Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard/Archive 2

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

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


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


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


 * They should not be named, regardles of it beeing legal and widely publisised elsewhere and likely to be changed. It's not highly relevant for the article to know their names and Wikipedia is not a taboild that need to push the boundries of the freedom of the press to sell more issues. We can't controll what "the media" and other websites do, but Wikipedia haven it's own guidelines with regards to naming non-public figures that get chaught up in these kinds of events. If the only reason to publish names is "everyone else is doing it" that's no reason at all per WP:BLP. --Sherool (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If either child later becomes notable in and of herself, such as by granting interviews, her name will be on en.Wikipedia. So far, WP:BLP straightforwardly supports not naming them and this could easily be so throughout their lives. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment these girls are considered potential victims and will not be named in the Associated Press, which does not use names for victims of sexual assault unless they have already been widely publicized, as in the case of Jaycee. That would be a wise policy for Wikipedia as well. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, one AP article revision today named the two children. CNN and MSNBC have both reported their names on TV today. I disagree that it is irrelevant to this article, but overall I agree that its not worth the downside.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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


 * A quick look at the article shows that they are named in it, in the references section. If we wanted to totally leave out their names, we would have to remove a couple of references. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, I don't believe they have any legal names yet. Presumably they don't even have birth certificates since they have never seen a doctor, and were most likely to have been born at home. In such conditions it is likely that the children don't have a last name. The kidnappers called Jaycee "Alissa", but I don't think Jaycee will want to keep that "Alissa" name; it remains to be seen whether they will also want to keep the names they were using for the two girls. --76.199.138.226 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have read their names in several notable publications (at least two newspapers here in the UK and on the People website in the US) so whatever the preference here, the names have been widely reported. I'm not repeating them here, but there does seem to be a dispute over the spelling of the elder girl's name. I've seen it written three different ways already. Regardless, while I would still prefer the names to not be in the article (and I think editors would be well within the rules if they demand that the girls are not named), I won't object if someone puts them in, as long as the most reliable source possible is used for the spelling. Sky83 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sooner or later their names will be in this article (I too have stumbled upon them many times, checking other sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the actual laws in America covering this? I figured they were just being named in the UK because we aren't governed by US law, but when I read the names on People, it became obvious that my assumption was incorrect. I'm going to guess there are no formal/correct birth certificates for the girls, which perhaps would explain the names being released, if they are to be changed anyway. I'm speculaing here, this can't be verified, but I was just curious as to whether there is a specific law prohibiting the information coming out, and whether it's just come out anyway? I still don't think we need to name them here though, no matter what the press is doing, but I think it's sadly inevitable the names will sneak in anyway. Sky83 (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no laws in the United States preventing these kids from being named in any publication. Names are public record and, unfortunately, the children are now newsworthy. Barring a court order, not using the names of sexual assault victims is a matter of morality and ethics and policy for the Associated Press, not a matter of law. In general, we (I'm a reporter) DON'T use names only when the case is extraordinarily sensitive or there is no other way to get the story out. Many news agencies are still choosing not to use these kids' names, specifically because they might turn out to be assault victims, even though some others are. I think that also needs to be the policy for this article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Renewed interest
I just reversed an edit that named the children. It is my understanding of this discussion that consensus has not been reached, and until then they should not be named. I'm acting on the assumption that the user who inserted this information may have been unaware of the discussion. Nrehnby (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I realize this may not be germane to what Wikipedia policy dictates, or what this discussion determines is correct, but as a side note, on August 31 Jaycee's sister, Shayna, noted on her MySpace page "I have heard the names of my neices have been released but I am wondering..how much did someone get paid to do it?" It was food for thought. Nrehnby (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good assumption. I was unaware of this discussion.
 * To me it seems rather silly to suppress the names "for privacy reasons". The names have been mentioned in numerous sources, and in my opinion, mentioning a person's name is NOT an invasion of their privacy.
 * As for not knowing if the names will change now they the children are no longer in captivity, allow me to remind you that Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball. Should the names be changed, the article can be changed to reflect the new names.
 * In my opinion, the way things are now, we might as well blank the children field in the template, as it looks tacky.
 * Victor Victoria (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon checking out some other articles, Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and Barack Obama, it appears that the policy is to include names of minors. In the case of Sarah Palin, she is particularly concerned about privacy, as was exhibited in the fued she had with David Letterman and the speech she gave on the day she resigned.
 * Per the norm exhibited in those articles, I will restore the names of the children. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to reverse the edit again, but I think you should have made your case, and then waited for response on the discussion page (at least a few hours, if not a day) before re-inserting their names. Some of the good points that have been raised are: this is nothing like Obama's children, nor Palin's (who she publicly introduced) -- the circumstances here are entirely different; we do not have confirmed, reliable sources that these are the children's names (neighbours may have called them that, but my neighbours call my dad "Bill" even though his name is "Willard"); and the children likely do not have legal names, which makes this a grey area. Finally, and most importantly, the family has made an effort to protect the names of the girls (see today's official statement and interview by Tina Dugard, the girls' aunt, who specifically withheld their names, and would not confirm that the names assumed by the media are accurate.) I'm prepared for the discussion to overlook all of this and publish the names, but I do think you should voluntary remove the names and wait for this discussion to evolve. Nrehnby (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the last week that has made it more appropriate to add the children's names. Just because it can be sourced doesn't make it okay. The family is actively trying to keep this from happening. Additionally, as Wikipedia is based in Florida, it may violate the Florida Crime Victims Prevention Act to publish the names of abused minors on hardware based in the state of Florida.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLPNAME--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 04:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not introduce absurd comparisons with Palin. It is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the minors to put their names in Wikipedia at this point. If someday they or their mother write books, or they appear on the Today Show or 60 Minutes and trade on their instant fame, or if the names are more widely published in mainstream media, then we can reconsider, The children are victims and their mother is a victim. Wikipedia should follow, not lead, the media in revealing personal information about minors who are victims of crime. We are not on deadline, so there is no benefit in rushing to reveal personal data of living persons. At this point, I feel that per WP:BLP the names of the two children should be kept out of the article. Is there a consensus for that position? Edison (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? you must not be talking to me. But as I indicated above, per WP:BLPNAME, there is consensus through a policy indicating they should be left out.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed against naming the two daughters of Jaycee at this point, and against the actions of User:Victor Victoria. Sorry if the indenting was not sufficient to somehow encode that intention. I advocate keeping the names out at this point,and there appears to be consensus to that effect. The consensus may shift over time in a criminal case of imprisonment and rape. See for instance the Fritzl case. Edison (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no essential facts which could not be referenced to articles without the names of the minors in the reference. Edison (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to have settled on leaving out the names for now, and leaving out news sources which state the childrens' name which were included just to say Jaycee is at "an undisclosed location." If the consensus of the mainstream media becomes to publish the 2 names, we can revisit this question. We cannot unring a bell, and in a somewhat comparable case, the names are included in the Fritzl case. If the family publicizes the names by news interviews, books or TV appearances, that would be a strong clue. Edison (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The names of the daughters are not germane to the article. FYI the criminal complaint here refers to Dugard as "Jane Doe" per California Penal Code Section 293.5. The Russian language Wikipedia article does mention the daughters' names, BTW (none of the other European ones do). Einbierbitte (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter what the law says, leaving the children's names out is the decent thing to do. BTW If I were the kids, I would regard my name (however I came by it) as my own property; this notion of changing their names is bizarre.--Muinchille1 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have there been any reports or charges related to sexual abuse of the two daughters? If not, then the names can be printed here76.126.238.69 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Insane
Why are some users insisting on introducing dead links as was done here and here? This is part of a URL. You can't arbitrarily change a URL. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. links replaced with similar references.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Well I don't object to it staying if it what you say there is eventually reflected in the article, but right now it just says he used LSD at one point with no information about why that might be important. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Citation doesn't equal or create relevancy. --lacarids (talk) 04 08:40 SEPT 09  —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

