Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard/Archive 3

WP:NOTAFORUM does not trump WP:TPO
Regarding the removal/restoring of a comment on this talk page that unquestionably violates WP:NOTAFORUM... It is true that WP:NOTAFORUM states that article talk pages "are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article", but it does not forbid such comments, nor does it address, much less sanction, removal of such comments by others.

The topic of editing and removing the comments of others on article talk pages is covered at WP:TPO where even editing, much less removing, is strictly and clearly restricted. Here is the basic rule per WP:TPO:

The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

None of the specific exceptions outlined there apply in this case. In particular, a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM is not listed as one of the exceptions. It also states:

But you should exercise caution in [removing others' comments even when it is allowed], and normally stop if there is any objection.

The initial removal was not justified (citing WP:NOTAFORUM is not justification for removing comments of others), and this should have stopped as soon as there was the first objection.

And, with regard to the latest excuse to remove this comment, "Removed as obvious and gross breach of WP:BLP", WP:BLP applies to material about living persons, not mere opinions about them stated on talk pages. And again, even if this were a BLP violation (which it is not), a violation of WP:BLP is not listed as one of the exceptions at WP:TPO. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." I've no doubt that with a trial pending, such allegations should not be hosted here, and as an experienced Admin, I have no doubt that I would be upheld both at WP:BLPN and WP:ANI. To call my policy-based decision an "excuse" is a monstrous breach of good faith. OK, then, if there's any more of this nonsense, I'll email oversight and request revision hiding, which will be permanent. Rodhull  andemu  19:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TPO states "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."; WP:BLP states "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." --Conti|✉ 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit is a classic personal opinion with no relevance to article improvement. It has no place on a Wikipedia talk page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above statement is true about myriads of comments on article talk pages throughout Wikipedia, including every comment in this section. It is not -- in and of itself -- justification for removal.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the first four deletions of the comment in question cited, mentioned or even implied anything about WP:BLP which, admittedly, might apply here (still noodling that one - and I raised the question at the BLP talk page). But removal based only on WP:NOTAFORUM is totally out of line, which was my original point in reverting all three times I reverted, and why I started this section (see the heading).

Also, it is not WP:TPO that states "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.", though that is stated higher up on WP:TP. I've noted the conflict between that statement and the detailed exceptions listed at WP:TPO that must apply to warrant comment removal at the TP talk page, and made a suggestion for resolution. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong again, this is as clear a WP:NOTAFORUM violation as they come. Where is the suggestion for article improvement in this edit? Also, it does have WP:BLP issues because of the pending trial. Put down the stick and move away from the dead horse.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TPO is quite clear that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" includes "Removing prohibited material such as libel". Maybe the wrong reason was given for removal, but saying that someone currently facing trial for rape will rape again is about as prejudicial as I can imagine. Personally I wouldn't want to explain to the judge why I allowed it to remain here should it become a material issue. Would you? Rodhull  andemu  19:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ian, "wrong again"? Is that language really necessary?  I agree (and have never disagreed) that the comment in question is a clear violation of WP:NOTAFORUM.  My point is and has been from the start that mere violation of WP:NOTAFORUM does not warrant removal, and that was the only justification provided the first four times the comment was removed.


 * This is an important point (not beating a dead horse), as four different editors removed another user's comment justifying their removal solely on WP:NOTAFORUM, clearly in violation of WP:TPO.  A violation of BLP is completely different, much more serious, and does warrant removal.  Since that point was raised I have not restored the comment.


 * Frankly, since the only justification given for removal was WP:NOTAFORUM, I only quickly skimmed the comment, because regardless of what it said, removal per WP:NOTAFORUM alone would not be justified. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seldom seen a longer debate over a comment that clearly needed to be removed from a talk page. If someone wants to make allegations against a living person that are a) not related to article improvement and b) possibly prejudicial to a future trial, they are not going to do it on a Wikipedia talk page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What's your point? Do you think anyone has said anything that disagrees with this?


 * Perhaps this debate is so long because you think it's over a comment that clearly needed removing, when it's really about the need to provide clear and solid justification before removing another user's comment. In this case that could have been easily done, but wasn't, four times in a row''.  That's unacceptable.


