect it." I believe this is directly relevant to use of the word 'alleged' in the light of the accused's sister directly saying on national news, quote "I would like to remind you that at this point my brother is still a suspect. He is not a killer. He is accused."- Lori Dimaggio to CBS San Diego. Additionally the Sheriff's office has taken care to qualify DiMaggio as "suspect James DiMaggio", per the standard of innocent until proven guilty. Slipdrive44 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a right to presumption of innocence outside a court of law. (If you research this, you will find it's true.) This case will never be heard in court, because the sole suspect is dead. Based on the preliminary investigation and circumstantial evidence, officials have stated without qualification that DiMaggio abducted Anderson. That is what is reported in this article. It was carefully written to only reflect DiMaggio's circumstantial connection to the other events (murders, fire), since his culpability in those events may never be legally proved. In those events, he is a suspect; in the kidnapping, he has been determined without a doubt to be the perpetrator.  That he might have had a legal defense is a moot point now. Dwpaul (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Even to keep consistency with this article's citations, even a cursory review reflects that numerous sources title's refer to the "suspect" and circumstances as "alleged", to remove 'alleged' is to make an a priori assumption of guilt of the suspect, and does not reflect the content of the cited sources. Slipdrive44 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of the citations here were written prior to the encounter in Idaho, when it was not known where the subjects were, nor even if they were together, and hence whether Hannah had been abducted. I do not have currently have time to sift through the citations written post-Idaho; maybe someone else does. However, in response to your edit summary, while I recommended consideration for the family of a dead man, the family doesn't actually get to dictate the language used to describe the man and his relationship to a crime. Dwpaul (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I retitled this discussion to try to keep a NPOV and better describe it. User:Dream Focus reverted, which I suppose is their right since they started the conversation.  I still think the conversation is really about whether, and when, the use of "alleged/ly" is appropriate, not about whether there has been a WP:BLP violation (I think we've established there has not). 19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not established that at all. I posted on the BLP noticeboard to ask their opinions about this.  Insinuating the girl might be lying, and maybe she had something to do with the murdering of her family, is slanderous.   D r e a m Focus  19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Using "allegedly" in this way is a BLP violation. I have removed the violation. Do not restore it until a clear consensus forms here, or elsewhere, that this is not a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP policies. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My proposed solution is this: the information that an abduction took place will remain, without the qualifier "allegedly," since the official position is that she was abducted. The first sentence will be split/modified to indicate that the primary suspect was DiMaggio, without saying (at it does now) that he was the (sole) abductor, since that has never been (and may never be) proven. This should satisfy the legalists who think he should not be identified as the abductor unless a court finds him so, without appearing to cast doubt on Ms. Anderson's claim (and the investigators' conclusion) that she was abducted. The other information as presented should not require modification, since it relates circumstantial evidence but does not state that DiMaggio committed the murders or set the fire. Dwpaul (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. He was the only suspect.  No one ever suggested there was more than one abductor.  She would've said something and they'd still be looking if there was.  If the police report says they determined he kidnapped her and murdered two family members and a dog, then that's what we go by, not some crazed conspiracy theory that maybe some imaginary unmentioned person might've been involved in this.   D r e a m Focus  20:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see now that Dwpaul has edited the infobox in two places to say "suspected perpetrator" instead of just "perpetrator".  Do you doubt that he committed the murders?   D r e a m Focus  20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While you may think it outrageous that anyone would question the victim or the official account, your outrage is not NPOV. NPOV is a requirement here. The current article as edited maintains NPOV and states the facts according to the official account, without assumptions (which can be left to reader) or implications (other than what the facts suggest). DiMaggio is, and will likely remain, the only suspect, but that is really all we can or should say here. Bonus: If someone adds "alleged/ly" now, it will be clear that they are not promoting a legalistic view concerning presumption of innocence, but that they are engaging in a potential BLP violation. That was my goal. Dwpaul (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind "suspected" for now, but would definitely change that in light of any firm findings from an inquest. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just reverted a contribution from User:ThVa that reported speculation that Hannah Anderson may have been planning to go off with DiMaggio and may have faked injuries. Our Biographies of Living Persons policy won't let us report any of that. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPGOSSIP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the victims that are her mother and brother? You're essentially engaging in whitewashing. ThVa (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not understanding your point about Christina and Ethan Anderson. Sticking to the facts and only citing information from reliable sources is not censorship or whitewashing. Dwpaul (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We take libel very seriously. No reliable sources claim there is any truth or even any likelihood of truth behind the rumor being spread by the suspect's sister, that Anderson was anything but a victim. The investigators deny the rumor categorically. If that changes, wild horses wouldn't stop it from appearing in this article.