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

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

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


 * What I am trying to do is to separate out a factual narrative of "what happened". That does not require commentary and quotations and analysis by the media. I think that the problem is here is that the tent living that the three victims endured, even though it may sound unacceptable to us, attained (for lack of a better phrase) a sense of normalcy for them. In particular, for Jaycee, having had two children and a private life with the biological father (and who-knows how much religion filling in the gaps), we have yet to determine why she did not attempt to escape as an adult. My point is: after around 2002, we do not know that she was being held in physical captivity. She certainly was not being starved or physically tortured. It is not for us to say that "some sense of normalcy set in", but it is for us to inform the reader that it no longer occurred to her to try to escape (perhaps because she did not perceive herself as suffering or in immediate danger). All of the psycho-babble in the press in Monday-morning quarterbacking. Matters is: after some point there is some basis for that guilt she is not feeling and I suspect it is because she did not try to escape as an adult because she just adjusted to it and muddled through. I think that my biggest problem with the press/law enforcement is the "house of horrors". Where is the torture, the chains, the dental caries and missing teeth, the scars of untreated disease or tragic accidents because of the ignorance these people were kept in? Were they living in their own filth or in squalor? If you offer that situation to one of Jimmy Wales' "children in Africa" or some mentally ill homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk in San Francisco, they might find it to be a step up. The "horrors" have yet to become available to us, if they exist at all. Are the perps going to prison for decades if not the rest of their lives? They are likely to get the book thrown at them and the some. These three victims were kept in some ignorance and thereby were they captives. Again: the facts point to this: some sense of normalcy set in and we have yet to find that the "house of horrors" is anything more than verbiage for the district attorney.--76.199.103.224 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am suggest that we avoid:

--76.199.103.224 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * quotations (WP should find it own voice to say "what happened" to what degree of verifiability)
 * experts who have not been officially involved (Bill Frist about other events comes to mind).
 * anything but the NPOV facts (which does not include he said... she said... analysis, pyscho-babble and blah blah blah)