 * Comment removal, like BLP, should not be taken so lightly. That's what this is about, not whether the removal was ultimately justified.  Capice? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This comment has been removed by Xeno and Rodhullandemu, two of Wikipedia's most experienced administrators. I would remove this comment any day of the week without a backward glance. It is pure nonsense to try to justify this comment, but take it to WP:ANI rather than clogging up the talk page any further.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is not about justifying the comment - there is no need to do that for any comment - but about justifying the removal of the comment. That's what is required in order to remove a comment, and the question here is whether merely citing WP:NOTAFORUM provides such justification.  I raised this question at WP:ANI per your suggestion because I think it's important.


 * I don't see how who removed the comment is relevant. Such an argument smacks of an oligarchy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said at ANI, this is a no-brainer. A grossly inappropriate comment was made and the user might need speaking to per WP:BLP not to mention WP:THAT'S JUST DUMB. SGGH ping! 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Xeno, Rodhullandemu and I all cited WP:NOTAFORUM and/or WP:BLP. It is hard to see where the repeated opposition is coming from. This now looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in action.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're again making statements about which there is no dispute, and completely ignoring the point I've made repeatedly.  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indeed.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a clear consensus that the comment was inappropriate for the reasons given and was correctly removed. I'm off to bed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll grant you that there is clear consensus that the comment was correctly removed, but not for the reason (singular) given the first four times it was removed, which was merely citing WP:NOTAFORUM, a rule that does not even address, much less sanction, the removal of comments of others.  This has been my only point, and the only one you managed to fail to address.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be nothing new in this discussion, and I've proposed closure on WP:ANI. This has now been brought up in three forums, to the same general effect, and it's time to move on. I will accept some fault here in that the original poster placed his comment here on 20th April, and I reverted per WP:NOTAFORUM; perhaps if I'd been less busy at the time I would certainly have dropped a uw-blp3 on his Talk page- but it wasn't until today that he undid my edit, and it was spotted before I could get involved. Sorry, but I'm only around here 10 - 12 hours a day, so I may miss some things than really do need fixing. Rodhull  andemu  23:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you will continue to remove, and support the removal of, others' comments explained only by referencing WP:NOTAFORUM? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly will. This is supported by WP:TPG: I've made a link from NOTAFORUM to TPG to make it easier to follow. – xeno talk 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I approve of the link, except I changed it to be to the specific section of TPG that applies here, WP:TPO. I suggest that since WP:TPO generally prohibits the removal of others' comments, except for the specific exceptions listed which comprise a subset of what NOTAFORUM discourages, comment removals should cite WP:TPO rather than WP:NOTAFORUM, since WP:NOTAFORUM even now does not address much less sanction comment removals, except through the reference to the more detailed and relevant WP:TPO.  In fact, I would urge anyone deleting the comment of others state the specific TPO exception that they believes applies.  For example, in this case it would be something like  "delete comment per WP:TPO/violates WP:BLP".   Okay?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Notaforum has always been a part of the overall talk page guidelines, which is why the notaforum tag says that messages will be deleted or refactored if they violate it. Comments that fail notaforum by a wide margin can be removed for this reason alone. I am very tolerant of banter on talk pages, but this comment is nowhere near suitable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never argued that the comment is suitable. I've only argued that if it or any comment of someone else is being removed, that something other than a reference to NOTAFORUM needs to be provided to justify that removal. NOTAFORUM is only justified as a removal for a comment on a talk page with a history of problematic forum-like comments (one where the template has been used).


 * The template clearly states it "is only for talk pages that have received large amounts of chatter unrelated to the improvement of the article or other such off topic spam. ", and that the comments section is for listing relevant policies, once again reiterating the relative insignificance of a single comment that "violates" NOTAFORUM, and supports my contention that citing NOTAFORUM in and of itself is not sufficient cause to remove a comment. That said, thanks for bringing it to our attention.  I will link the "deleted" wording in the template to WP:TPO.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page receives extensive monitoring in case anyone posts information that could foul up what is likely to be one of the biggest criminal trials in recent US history when it gets under way. As the article points out, the judge has ruled some of the evidence in the case to be confidential. Imagine if the trial collapsed because some way off topic comment had been posted here. Against this possible outcome, a debate about the exact interpretation of notaforum is a less relevant issue. If there is any hint of a notaforum or blp violation on this page, the material should be removed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The extensive monitoring is fine, especially due to the potential of BLP violation, but I just noticed the Notaforum template was added to this page recently, after the edit war. I'm not sure there is evidence of this page having a history of sufficient problems with those kinds of posts to warrant placement of the template and the imposition of immediate removal of such comments, for which no other exceptions on the WP:TPO list apply, that it implies.  In fact, volume on this page, until today, has been very light over the last few months.  I mean, if someone posts a question inquiring about, say, any books on the topic, that's technically a violation of NOTAFORUM, and, so, due to the presence of the Notaforum template it can be immediately removed, but wouldn't that be overkill?  Why justify that if there is no history of such comments being problematic here, short of this one example which could and should have been removed for BLP violation, not NOTAFORUM violation?