 * This site is strictly governed by policies and none is as strictly enforced as our biographies of living persons policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Noted that the first HuffPo citation in the reverted edit is actually an AP report, generally accepted as WP:RS. It mentions the 13 phone calls (which have been widely reported). However, it doesn't engage in conjecture about potential complicity of Ms. Anderson, and in fact includes an unequivocal statement from the SDC Sheriff that no complicity is suspected. The information about the 13 phone calls may be appropriate to include, with this citation, but not the editor's speculation as to what s/he or others think what they might mean. Dwpaul (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just watched an excerpt from an interview with Anderson where she explained the 13 calls were one text conversation. He was picking her up from practice and wasn't clear on where and when to meet her. There's nothing in this. It's shitty tabloid sensationalism of the very lowest order; exactly what we must ignore. I guess if, as someone above mentioned, in time there is a significant scandal surrounding the way the press has behaved, it might be worth devoting a few sentences to that. But while it's nothing but sleazy innuendo and made-up crap, we shouldn't touch it with a bargepole. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * CBS is a reliable source. I have just added a sentence that paraphrases exactly what is in the cited article. The information is completely factual and undisputed by anyone. ThVa (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No argument here. The edit accurately reflects what the citation reveals without speculating about its possible meaning. The source (CBS/AP) is reliable. I did take out a comma that seemed misplaced to me since the letters were not found before the murders had occurred. Dwpaul (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Moved discussion of a proposed page move (retitle), previously appearing here, to a new section. Dwpaul (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
The infobox currently has down as a victim 1 dog. Should that stay? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes In a nutshell (long version above), Cali was killed by the same guy as the others, and her body covered about the same as the mother's. Multiple secondary sources mention her death and discovery, along with the others, and she was mourned as well. Notable and verifiable. To exclude solely on personal feelings of the importance of her species is biased. It's a common bias, sure, but common doesn't make it neutral. History is rife with terribly acceptable examples. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because something is verifiable does not mean it belongs in an article, let alone having a dog as a victim in the info box. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there are often valid reasons for exclusion. Do you have one, or just not like it? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Not information someone would look for or even expect to find in an Infobox, and has nothing to do with notability. The dog is mentioned appropriately in the narrative and should remain there. Dwpaul (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The woman, child and killer are also mentioned elsewhere. Infoboxes summarize the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The template page for the Civilian Attack Infobox defines "fatalities" as the "Number of people killed during attack(s)". Dogs are not people. There is nothing on the template page to suggest that the authors intended the word "people" to include anything other than human fatalities. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also nothing to suggest only humans is meant. As I've said to you, dogs can be "people", too. Instead of repeating/pasting, others can see our discussion on this by searching this page for "Merriam". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is every reason to believe that only humans are meant by "people", and nothing to suggest otherwise. Mostly I added the comment because I didn't know if my statements counted if they weren't under this topic heading. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Same with my reply. The entire other section may be too long to read for some. Sorry if you took "As I've said to you..." in a nagging way. Not intentional, but I can see how it might sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, per the editor voting "No" immediately above me. Andreas JN 466 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No Dogs are not people. People means humans.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've noted above, it depends how you define the word. Merriam gives "lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation" for "people", and "a single organism as distinguished from a group" for "individual" (which is the second word in the "person" definition). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. That particular infobox (Infobox civilian attack) is not completely fitting for this case, since this case involved more than the killing of just civilian people. It also involved the killing of a dog, and that deserves to be mentioned.
 * Furthermore, we need not defer to what the template creator intended. We can use the template in any way we wish. This is a generalized template that can be used in many specialized cases such as this one. It's quite normal to use a general template in a specialized way. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This question (should dogs be included in the infobox) is really a matter for the Template_talk:Infobox_civilian_attack. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been open for over a week. Four editors have weighed in against inclusion, as opposed to two in favor of inclusion. Is there any reason for keeping the discussion open? Boneyard90 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These typically stay open a month, unless there's a unanimous decision, or clear reason to say one side has a snowball's chance in Hell. Not the case here. The No votes have problems, which I've pointed out. Only fair to allow time for these points to be corrected or clarified. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Every discussion I've ever been in was typically closed after a week. The "No" votes have problems, true, but I don't think we're thinking of "problems" in the same way. Ok, then, leave it open. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I may have confused "typically" with "default". Not quite the same. But, in my limited experience, contentious ones usually last the month. And yeah, I mean problems with the arguments and think you mean problems the arguers see in the infobox. "I don't like it" is where we all have a problem, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No A dog cannot be a murder victim. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also can't be a murderer. And those shot by police are also rarely ever "victims". Moot point here, though. The fatality field description only says it counts those killed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moot indeed, a dog cannot be a murder victim either, having a dog in the info box is quite simply, ridiculous. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No This is trivial. Instaurare (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No trivial and demeaning to put the death of people on the same level as the death of a dog. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Assigning our own subjective values to each or any of these lost lives, despite the facts in reliable sources, is not neutral. Cali was mentioned in news reports and featured at the family's memorial service. Hannah Anderson lamented her death along with the others on her ask.fm page. In light of this, is there anything beside your gut feeling that supports the "demeaning" or "trivial" claims? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a product designed to serve the needs of humans. We do not need to consider the feelings or needs of any other species in making decisions about relevant and appropriate content or presentation here. And, frankly, Bencherlite does not need to defend or explain their comment that they think this issue is trivial. If the consensus is "No" (and/or "It's trivial"), the consensus should and presumably will stand, whether or not you feel that all of your arguments have been addressed to your satisfaction. Consensus is not (necessarily) unanimous agreement of all parties, it is an agreement to move forward even when unanimity proves impossible. Dwpaul (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We're really not supposed to consider anyone's feelings. Just the facts and policies. And no, nobody I've rebutted here should feel obliged to defend their view. Totally optional. I'm just doing it so anyone reading can weigh the arguments. Might be something I've said that they missed. If the decision goes to "No dogs allowed" on numbers alone, c'est la vie, but I wouldn't want the preserved discussion to show I didn't try. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note also that an editor has created two redirects to this article, Murder of Cali Anderson and Murder of Cali the Dog. Given the common principle of law that a dog cannot be the victim of murder, and the unlikelihood that these search phrases will be used, I propose that these redirects should be deleted and if recreated, the editor should be cited for disruptive editing. Dwpaul (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also that the redirects were created on 10 September 2013, after this RfC was initiated and the editor participated in it, so the editor was aware that the issue was contentious. Dwpaul (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I nominated those two redirects for deletion.   D r e a m Focus  15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the deletion. An article isn't called "Murder of ~" unless there's been a murder conviction. And there won't be. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)