 * Quotations of witnesses are ok. "Experts" in this "field" can be dodgy. I happen to agree about "psycho-babble" but the pith is, big edits should be talked about here first. You're very welcome to carry on making sourced input here on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
"'Emotion does not trump logic at Wikipedia. We are not trying to 'win' what Steele and Beasor characterize as a 'game'. Wikipedia is not a business deal. It is an encyclopaedia. Well-argued statements do beat personal, subjective tastes.'--'WP:I just don't like it'" The removal of the infobox on the right margin with the rationale of WP:BLP is not the type of precise deletion rationales envisioned by WP:Preserve. In my opinion, if an editor has an wholesale aversion to infoboxes, s/he should be honest with hi/rself and say so. (This is not an attack. It is, rather, a statement of my sincere belief.) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP doesn't even mention infoboxes... and all the information is available in the article anyway. Unless an actual explanation can be provided I think the infobox should be restored. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment on content, not the editor. I've already asked JMHN to gather consensus here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Person infoboxes" within our encyclopedia should not repeat details found elsewhere in articles where they're used? Gwen, if this isn't what you getting at, please explain what it is you do mean.
 * Your deletion rationale is where BLP was brought up, Gwen. If I have exasperation with the arguement you've presented (or, in this case, not presented) -- please don't interpret it as exasperation with you personally. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Infoboxes can be helpful, but they can also quickly narrow a topic's PoV if not carefully sourced. This is not about a lone, sparse infobox on JLD. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some pertinent questions: Anyone have suggestions on making any of them more sparse? Should one or another be removed altogether? (And if so, why?) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't wait for consensus, but it'll have sway either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been a lengthy discussion of this at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The consensus there was that when the article is about an event rather than a person, person infoboxes are not appropriate. Same conclusion was reached on Fritzl case and other similar articles. Are we going to be consistent on this article? Harry the Dog WOOF  11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with you because for example Josef Fritzl has an infobow, Meredith Kerchers attackers has infoboxes, Casey Anthony has infoboxes. And remember that without Jaycee there wouldnt be any kidnapping at all so to say that she isnt entitled to an ifnobox when most people is interested in her as a person it not correct either i think. I say lets keep the infobox. anything that can makethis case clearer is in favour of this article.--Judo112 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I alos personally like the Garridos infoboxes as that establish more of who they are in comparison to their victim. In some articles without infoboxes you dont know who is who sometimes its just a long article which doesnt establish my interest atleast.--Judo112 (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fritzl case info box was added against consensus and has since been removed. This is a major problem with Wikipedia, and one of the reasons it is not taken seriously in some quarters. Despite all the policies and guidelines that exist, there is no consistency across the encyclopaedia. If most other articles of a similar nature don't have infoboxes as a result of carefully built consensus on those articles, surely a new article like this one should take guidance from that. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A project-wide guideline would be useful. Someone should initiate a discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes (although, until then, we should remember WP:Other stuff exists). I've started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove or amend the infobox showing Gurrido as the offender and Nancy as his spouse? As far as I am aware both of these people are charged equally by the police, and there is an inherent and unnacceptable gender bias in identifying Gurrido as the perpetrator and Nancy as his wife. I suspect that if you had asked any of the victims of Fred & Rose West which of them was the perpetrator, they would not have hesitated in saying "both", and certainly the law in the UK regarded them as equally culpable.--Muinchille1 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYT says both have been arraigned on the charges. As I've said before, infoboxes with mistaken content like this can sway the whole article, since some editors can easily make the mistake of thinking the infobox has been thoroughly sourced and heedfully written. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:PRESERVE would indicate perhaps a removal of Nancy from Phillip's infobox and adding an infobox for Nancy. (BTW, actually the infobox at this time does not detail Phillip's current charges but repeats the information given in the accompanying acticle section about his prior criminal history, except without mentioning his current charges: so, no false information had been included in it at all.) Nevertheless, I'll now go add Phillip's recent charges and create one for Nancy, too (who had no criminal history). ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we get them side by side? I think that that is fair presentation. (I fear that all of this may be proved right/ wrong/ hopelessly wrong by events, but at the moment we should be fair). If this were Ireland or Britain you would be prejudicing any trial by publicising details of prior convictions. Can we ensure that that is not the case in California?--Muinchille1 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Garridosinfo✅And I also removed Phillip's "priors" (despite their mention in the article's body of text). ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  19:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My biggest worry is that these infoboxes, through their very layout and hopelessly broad labelings, sway NPoV and make the article stray from WP:BLP. I think they should go. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hopelessly broad labelings" is dire; and, since, in my opinion, instances of hopelessly overbroad labeling should be removed as well from the main body of text, please specify, to enable its being addressed. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is dire, everything about them can and likely will mislead a reader, even the pictures. So far as this ever-unfolding, BLP-laden topic goes, no label can be fixed, the infoboxes (summaries) add nothing to the text but rather, by their very format, harm it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should your photos-or-infoboxes-in-BLPs concerns be brought up within some venues that are more project-wide forums? ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying in general that images in a BLP can be problematic itself is hopelessly broad. Do you think it might help explain your meaning as applied to this article were you to specify, for example, which image or images you find inappropriate, and specify a rationale for doing so, &c? ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The infoboxes and snaps might be ok for a down-market tabloid flogging a "police victory" PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From your colorful, if inspecific language, I perceive you find giving extensive coverage to this event of current interest to be WP:FANCRUFTISH? Yet, isn't giving balanced coverage to such topics, rather, a strength of Wikipedia's? ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restarted this discussion at the bottom of the talkpage. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the Garridos in Contra Costa County awaiting trial? I thought they were in Eldorado County. Corsair1944 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks, Corsair. (Curious. Had the Garridos been temporarily held down in the Bay Area to facilitate a State psych eval ? Or did its citation here get the story wrong? Cf: "Britain's Daily Telegraph reported that Garrido and his wife, Nancy, who was also arrested, were on suicide watch. "Guards at Contra Costa County Jail in Martinez," the paper revealed, "are checking his cell every 15 minutes around the clock to make sure the former LSD addict does not try to kill himself." The Garridos, however, are behind bars in El Dorado County." (link)) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bay City News says, "The Garridos were booked into Contra Costa County jail late Wednesday night and were transferred to El Dorado County this morning." Which would have been last Friday. I'll update the article. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  20:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Antioch is in Contra Costa. South Lake Tahoe is in El Dorado. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-added
I disagree, and have added the tags for the third time now. The high level of input is both part of the reason it needs help, and part of the reason it is improving at all. Whether or not it has significant problems is a matter of opinion; I think this article has such significant problems that I've considered protecting it further. Its most serious problem is that it continues to violate WP:BLP often and flagrantly. Less serious but no less prevalent are the tone, grammar, formatting, and citation issues. Since others have asked for examples above, I am listing a few from this version: I could go on (and on and on) but this should be enough to explain why this article needs serious help. It is all that can be done right now to try to keep it within the confines of WP:BLP without also trying to edit it for clarity, grammar, content, and readability. Frank |  talk  02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In November of 1976, Garrido was able to get a ride from Katherine Callaway Hall (b. 1951), where he hijacked her in South Lake Tahoe, California and forced her to drive to a Nevada warehouse where he raped her over a 24 hour period, but was caught by the police immediately afterward. - This sentence is uncited and hard to make any sense of, and is also a run-on sentence. It does not add to the article, and in fact detracts from its readability and credibility.
 * In later interviews, he spoke of masturbating in public restrooms. - Who did? When were the interviews? Was this credible? Does it add to the article, or is just prurient?
 * Garrido was convicted of rape and, beginning in 1978, Garrido served about 10 years of a 50-year federal sentence for the kidnapping, and less than a year for a concurrent Nevada sentence of five years to life for sexual assault of a 25-year old woman in South Lake Tahoe. - About 10 years? We can't do better than that? "The kidnapping?" Does this refer to the one mentioned later in the sentence...about the 25-year old (sic) woman? And, is that woman the same one as the one named at the beginning of the paragraph?
 * Garrido was paroled in 1988 after serving less than a year at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center, following his imprisonment at the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth for kidnapping. Waitasec. Were the sentences concurrent or not? Was he imprisoned for rape or kidnapping?
 * He would later wear a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet and was regularly visited by police, even as late as July 2008. He would wear? Or he wore? He was "visited" by police? Did they have tea? Were they parole officers? "Even as late as..." What is that awkward wording about?
 * Garrido went to live with his elderly mother (born circa 1930) Circa? We either know, or we don't know. If we don't, let's leave it out.
 * From 1999 onwards, the Garridos called for ambulance services five times to address various medical emergencies his mother experienced. During this time, the pair would also spend some time providing care for other elderly neighbors, at least to the point of feeding them and later acting as caretakers for the neighboring house when it was vacant and, to some degree, Phillip Garrido seems to live in a shed in that neighbor's backyard. "The Garridos...his mother experienced"- these don't match. "Would also spend" - How about the clearer "spent"? Also, this run-on sentence just barrels into oblivion by its conclusion: "seems to live in a shed in that neighbor's backyard." I thought the awkwardness of this sentence was self-evident.
 * I agree that we would like to see these issues resolved and the tags removed. If no-one disagrees, I will begin copyediting these seven items now, and inserting [citation needed] as necessary. Nrehnby (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's done. I'm an experienced copyeditor, but new to Wikipedia, so please let me know if I've got anything wrong (I'm not sensitive about these things). I addresses all of your basic editing concerns in this section, inserted citations, and inserted where appropriate. The only substantive edit I made was to remove the reference to masturbation in public restrooms as it was uncited, not germane to the story (I doubt that's controversial), and covered more appropriately elsewhere (masturbating while parked at schools). I would appreciate assistance in combining multiple (repeated) references, as I could not figure out how to do that (repeating the same reference in several places seems appropriate given that so many lines of text are later interrupted by new material). If you have other sections that require copyediting, please advise. Your comments were helpful. Nrehnby (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping up; there's plenty more to do on this article, including some of the items on the list above. (If the sentences were concurrent, why were they served consecutively? If he got married while at Leavenworth, why is that mentioned after he was released from there?) Please don't wait for a list; improvements to this article are most welcome. As for combining refs, name them at the first instance, then use the name for later occurrences with just a trailing slash and no closing tag (the slash closes it): .  Frank  |  talk  12:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit now completed
I have now completed a thorough copyedit of all sections, keeping in mind the concerns that have been noted here. Please keep in mind that I'm a newbie, and [|Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers]. If I've got anything wrong, please correct it; I'm not sensitive about these things. I would like to propose at this point that an experienced editor either 1) remove the tags (discussed above) or 2) specifically identify further improvements to be made. Nrehnby (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as the news trucks have Walnut Street in Antioch to go on to other breaking stories, contributions to this page seem to have fallen off. As a newbie, I'm not sure what the process is here, perhaps request for review? I'm messaging several of the experienced editors who have contributed to this page and asking you to drop by. Some of the outstanding issues are (as discussed) are, but are not limited to: 1. How's the edit? Someone should review the newbie's work, yes? 2. Can we remove the tags now? Or does the page still need work? Being specific and constructive would be awesome. 3. How are we doing on BLP? In my edit, I removed quite a bit of private information and controversial/unreferenced materials, following guidelines. Too much? Should more be cut? (e.g. There is a Garrido rape case mentioned, for which he was not convicted. Does BLP require that it be cut? All this and more... This is my first significant contribution: feedback appreciated (both on the edit, and the process). Nrehnby (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FBI "files" data removed -- and restored
This was removed from the article tonight because it was cited by the NY Post: A few day previous, Garrido had visited the San Francisco office of the FBI and left a four-page rambling essay on his own ideas about religion and sexuality, suggesting that he had discovered some social or religious solution to problem behaviors like his own past crimes. The citation is an assertion of its factual existence, but editor Frank, calling the NY Post a "tabloid," takes it out of the article with no discussion. However, it is very interesting, the NYPost has often been cited by WP, and if a second ref can be found, it should be reinserted. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Victims
I have added a comment from Elizabeth Smart about the situation. Jaycee's situation is more complex because Phillip Dugard's well-loved children are clearly the biological offspring of Phillip. My mind informs me that the children will soon ask when they will next visit their father. While this complicates the separation of good and evil (e.g. this person is "good" and that other person is "evil"), I think that we should use our judgment. While Phillip Garrido might spend much or all of the rest of his natural days in prison, his two children would not exist without him. I did not invent this World; I am just pointing out that his children might require that such psychic dissonance be minimized. They might still love their Daddy for giving them Life at all. They might accommodate visiting "Daddy in jail" and otherwise get on with Life. Even Jaycee is still sorting out the logical dissonance of her situation (note her supposed "guilt" in not attempting to escape) and take the advice of Ms. Smart and forgo "years of counseling" and whatnot. She might just start with some minimum-wage job bagging groceries, go back to school and proceed (and ultimately say: "What of it?") For now: she was clearly abducted but we have yet to determine how many years of "captivity" and "abuse" she experienced. I hope that she finds her voice and expresses hersefl about what happened, especially in the sense of to what degree was she "confined".--Thalustan (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is speculation that has no reliable source. Did the rapist truly "well love " the children of him and his victim? Reliable non-pedophile sources, please? Edison (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?
There is no reason to move this article to a title beginning with "alleged". As reported for 18 years by reliable sources, she was kidnapped. Whether or not a particular person or persons committed the crime is not the point. At the moment, while they have pleaded "not guilty", there are two suspects in custody. We refer to them as "alleged kidnappers" - as is appropriate, but the crime itself is widely reported to have occurred. If this is changing, let's have some cites to support it. Frank |  talk  13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC) (I reversed the move already.)
 * I agree with Frank's reasoning. I see nothing wrong with leaving this article at "Kidnapping of..."  The courts will decide if the suspects are criminally guilty so they should be refered to as "alleged" but the article title should stay.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No reliable source has indicated that it was anything but a kidnapping. Edison (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * And, when we do, then we can write about them. In the meantime, with all due respect, what you "expect" is not what we write about here. We write what others have written in reliable sources. Frank  |  talk  19:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do, of course, refer to observations of Dugard's apparent Stockholm syndrome. (That a sex slave kidnapped from an early age, who has, by degrees, been allowed more and more freedom in recognition of her felicity to the promises she had made to her captor, might feel ambivalence/guilt were she to violate this adopted belief system should not be surprising, nor that she might never have gone out of her way to do so. After all, such as it was, these mores would appear to be her adopted culture, even "religion." Cf: ancient Romans' worship of their emperor whereas Christians' not doing so; -- many Hindus' refusal to partake of beef; many Muslims and Jews, pork; many Americans, horsemeat; -- &c.... ) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without sources, it's all original research and shouldn't be brought here. This page is for talking about how the text can be built with sources, please take care to cite them. This is even more meaningful on the talk page of a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are,in the news, with regrettable frequency, reports of lunatics murdering children, even their descendants. The threat of this would have been an effective countermeasure against a kidnapped female fleeing alone from her captor, or calling the police. Rapist/kidnappers commonly threaten harm to the victims and their loved ones if the crime is reported. Edison (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we will find out eventually if "God's Desire" included death penalties for escape from the household of God's putative mouthpiece. (Along with kidnapping, blashemy is a capital crime according to the Old Testament; see List of capital crimes in the Torah.) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed content that was not in sources
I've reverted this edit because the two sources provided do say that "[i]nvestigations began in late August 2009 that Phillip Craig Garrido also killed various girls whose bodies were found over the years nearby offices of clients to his printing business", but they do not say "Not soon after public speculation in the form of blogs and forum posts began that over the many years Jaycee drew a strong bond with her captor and it was possible she was somehow involved." Where do these sources say that Jaycee was involved in the deaths of the other girls? SRobbins, please do not restore this information until you establish consensus on this talk page to so. Cunard (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) The above diffs were corrected on 02:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Further, public commentary on a news article is at best a primary source the use of which to support content about what is being said in public is arguably original research.  "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  See WP:SOURCES.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The content is in these sources. If you read the public comments you would find one here "http://abcnews.go.com/US/comments?type=story&id=8451296" under comments by "ZeeCupla" and one here "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/31/earlyshow/main5276887.shtml" in public comments by "MarioGelman". This is clearly not original thought, but a developing public reaction and as such belongs in.  Because this clippet is about public reaction and these are direct public sources for wiki to refence public reaction, it is relevant.
 * Not only that I will remind you that the good faith guide requires discussion before deleting, and as outlined by the vandalism page, deletion of content is vandalism and therefore is punishable. Its unacceptable to delete information on wiki with out discussion as outlined by wiki guides(this is called vandalism).  Cunard, you should know before everyone here that you do not delete before discussion.  Last Warning both of you! --SRobbins (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please understand and appreciate the difference between primary and secondary sources. Please read WP:SOURCES, in particular:


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


 * As noted by Gwen below, content removed in good faith, especially with reason specified in the edit summary, much less explained on the Talk page as is being done here, is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. See also the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle essay to learn more about how articles naturally evolve in Wikipedia, and what is appropriate/inappropriate behavior in that process.   --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More: Posts in comment sections and blogs are almost always not allowed as citations because they were not made by reliable sources through editorial means. These can be removed with a straightforward edit summary with little or no followup discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I see, its all clear now. We need a source like a news paper or article that points to this trend first. That makes sense. Thanks. --SRobbins (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We only follow the pack of reliable sources, we never lead. Edison (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming previous victim(s) of Garrido
Should we name the previous victim of Garrido, given that she has apparently been interviewed on Larry King under her real name. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think when a rape victim goes public like that, her name is out there.  Are her neighbors or co-workers going to find out because she's named in some obscure article on Wikipedia, or because she was on Larry King?  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * She had gone public, but if editors put it into the text it must be cited to highly reliable and widely distributed sources and WP:BLP must be very carefully heeded. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Must be cited? Let us not conflate the need to have article material "be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (see WP:SOURCES), with the need to cite such material accordingly.  The important thing is to only use material properly based in such sources; citing it accordingly is important, but secondary.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Must be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about providing a citation in guidelines or policy for your claim that material properly supported by sources must be cited accordingly? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, by my reading of WP:BURDEN, the need to cite only arises when material is challenged. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not completely correct. Read the bold text, which includes "or likely to be challenged". Frank  |  talk  23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In cases of WP:BLP anything controvsial about the subject needs to be cited with reliable sources. If we quote a rape victim of Garrido, then we have to have a reliable source that names both, before anyone questions it. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but is information made public on Larry King "likely to be challenged"? I mean, we're talking about specifying the name of a rape victim self-identified on Larry King that anyone using WP can google and instantly verify via countless news sources.  How is that "controversial"?  Legit challenges should be based on a good faith skepticism of the veracity of the material in question.  I, for one, would not consider a statement like that to be "likely to be challenged".   --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Anyone can google her name, but it is up to us to provide a reliable source for claims like this. When a claim such as rape appears on wikipedia, it must be backed up by a reliable source to protect both the victim and alleged rapist. If a claim like this is not cited, then wikipedia guidelines state that anyone finding the claim should remove it. The real question is whether we should include her name in the article. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this: When a claim such as rape appears on wikipedia, it must be backed up by a reliable source. Absolutely.


 * I disagree with this: If a claim like this is not cited, then wikipedia guidelines state that anyone finding the claim should remove it.


 * It must be not cited, and not known to be backed up by sources, to be removed.  However, if challenged or removed,  the burden for providing a citation is on the one adding or re-adding the material in question, regardless of whether the material is believed or known to be backed up by sources by the challenger/remover.


 * My point is this: people should not be removing material that they know to be backed up by reliable sources simply because it's not cited. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On en.Wikipedia, WP:BLP has sway over everything else. Anything like this must be very carefully cited and written. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, we don't add things and hope nobody challenges it, or presume it's ok to leave it there until somebody challenges it. The point is that with BLP issues especially, the burden is on the person putting the material in. There is no obligation to leave it simply on WP:AGF principles; if the material potentially impinges on someone else's rights, it is to be removed without prejudice. Frank  |  talk  01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP talks about the need "to get it right", sources, and references, not citations. Material that is sourced does not impinge on anyone's rights, whether it happens to be cited or not.  The main thing is to only use sourced material.  The citations are only required, even for BLP stuff, if the sourced material in question is contentious (that's the term used by WP:BLP).  Again, let's not conflate unsourced with uncited material.  Citations simply prove that the material is sourced, but it can be sourced even though not cited.   The important thing is that it be sourced.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a note of this and other talk page discussions on Village pump (policy), as I think we have exposed a few holes in policy that should not remain open.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "note" over there has little to do with what is being discussed here, and will have little effect on this article even though it is couched in terms of referring to this article. The policy is clear: we do not put information in first, claiming it can be sourced, and then wait until it is questioned to provide citations. If something is - or might be - questioned, we put the citations in at the outset. This is most especially true when we are talking about living persons, and even more so when they are underage, which two of the people mentioned in this article clearly are. If there is a policy discussion to be had, that's fine, but it won't affect this article anytime soon. In the meantime, we must adhere to existing policies. Frank  |  talk  01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict w/ Frank) No. WP:BLP is very straightforward:


 * Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
 * - sourced to Jimbo Wales - "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006


 * If an unsourced assertion in this BLP is in any way questioned (contentious), it will be removed. Two admins are telling you that sources must be given and moreover, this will be contentious without a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it has everything to do with this discussion started as, just not with what you and cyclist are arguing endlessly about. That's why I outdented completely.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be very straightforward about this: Assertions not cited to a reliable source can and will be removed, without discussion, from this WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am talking about. You clearly have read not one word of what I have written. EVERYONE reated to this case can be sourced and cited. The question isn't CAN they be. It is SHOULD they be, because it violates their privacy. Look at the first discussion on this page - I can cite both childrens names and add them to this article - should I? We have no policy.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and the current consensus around Wikipedia is that minors have to be very public figures before they lose their privacy. If you don't know Barack Obama's kids' names, Google them and then find them here on Wikipedia. They're here, but they do not have their own articles, because they are not notable. They are named mainly because that information is so completely public that it would be silly to leave the information out; that is not the case here. Frank  |  talk  02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only has that been the ongoing consensus, but that long-standing consensus (along with the outlook of WmF) is further echoed in the BLP policy BLP which not only reminds that BLPs about crime victims should be pared down, but everything in them should be carefully sourced and written. At the very least, a presumption of privacy means keeping the kids' names out of this until there is no shred of privacy left as to what those names are in the reliable sources. A sterner take would be to keep the name of any kid caught up in this out of the article until she began speaking up for herself in public, if ever. Whatever the consensus may be, the outcome here must (and will) fall within those two bounds. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sourced" and "cited" continues to be conflated in this discussion. To use Frank's example, do we need to cite a source for every reference to Obama's children's names?  No.  We just have to know that the information is provided in reliable secondary sources, which we know it is.  If some knuckle-head chooses to challenge some particular reference to them, then, yeah, the burden is on us to provide the citation, then, but there is no need to cite if it's not reasonably obvious to be contentious information.


 * The notion that uncited BLP material is inherently contentious simply because it's uncited is an absurd interpretation and misrepresentation of the intent and meaning of the relevant passage at BLP:


 * For this to apply, the material in question has to be contentious (independent of whether it is cited) and unsourced to warrant removal; simply being uncited does not make it contentious!   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there isn't WP:CONSENSUS to put information in an article, then it is contentious. Frank  |  talk  18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and as I said above, that kind of unsourced content will be and in truth is already contentious owing not only to this thread. However an editor wants to define sourced and cited, as with any BLP, any uncited content can be removed from this BLP without discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course material that is not supported by consensus is by definition contentious. No one here is talking about material like that not needing a citation!


 * But, merely the lack of citation should never in and of itself make the material contentious, even if it's BLP material. The BLP material in question should be contentious independent of whether it is cited, and only for that kind of inherently contentious material should lack of citation justify immediate removal.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding but isn't "uncited" grounds for removal regardless of BLP? Unless it's a plain fact (water is wet, my wife complains a lot, etc.) uncited material should be removed and brought to the talk page. Padillah (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're misunderstanding, but in non-BLPs, with content which to most users could in good faith be taken as easily verifiable but is as yet not cited to a source, it might be disruptive to strip an article of every uncited shred of text. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Padillah, you are misunderstanding. If it were true that merely being uncited is grounds for removing material then the bulk of WP articles should be gutted. As Gwen noted, that would be disruptive, to say the least.


 * It's also disruptive to strip a BLP article of "every uncited shred of text" - that's why such removal, even in BLP articles - is supposed to be limited to contentious material. And contentious is more specific than the "plain fact" standard to which you allude.  That is, the material has to be contested (or must be likely to be contested, and for grounds other than "it lacks citation").  Again, merely a lack of citation is not what makes the material contentious in the context of determining whether removing that material is justified.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This conversation will continue as long as there are willing participants. However, it will not result in any change in policy. Your interpretation of policy appears incorrect to me; it is not necessary for something to be obviously contentious to be removed; it may simply be a case where there is no consensus to include it. It may be tedious, but anyone who feels material is inappropriate can call for a cite or remove it. WP:BLP assigns the appropriate order of events: delete first, ask for cites later. In other cases, a judgment call is made. It happens all day, every day, all around the project. Discussion on this page will not change policy. Even a WP:CONSENSUS on this page would not be able to trump established policy, and there's a low tolerance when it comes to WP:BLP violations, as has already been pointed out as well. Frank |  talk  18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting changing policy! This discussion is about what the policy says and means.


 * As I thought we agreed above, lack of consensus to include material constitutes it being contentious, and, I would add, obviously so. I also agree that "anyone who feels material is inappropriate [and thus contentious] can call for a cite or remove it".  We're talking about material that is not felt to be inappropriate and known to be supported by appropriate sources, but simply not cited.  That last factor, simply not cited, should not be reason, in and of itself, to remove material.  Doing so would be disruptive.  That's all I'm saying, and all I've said from the beginning, and I don't understand why anyone would disagree with this.  This is exactly consistent with WP policy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Going back to the start of this discussion, my objection was to the unqualified "must be cited" comment. That is, my objection was the lack of qualification in that declaration - implying that all material -- even material that is not contentious and which has consensus support and is known to be supported by appropriate sources - will be removed for lack of citation if not cited.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All content in a BLP must be cited. If it is not cited, it can be removed without discussion (the removal in itself would be the contention). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you, this is the statement i was thinking of making. well said. of course, once content is sourced, the can of worms is opened; is it npov, is it from a reliable source, etc, ad infinitum.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Groan. I give up.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, text that is not wildly controversial, but is uncited, should not be deleted, but instead tagged . This 1) prompts others to insert an appropriate reference and 2) gives a cue to the reader than they should take this with a grain of salt. Deleting text just because it is uncited (e.g. the sky is blue) is too disruptive. Nrehnby (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that if you say "Person X's arm is blue", then you are dealing with a WP:BLP issue. Then it becomes too disruptive to leave it in. Frank  |  talk  12:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "'As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot.'--- WP:PRESERVE"Of course, PRESERVE sometimes is trumped by BLP (per some of the commentary above). ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Garrido's van caught on Google Street view
The eerie sequence of phots of a rusty van pulling out from Garrido's house and following the Google Street View van was previously discussed here (archived). It was first posted by User:Zornified at 23:27 UTC August 27 in the article, then moved here. Later someone posted it on BoingBoing, at 1:47pm on Aug 28 (time zone not stated), then CNET referenced it, and now it is on Fox News and MyFox Houston  so in the roundabout way of Wikipedian Reliable Sourcing and Verifiability, it can now be referred to in the article if it is considered encyclopedic. Media credit for the catch is going to BoingBoing's after the fact posting of it. Edison (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. Here is the archived discussion Edison refers to. -84user (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Background needs help
The Background section is very disjoint and generally needs reordering and serious copy editing, but I do not feel like attempting it myself. 84user (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you (or anyone else) please provide specific guidance on this section. I spent an hour copyediting it last night, and would be happy to continue doing so (I think it is improved but still needs work). I'll give a few hours for folks to provide guidance. Here are my questions. In the previous edit, I tried to respect the contributions made previously by others. How much should I worry about that? Second, the order of events is not chronological: it is organized by topic. Should it be strictly chronological instead?