 * I understand the need to remove comments that violate BLP, but for the life of me I can't understand why it's necessary to remove mere NOTAFORUM violations that are not violating BLP or anything else on the WP:TPO list. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The notaforum template was added on the principle that it is better to be safe than sorry. I am not going to remove harmless banter or questions, but off topic discussion or rants are unacceptable per the WP:TPO linked in the template.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Off-topic discussion (not just one post) or rants are unacceptable per WP:TPO with or without the template. All the template does is allow for removal of any irrelevant comment, even if the comment violates nothing else on the TPO list.  I think that's overkill for this page which normally sees so very little traffic.  But I'm okay to agree to disagree on that relatively minor point.  I think the related guidelines are all more clear about all this now, and hope we agree on that being a good thing.  G'night!  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all it was not off topic nor a rant it was a discussion/reply to part of the article that said "On August 28, 2009, Garrido and his wife pleaded not guilty to charges including kidnapping, rape and false imprisonment." "Judge Phimister also granted a request from Phillip Garrido's attorney to have a psychologist or psychiatrist appointed to conduct a confidential evaluation of Garrido. This examination is to be used by the defense to assist in case preparation. Additional mental health examinations could be ordered at subsequent phases in the proceedings"

Second IanMacM are you trying to tell me you honestly think my post will cause that monster to get out of jail? If anything either the lack of people taking a stand against people like him or the weak government will. I've already sent several E-mails to the government but I have yet to get a reply.

Third everyone knows he is guilty and he got caught red handed yet he still tried to say he was not guilty which means he hasn't changed at all. It is obvious he is trying to avoid imprisonment and I remember hearing on a talk show once he was trying to gain custody of the kids even though he was a well known rapist. Also in case none of you know he has raped before and went to jail for it, not long after he got out he kidnapped that poor little girl and rapped her for 18 years that is unforgivable, how would you feel if you were that girl's parents? Like I said before if he is given his freedom back he WILL without a doubt rape again which is what I want to prevent at any cost. Pyrolord777 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Everyone knows he is guilty" and "he WILL without a doubt rape again" are exactly the sort of non-article related nonsense that set off this debate. Please read the talk page guidelines before you hit the "submit" button.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Adult Film
Does this need to be in the article? I am going to remove it now but I won't remove it again. The source seem poor to me, it's not even a primary source. Non of the more reliable news agency's are picking it up. It strikes me that someone who isn't notable (I know this because they don't have a wikipedia page) has decided that want to take advantage of the kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard to make some money, is wikipedia the place to give him some publicity? Do you think if someone who wasn't notable contacted the New York Times to say that they were making an Adult file of the kidnapping that it would get published?

I think the inclusion in the article needs justifying on this talk page if someone does put it back in.

On a side issue my last two edits show me clearly what is wrong with wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.119.217 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV / Sexism
Both Garrido's --husband and wife--have been charged with the same crimes. This article focuses too much on Phillip. (This is similar to the knee-jerk reaction of many women who called for severe punishment for Phillip, but give Nancy a pass. This is disgusting bias. Woman can be child molestors, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.242.132 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving day, Feb 11th 2010
I moved a few things around. The section on what happened with the victim should come before Garrido's statements, primarily because there are more statements he made that haven't been documented here yet (it's at KCRA Channel 3) and because those continued and potentially continuing statements will occur in time after the Jaycee family reunion. Also, I broke the investigation and legal proceedings into two topics ... there is not much more that will be added to the investigation,  but the legal proceedings will be continuing for a few more years ... actually,  the investigation part should be moved above his statements. Pgm8693 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: my comment that he has made other statements that need to be added to this article, I noticed above that another user posted a link here to a story about those statements under "garrido apology."  The article needs that to be added,  and I would suggest that reference be made to the original source (KCRA Channel 3 Sacramento) for the exact details.  This is from above:  link to story about more recent Garrido statements   Pgm8693 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a lean-in for the Jaycee Dugard story. The article begins to mention the abduction abruptly without leading into it.Logicwax (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps Situation
Is this: notable enough for inclusion? Apparently when the Google map vehicle, with all its cameras, came through his neighborhood (this is pre-discovery) - the abductee got in his van and trailed the vehicle to find out what it was doing. Hooper (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say no. It didn't lead to a discovery, and is just a bit of speculative trivia.  I'm not so sure nowpublic.com qualifies as a WP:RS, either. TJRC (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That was just the first I got, but it hit lots of different sites, including NYTimes. But I was on the fence with it to. So I'll just let others decide. Hooper (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Daughters' names and birth certificates
Birth certificates were recently issued for Dugard's two daughters. At least three news outlets have reported this. None of the outlets are publishing the names (another reason why we should not). Interestingly, according to a couple of the articles, one of the daughter's names is different from earlier reports. The girls' last name is Dugard Einbierbitte (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The US media has generally declined to name the children since they are both under 18, but they are named in this Daily Telegraph article. Wikipedia is somewhat out on a limb by naming the children in the article, and there have been WP:BLPNAME debates about this in the past.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I would not support an outright ban on naming the children because of the easy availability of their names on the Internet, naming them in the article probably fails WP:BLPNAME. There is also some debate about the spelling of one of the children's names, so caution is needed here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although most US media have declined to name the children, their names have been given in the Orange County Register, eg at . With the likely continuation of the court case on February 26, the article should avoid giving the names per WP:BLPNAME for the time being.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

However, on the recent program made: 18 Years Captive, the Jaycee Lee story, a program that channel 4 made, there were interviews with some of her friends and family, and her stepdad said: "Terry was on the phone to her, and Jaycee suddenly said 'I have babies'" He then goes on to explain how old they were and he said they were called *** and ***. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.209.52 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC) names redacted per WP:BLPNAME


 * Although there are some sources for these names, whether to include them is guided by policy as "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." These children are not notable in themselves, and the principle on Wikipedia has long been that we should strive to protect the identities of children; it follows that we would need a very strong reason (other than "we can") to include them, as well as very reliable sources. Rodhull  andemu  16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a violation of BLP guidelines to use the names of the daughters in this article. Whomever keeps adding them needs to stop. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding categories
I moved a couple categories (Category:Kidnapped American children and Category:Kidnapped American children) from this article to the redirect for Jaycee Lee Dugard. This was for logical correctness. The kidnapping is not a child. Just a preventive notice so that the edits aren't undone. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Last name confusion
In the article, Jaycee's last name is stated as Dugard. However, her stepfather's name is Carl Probyn. Her biological father's name is Ken Slayton, but her mother's name is given as Terry Probyn. Nowhere do I see the name Dugard. The only mention is her aunt Tina Dugard. Her mother's name should be changed to read "Terry Probyn (nee Dugard)". But this still does not explain Jacyee's last name. Was she born out of wedlock? --Auric (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ABC Primetime July 10, 2011 had informative interview
It related that Jaycee had written a book of her ordeal, and in the interview she stated that a stun-gun was used to incapacitate her for the abduction. There were several other points of interest. Anyway, her book may have some interesting points for the article, if anyone has it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

People magazine (2009)
Section "Aftermath", subsection "Reunion and afterward", para 2, second sentence:
 * On October 14, 2009, People published on its cover the first verified photo of Jaycee Dugard as an adult.

The sentence is unsourced, but looking online reveals People did not publish a magazine on that date. The October 12 edition had a John Travolta cover, and the October 19 edition was Elizabeth Smart. The October 26 edition had a Dugard cover, stating the photo was taken on October 11. The article is not available online, so I cannot verify if People claims "firsties" in it, but the cover only claims "exclusive photographs". There is no "October 14" in sight.