 * By paragraph, this is: para 1 -- Garrido's father on early years (preserving previous contribution) and comment about LSD and cocaine (which I would be fine with cutting, as it is covered in para 3); para 2 -- overview of kidnapping of Hall and jail time (and dates) stemming from it; para 3 -- psych evaluation comments; para 4 -- marriage to Nancy, which I think is fine; para 5 -- life in Antioch, most of which is uncited, but I'm inclined to leave out of respect for previous contributions, and because no-one has noted it as controversial; para 6 -- the Dugard family's move to South Lake Tahoe.


 * Another question: Is this section becoming too long? Or is more detail required?


 * Final question: What do you mean by "serious copyediting" exactly? I'm not being facetious. I am an experienced copyeditor and open to any and all suggestions. Nrehnby (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not worry too much about stepping on other peoples toes, and altering their work, if they do not want someone else editing it, then they should not be putting it on wikipedia (Be WP:Bold). My English is appalling, and I like it when someone improves it. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assistance and encouragement. I'm tied up copyediting for work at the moment, will revisit the background section later if no-one else has. In the meantime, if anyone has an opinion on ordering by chronology vs. topic, or whether this section is now incomplete vs. overly long, please advise. Nrehnby (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've re-witten the entire Background section, but am having problems with the coding (sorry, newbie). Anyone want to collaborate with me? I could send you the revised text (including citations by URL), and you could make the citations work properly? Nrehnby (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New text is posted on my talk page if someone wants to have a go at the coding. Nrehnby (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

New Background section
I have extensively editing the background section, as discussed above. I'm open to feedback and improvements. Nrehnby (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article, while informative, is badly written, full of run-on and incomplete sentences, and has way too many grammatical errors to be worthy of Wikipedia
Please have someone with a head for proper written English edit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.36.26 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if we could deal with these concerns in a productive manner. If "someone with a head for proper written English" is willing to take on the entire article, that would be great. In the absence of this, if you see bad writing, a run-on or incomplete sentence, or a grammatical error, please 1) fix it or 2) note the specific problem in the discussion so that someone else can fix it. Nrehnby (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you considered creating an account (and applying for the 'confirmed' permission) so you can fix these errors yourself? –xenotalk 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposals to remove images / infoboxes
It has been proposed that images / infoboxes be deleted from the article. Please discuss. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1(A). Investigators at Antioch home image
 * Keep Pictures draw readers in, augmenting encyclopedic coverage. IMO the image in question is not tabloidish. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that photos augment the coverage, and that the image is not overly tabloidish. That said, any photos showing the living environment for JD and her children make me uncomfortable. Whatever the facts of the case, they are living people, and this was their home. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the photos taken by the British photojournalist who hopped the fence: close-ups of her make-up, the books she was reading, the girls' toys. This photo is not among the worst of them. Alternatively, there is a historical photo from the time JD was kidnapped that could be used instead -- it is not, IMO, tabloidish at all. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/09/01/2009-09-01_phillip_garrido_charged_with_kidnapping_jaycee_lee_dugard_told_court_he_stalked_.html Nrehnby (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll upload that pic (when I get back). ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 2(A). Garridos images
 * Keep Same reasoning as I've given above. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 3(A). Dugard image
 * Keep Same reasoning as I've given above. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1(B). Event infobox
 * Keep Infoboxes provide basic information, in augmentation of this same generally being given in articles' text. What details are provided in this instance are not particularly tabloidish, IMO. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment By my reading of WP:BLP, an infobox must not state as fact the guilt of an accused person. Use "alleged." Edison (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added "Alleged" to the infoboxes pertaining to the Garridos. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 2(B). Garridos infoboxes
 * Keep Same reasoning as I've given above. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 3(B). Dugard infobox
 * Keep Same reasoning as I've given above. ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment By my reading of WP:BLP facts to be judged in a trial must not be assumed.Edison (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Does Garrido have cancer?
What is that on the upper part of his right nose? Is that skin cancer or melanoma? Should Dr. Wikipedia save this man from cancer? Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Reliable source found: newspaper article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2614799/Mr-Evil-Phillip-Garrido-suffers-from-rat-cancer.html Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reversed the edit. The Sun is not a reliable source. Nrehnby (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is some of the "discolored growth" on the right side of his nose near the bridge. I would prefer that we can express such notions in words (rather than photos) and leave the reader aware to what degree we can, such as "some have suggest a resemblance to Squamous cell carcinoma without further specific assertion. It would be helpful if we could note that it was a neoplasm, but that would require a dated photo of sufficient resolution when the lesion was not present.--76.199.102.138 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several reason for not including this in the article. Firstly as Nrehnby says, The Sun is not a reliable source for this. Secondly the sun does not confirm it, it merely suggests that Garrido might have cancer. If we add that he has a discoloured growth on his nose, then that is original research. Also including this in the article gives WP:Undue weight to what could be anything. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Permanence of dates
Numerous dates are cited without the year. I presume these are mostly (or all) this year (2009) but with Wikipedia being encyclopedic, the article can be expected to be used in the future when that is not the current year. Can someone familiar with the information in the article put years in when they are otherwise editing and bump into one? Shoobe01 5 September 2009, 22:33
 * Good point. I've added the years where appropriate. Nrehnby (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, here! I suppose all efforts to attempt to make dates unambiguous!--01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.102.138 (talk)

Why is cited text being removed as uncited?
I'm really tired of coming back here every few days and having to replace content that was removed as "uncited" even though it was cited! If you're going to remove content as uncited, then please READ the citations before you declared it uncited!

The latest instance I'm aware of is this edit by User:Nrehnby with a comment of "removal of uncited (disputed) text". Here is the reference for all that info.

Here is what the text originally said:
 * At the meeting, Jacobs noticed that the girls' behavior was erratic. Jacobs later said that while the younger girl sat and seemed relaxed, the older girl stared at Garrido "like he was a god" and that both girls "had this weird look in their eyes like brainwashed zombies."


 * Concerned about their behavior, Jacobs decided to try to engage the girls. When asked about a bump near her eye, the younger girl suggested that it was congenital and untreatable. Because of the way the young girl said this, it seemed to Jacobs to be rehearsed. It also seemed incredible to Jacobs that a doctor would find the bump not treatable.

All of that is supported by the above reference, and I think is very helpful to understanding why Jacobs reached the conclusions she did. When User:Nrehnby did was reduce all that to this:


 * At the meeting, Jacobs felt that the girls' behavior was unusual and rehearsed.

I'm going to replace the original text, which I've done before, and request that no one remove it again. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for feedback on the edit. The reason that I noted for cutting this was "removal of information to protect privacy of victims, removal of uncited (disputed) text, as per discussion)." I gave a very careful read to this in light of BLP, and that the girls are victims of crime. I feel that Jacobs finding the girl's behaviour "unusual and rehearsed" summed it up well enough, without having to reveal deeply personal information about the girls (birth defect) and information that is defamatory and the family has disputed ("brainwashed zombies".) Perhaps you could give it another read with this in mind? Cheers. Nrehnby (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but this is what was reported in a reliable source, and televised nationwide on 20/20. It's not like we're letting the cat out of the bag here.   And, like I said above, I think it is key to understanding why Jacobs reacted the way she did.  The family can dispute "brainwashed zombies" all they want, but the fact is that these are the words that Jacobs used to describe her experience.  Specific details tell a story, not vague statements like "the girls' behavior was unusual and rehearsed", which, by the way, smacks of original research, since I am aware of no citation for this interpretation. It is yours, is it not? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You raise good points. My understanding is that Wikipedia holds a much higher standard for BLP than news media: just because we can cite and source it, doesn't mean we should (see discussion above regarding the girls' names) -- and that the standard is far higher for minors and victims of crime. My paraphrase certainly fits with other sources, but as this is the source you'd like to use, perhaps you can find a way to set out the key points in a way that is useful to Wikipedia readers, but doesn't make a child who might someday be reading it (which is one of the points to consider in BLP) feel violated or shamed? For me, the germane point here is that the girls' behaviour did not sit right with Jacobs, and so she investigated it. Can we compromise on better wording? Best,Nrehnby (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that just because we can cite and source does not mean we should include it. However, if the material helps tell the story, that's reason to include it.  There are no personal facts revealed in the material in question, except maybe the growth, but the girl's explanation about that, is quite telling, and explains the officer's reaction.  My problem with the paraphrase is that it is not the words of the officer.  It is the particular words of the officer that really tells the story, and should be included to tell it well.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Garrido's age
Which is it? 55 or 54? Make up your mind wikipedia. I'm putting you on notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.58 (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Einbierbitte (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Garrido's statements
I have removed info several times which is not encyclopedic regarding what Nancy Garrido is reported to have told investigators. WP:RS reads, in part: ''Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.'' I don't see how we can regard Nancy Garrido, who is also charged in this crime, as "trustworthy" in relation to this subject. There are any number of motivations for her to not be truthful, and there are furthermore reasons why she isn't might not be capable of being truthful; to include this info is against policy regarding reliable sources. We are not here to publish speculation.

The information comes from a source which includes the following relevant info: ''Michael Cardoza, a Californian attorney and former prosecutor, relayed his coldly calculating words to The Sunday Telegraph after being briefed on Mrs Garrido's testimony by law enforcement contacts. Another source close to the investigation has confirmed that was her account.'' I don't question the reliability of the source, but the appropriateness of the information in this article. This is two or three times removed from its true source, who has been charged with the crime being written about.

Let's achieve some WP:CONSENSUS on this point before adding this controversial statement. Frank |  talk  13:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it would be appropriate, if it came more directly from Nancy Garrido? Regardless if Nancy is telling the truth it is reliable information that she said that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that it is hearsay. And claiming 3RR doesn't change the fact that there is a policy dispute here. I disagree with assertion that this is related to 3RR, because hearsay is a BLP issue. Whether it is or is not covered by 3RR, the issue remains: the information isn't reliable. Frank  |  talk  13:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source for the information: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/09/earlyshow/main5296591.shtml. Would be good to get other people's perspective on this. Do you believe the content is good info for this article? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't - it's not about how many places it appears. And, in fact, the second source quotes the ex-prosecutor completely differently, so it calls the information into question even more, as far as I am concerned. Frank  |  talk  14:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have solicited input at WP:RS/N. Frank  |  talk  14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a consensus to put this in, the wording would need to be something like: Michael Cardoza, a former prosecutor, has claimed police sources told him, followed by straight quotes of Cardoza from the source. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter that the telegraph states a second unidentified source as corroborating Cardoza's statements?  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. I'm not saying she didn't say what is described, or something like it - I really have no idea about that one way or the other. I'm saying that it isn't encyclopedic and the sourcing isn't up to the standards of Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. Let's face it, what do we expect her to say? Frank  |  talk  15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A newspaper claiming that one or more anonymous sources claim an admission of guilt in a crime is not a reliable source in the slightest, and a major WP:BLP violation. A formal admission of such guilt would have to come from the defendant's lawyer. Reciting the latest gossip on anonymous sources is the job for tabloids, not an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

'Family'
'While the family kept to themselves...' - what family? --Itu (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the days of their arrest of the Garridos, Carl Probyn emphasized that, especially for the two daughters, the Garridos were a family.--75.37.27.253 (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * but at first i think generally such a term is a bit unclear in such a story. Next i think it is just a bit hard to read in that context. Is it familiy-like to have 'wife' & children in a tent in the back-yard? And last but not least, serious, who is meant exactly?? Is Nancy Garrido included? ...what a funny family :( ?
 * I think this should be changed and improved --Itu (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

'Article issues' tag
Is the 'article issues' tag still necessary? I don't see the problems with grammar or spelling and the tone is as good as other articles. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the tags should come off. I did a lot of copyediting, and gave it almost a week for anyone to highlight remaining problems. Nrehnby (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is terribly written. I suggest putting it back on. I gave up trying to read this hodge-podge cut-copy-and-paste. For example, read the first paragraph under CAPTIVITY:


 * The Garridos' home on Walnut Avenue is in an unincorporated area in northeast Antioch.[24] A neighbor of the Garridos has stated that he recalls as a child meeting Dugard through a fence in the Garrido's yard soon after the kidnapping. He says that when he asked her if she lived there or was just visiting, she answered that she lived there. At that point Philip Garrido came out and took her back indoors.[25] The Garridos later built a privacy fence around the property, which already had several large trees in the yard. Phillip Garrido was found to have violated his parole and was returned to federal prison from April to August 1993.


 * The last sentence is out of place, uncited, and vague. The entire article is filled with this stuff. As a Technical Writing Professor, if this crap were turned in for a grade, I would give it a "C" at best. lacarids 04 08:30 OCT 09.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.48.207 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made corrections to the section you noted. Please try to be more specific than calling it all "crap." The article will benefit from specific, constructive feedback (such as from a writing professor), and there are contributors willing to do the legwork if you don't have time. Your feedback is helpful. Nrehnby (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Connection to Annie Le
Just a weird coincidence that two ugly incidents currently in the national news both have Eldorado County, California connections. Both victims were at one time residents of the county. Corsair1944 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That hardly constitutes a logical connection; it is a dumb coincidence.--Standardfact (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Corsair1944 was not implying that there was a logical connection, in fact, he said the piece of information he mentioned was, "Just a weird coincidence."--Aristotle1776 (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's nothing to do with improving the article though so doesn't belong here Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreement to not use "squalor" photos
Based on earlier discussion, a photo showing "squalor" (as oft described by the media), was removed (it was replaced with a historical photo from the kidnapping). These photos were felt to be "tabloidish." They also invade the privacy of living persons, a victim of a crime, and two minor children. The photos are not encyclopedic, and not germane to the key facts of the kidnapping. Someone has re-posted the photo. If someone else seconds this understanding of the earlier talk page discussion, please remove the photo. Nrehnby (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe boldly remove the photo and see if anyone restores it? ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Open to feedback. Nrehnby (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the photo at all. It's an investigator in the backyard. It illustrates the article very well. It's not "tabloidish," and the idea that invades personal privacy is just absurd.

On top of that, the photo eas apparently taken by an actual Wikipedia editor. Arguably it's the only photo we clearly should be using, as it's the only one we have full legal rights to. The rest are used without permission and with fair use arguments that may or may not hold up. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points. In an earlier discussion (see above) another editor noted that "The infoboxes and snaps might be ok for a down-market tabloid flogging a "police victory" PoV." And I agreed. I raised particular objection to tabloids' violation of privacy (BLP) with photos of "close-ups of her make-up, the books she was reading, the girls' toys" (also see above) and noted that "This photo is not among the worst of them." I accept that you feel particularly strongly about it, and won't remove it a third time. best, Nrehnby (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychological examination ordered
I have changed the comment on this issue. It had read: "In addition, Judge Phimister allowed Garrido to undergo a psychiatric evaluation."

The Court doesn't actually need to "allow" the examination. The defense could have simply hired someone to do it without seeking the Court's approval. What the Court did was to "appoint" someone, or actually,  just to make "an appointment" without actually naming anyone. The defense attorney will find (or has found) someone to do it. The reason the defense would have asked to have someone appointed is so that the Court will pay for it, rather than having it come from the Public Defender's budget. This will be a confidential evaluation for the use of the defense. Later, if the defense decides to raise the doubt about Garrido's competency or enter an insanity plea,  Doctors will be appointed on a non-confidential basis. I referenced my blog article where I have explained it. I'm an expert on this topic generally, and I am quite familiar with how it works in El Dorado County. Pgm8693 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The newspaper that was cited used the word "allow". Do you have a source other than a blog? Legal textbook, newspaper, court case, etc. that can be verified (WP:RS) regarding your assertion? Einbierbitte (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Einbierbitte: I understand your concern about my edit,  so I would like to clarify.  The blog I referenced is mine.  But as per WP:RS regarding self-published material,  I am "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  My professional profile and a link to my resume is here.  On more than a few occasions, I have been "qualified" as an expert in forensic psychology in the El Dorado County courts (where this case is being heard) and I've been retained/hired as an expert a number of times by the El Dorado County Public Defender's Office (which is representing Phillip).