Please place after the above sentence, or strike it completely, as it does seem a bit trivial. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Placed cn next to the line. Camyoung54   talk  14:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Title of Article
Why is the article title "Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard" instead of "Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard"? This is the only place I've heard the Lee used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.211.214 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on a person's WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search on Jaycee Lee Dugard shows plenty of coverage with this name, although a Google search on Jaycee Dugard also has plenty of results.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A Stolen Life
Jaycee's memoir should have a page of its own. --Matt723star (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Garridosinfo
Is there any reason the Garridosinfo is off in a template? It seems awkward to have to go into this template to edit this article. It's not transluded anywhere else in article space (the only other transclusion is in the talk page archive here). I suggest subst'ing the template into the article text and deleting the template. However, before I initiate that, I wanted to check here in case I've missed something. TJRC (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now raised this at TFD, here. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The morning of Jaycee Lee Dugard's kidnapping
The kidnapping took place on the way to school at the top of her driveway! Eileen75 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dugard's memoir, which you cited in the ref tag at the end of your message, does not state that the kidnapping took place in or near her driveway, it states that it took place when she was walking up the hill from her house to catch the school bus, just as she did in the ABC News interview that is currently cited in the article.


 * From her memoir:


 * "As I leave the house for school, I yell to Carl that I am on my way up the hill. I don't see him or hear him answer, but see that he has his van out of the garage, so he must be working on it. I start out on the right side of the hill and then when it starts to curve, I switch to the other side. (Page 7) As I am walking up the hill to the school bus this chilly day in June, I am thinking how sometimes it feels like my life is dictated by something or someone else. (Page 8) I am coming to the part of the hill at which I have been taught to cross to the other side....As I am walking, I hear a car behind me. I look back expecting the car to pass on the other side of the road going up, but to my surprise the car pulls up beside me. (Page 9)"


 * I'm citing this as an additional source for that passage. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter Braunstein
According to the news, convicted sex offender Peter Braunstein, whose tawdry tale made the New York City tabloids agog over his actions, is complaining that NY prison officials are denying Jaycee Dugard's memoir as "child porn". The general public, which is obviously not very tolerant of jailbirds convicted of violent crimes, has pooh poohed Braunstein's complaint. Should that incident deserve a place in the article? Why or why not? 198.151.130.45 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentencing of Garrido
"431 years to life"? Yeah, right. Obviously, Garrido is going to die centuries before this term is up. Why don't they just give infamous convicts of this sort "life without parole" and leave it at that? &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence of 431 years to life for Phillip Garrido is accurately sourced. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside Pictures
The link to the age processed picture of Jaycee Dugard is a dead link and there is no such picture. 128.110.22.34 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has expired on the TruTV site, and the same image appears to be here. This is a copyrighted image, and it does not really need to be in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Adult photo request for body of article
It would be helpful to have an adult image of Jaycee in the article that is closer to her time of rescue. Checkingfax (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming the Children
I have serious issues with the fact that the children are named in this article. Yes, we want a complete encyclopedia, but that is unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.56.62 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The guiding principle here is WP:BLPNAME. This has been discussed before, see the talk page archive. Overall, I think that naming the children fails WP:BLPNAME. Also, the spelling of one of the names is unclear and several versions have been given. I've removed the names because they do not add significant value to the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726021802/http://garrido.eldoradocourt.org/docs/nancy/20091112-ExParteMinOrd-IntCounselAppt.pdf to http://garrido.eldoradocourt.org/docs/nancy/20091112-ExParteMinOrd-IntCounselAppt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726021813/http://garrido.eldoradocourt.org/docs/nancy/20091105-MinOrd-ConfEvid.pdf to http://garrido.eldoradocourt.org/docs/nancy/20091105-MinOrd-ConfEvid.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110606124449/http://www.sacbee.com/eldorado/story/2416182.html to http://www.sacbee.com/eldorado/story/2416182.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131030173420/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2009788724_phil02.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2009788724_phil02.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Religion
I added the fact that Dugard's kidnapper and rapist was an evangelical Christian, who was caught when he tried of organize a Christian event at UC Berkeley. - Marc on July 7th, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.53.161 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Requires a reliable source. See WP:V. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Was Dugard half-way up the hill, or already at the bus stop? Both versions are given in the article, and one must surely be wrong.203.80.61.102 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Within sight of their house"?
What does "witnessed the abduction of his stepdaughter from within sight of their home" mean? Witnessed from within the home, perhaps? If he saw it the event was obviously "within sight" of the house.203.80.61.102 (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222050032/http://www.kcra.com/news/22351413/detail.html to http://www.kcra.com/news/22351413/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223035518/http://www.kcra.com/news/20591281/detail.html to http://www.kcra.com/news/20591281/detail.html