 * Now about the news source that used the word "allow," that's what's unreliable and actually just plain wrong.   An attorney can hire anyone they want to help prepare a case and doesn't need the Court to "allow" it or otherwise authorize it.  The relevant law for a psychological examination is Penal Code 825.5 (California Penal Code ... all of the following references can be retrieved here: leginfo.ca.gov.  PC 825.5 permits a psychologist or psychiatrist,  hired by the defense,  to visit the person in custody.  The Court doesn't have to be involved or "allow" it.


 * The Courts can "appoint" psychologists to examine defendants. Most often,  this is done under PC 1027 (insanity),  PC 1367 (competency),  or PC 288.ff (sex offender examinations following conviction for a probation eligible sex offense).


 * In this case (where there's been no plea of insanity or doubt expressed regarding competency or a conviction on a sex offense), there are only two Sections under which the Court could "appoint" an expert.  This would be under the Evidence Code.  Evidence 730 is used for examinations that are to be used by the Court.  An Evidence 1017(a) appointment is for a confidential examination for the defense.  The language in 1017 is provided in the context of the rules relating to "psychotherapist" privilege and is as follows:
 * 1017. (a) There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist is appointed by order of a court to examine the patient, but this exception does not apply where the psychotherapist is appointed by order of the court upon the request of the lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding in order to provide the lawyer with information needed so that he or she may advise the defendant whether to enter or withdraw a plea based on insanity or to present a defense based on his or her mental or emotional condition.


 * As an expert in this area, what I can also say is that the only reason a defense attorney has to ask for a 1017 appointment is to have the Court pay for it.  In El Dorado,  the standard fee for a court ordered evaluation is $550.  If the Public Defender were to pay for it,  that wouldn't even begin to cover the cost,  and it would come out of their extremely stretched budget.


 * In any case, the citation I gave is a reliable source with respect to verification,  as is indicated here. It's not a random blog.  If there are further questions about this edit,  I'd be pleased to respond.  And on a final note,  I think the issue about psychological issues and defenses in this case is relevant and significant.  Pgm8693 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I agree that psychological issues and defenses in this case are relevant and significant as this case moves through the system. I just don't want this to become a tabloid where we add gossip columns and "random" blogs to the mix with all sorts of salacious tidbits. I understand that the news media are not legal experts (that's why they hire them!), but if that's what we have to work with........ I think your expertise can help to improve this article. I say, Welcome aboard. Einbierbitte (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern and the response to my clarification. I don't want to set any precedent for sourcing to unreliable materials.  I expect that I will edit here again if there is a competency proceeding (which is possible) or an insanity plea.  It's a complex and confusing area of the law,  and it's just really hard for the media to get the details correct.  Best regards.Pgm8693 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Background: 1976 psych eval
I'm going to discuss this first and then edit the article. The citation for the comment about the 1976 evaluation is the LA Times. The Wikipedia article says that the examination was conducted by a psychologist; The Times issued a correction on this. The Times has also posted a copy of the report; it was done by a psychiatrist.

The second thing is that the quotation I'm going to change is attributed to the psychiatrist ("The forensic psychologist (sic) wrote that "... ") As it is now,  it's actually what the LA Times wrote,  not what the psychiatrist wrote.  And it also mischaracterizes what the psychiatrist said.

The psychiatrist said that the drug use (not the "four years of LSD ...") "may be responsible in part" for the mixed sexual deviation." In context,  you see that what she was saying was that the sexual deviation could have resulted from brain damage caused by something like temporal lobe disorder,  cerebral syphilis or "excessive use of drugs."  Her point in discussing this was to suggest to the Court that a neurological evaluation be obtained.  For her opinions,  a neurological would have been irrelevant.  Independent of that examination,  she said that he was not at that time incompetent and that relative to that crime,  he was not insane (she said it not in those words,  but using the legal definitions).

The above is "in part" a bit hypertechnical, but these are distinctions that could be hotly debated if psych issues enter into the defense. The psychiatrist didn't say that his sexual deviation could have been caused by drug use. She said that sexual deviations may result from organic dysfunction and that organic dysfunction can be caused by drug use, and therefore he should be evaluated for organic dysfunction. She also didn't say that he had organic dysfunction. In her report, she said that she didn't find any evidence of such.

The psychiatrist also described the sexual deviation in two different ways: "mixed" and "multiple," and that is worth noting. Pgm8693 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also changed the references to the 1976 evaluation from the LA Times to the actual reports, the primary source materials.  On this particular point,  the LA Times was just wrong:  "could have been caused by"  and  "may be responsible in part for" are two entirely different statements in the context of a psych report. Pgm8693 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

New photo of Jaycee
I believe it's about time that we upload a new photo of Jaycee to here. See this news source with the new photo. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 07:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't these photos copyrighted by People? Einbierbitte (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yes.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. People owns the copyright (assuming it was a work for hire) and will probably serve a DMCA takedown notice on the Wikimedia Foundation if anyone is crazy enough to upload that photo.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is to say no way, would that ever be fair use, forget it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be done as an external link though. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a final thought .... The copyright on these photos does not belong to People Magazine. It belongs to Jaycee. She supplied the photos to People. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Daughters' names and Ken Slayton
I am still concerned about using the daughter's names. 1) They are still minors and the names are not germane to the article. 2) There are still variants of Starlit's name in earlier media reports that some are still clinging to: I have seen media reports of "Starlit", "Starlet", and "Starlite". 3) There has been confusion in the media as to who is older, Starlit or Angel. 3) I have read that Dugard and her daughters are thinking of changing their names to protect their privacy. 4)Their images are still off limits which should still alert us to be careful.  As for Ken Slayon and his assertions. 1) There has been no comment (yea or nay) from Dugard or Probyn. 2)At the recent hearing, McGregor Scott, Dugard's attorney made no comment. 3)Slayton has asked for paternity testing, showing even his doubts 4)Slayton, by his own admission has never had any contact with Dugard. As for Slayton, we should at least identify him as "the purported biological father". Einbierbitte (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and think you should go ahead and make both changes. If anyone objects, they can raise counterpoints here. Nrehnby (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All those concerns not withstanding, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect knowledge as provided in WP:RS. If Jaycee and/or her daughters decide to change their names, that can be added to the article once it's reported in WP:RS. As for Slayton asking for a paternity test, it was intended to convince Jaycee that he is her father. Never having any connection to Jaycee, Terry Probyn would not have named him as a potential suspect at the time of the abduction, and if she did, the police would not have had any basis to suspect him. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do something. Even with WP:RS and the fact that the names are public and verified, I don't like having the girls named. I could Be Bold and change it, but I don't want to do anything without a consensus. I just have reservations. Einbierbitte (talk)
 * I'm sorry, but WP:Idontlikeit reasoning do not carry much weight around here. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. Einbierbitte (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the issue was WP:BLP as discussed above. What's changed? 203.217.150.69 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that Slayton's paternity claims have not been disputed by Terry Probyn, and if anything, she seemed to implicitly confirm his claims by accusing him of wanting to profit from Jaycee's noteriety. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Garrido apology
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13785246?source=most_viewed  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)