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

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

Irrelevant info
This article is about the Dugard kidnapping, not a biographical article about Dugard. Therefore, I fail to see what relevance this has: When Dugard was rescued, Slayton expressed an interest in meeting his daughter and taking a paternity test. Dugard expressed no interest at the time in having a relationship with Slayton. I think we should take it out.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

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

My accidentally confusing Slayton and Garrido aside, information on major developments in the life of the article subject following her rescue is obviously relevant to the article, and interest expressed by her biological father in meeting her and establishing paternity is indeed a valid example of this. If you want to have a consensus discussion with other editors, then I'd be happy to set one up for you. If that's what you want, then say the word. But please do not delete content before such a consensus is reached. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I waited literally months for you to respond originally. It's pretty clear that you only respond when the page is not how you want it.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  08:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The only thing "clear" here is that you don't seem to have much regard for WP:AGF. Why am I not suprised?


 * The truth, once we put away your ad hominem false accusation, is that I was not aware of your attempt to start a discussion here until days ago.


 * Again, do you want me to invite more editors to this discussion for a proper consensus? That is, after all, one of the proper ways in which editorial disputes are settled here --y'know, for those editors who do not merely edit articles according to the "how you want it" approach. That's why I made this suggestion above, though I notice you haven't responded to it. Why is that? Nightscream (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are getting awfully hostile. Do you always deal with content disputes in this manner? I don't have a problem with recruiting other editors to this page, as long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:CANVASS.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your ignoring this discussion for several days now demonstrates what I said above; you only show up here if the page isn't how you want it. You're not interested in discussion, clearly.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wrong. That's just your ad hominem assumption.


 * The truth is simply that I, like every other editor here, have other things going on my life, and don't visit Wikipedia every day, and if I do, I may not recall every communication I'm having with others, especially if I don't receive a notice for it in my Notifications. If you can falsify that, then do so. If you can't, then your accusation is exposed for rhetorical comment that it is. Bottom line, you're just attacking someone you disagree with ad hominem, believing what you jolly well want to believe. That's what precisely what WP:AGF prohibits us from doing, and you're ignoring it because you don't feel like reining in your tendency to react emotionally. Nightscream (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're being quite disingenuous. I know that people have lives outside Wikipedia, and if you hadn't been doing edits during this time, I wouldn't have said anything. But clearly you've had time to be working on the site, as you have had many edits since you last posted here. What you're doing is clear; you edit the page to your taste, claim that it can't be reverted because it's under discussion, and then ignore the discussion. Convenient how that works out. As for your accusations that I'm not assuming good faith; projecting much? Pot, kettle.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Again. That's just your assumption.


 * One that you're mindlessly glomming onto for emotional reasons, and not because you eliminated other possibilities, or even showed how yours is the more likely one. You're just believing what you jolly well feel like believing, deluding yourself into thinking that this is somehow a truth. Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is worth, I agree that information about Dugard’s father is completely irrelevant and I will also remove it if it is added again. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not necessary to add the names of the daughters

 * I see that a user keeps adding the names of Dugsrd's two daughters, which hardly seems necessary. THis has been discussed in the past and it was consensus to leave out their names as they are private individuals. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Another user has continually reverted and added the names of Dugard’s daughters, despite repeated warnings from several editors and requests to discuss this here on the talk page. I have reverted it again, but I wonder if the page should be protected for awhile. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's now semi-protected for a while. Not wanting to say too much per an approximation of WP:BEANS, but we might end up being back and forth with blocks and page protection a couple of times on this. MPS1992 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Alizabeth blon has returned and is making the same edits she was previously banned for. I have warned her that naming the daughters in the article without discussion on the talk page could be a violation of the Biography of Living Persons Policy. The daughters are private individuals known only for being daughters of a famous kidnapping victim. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Bookworm857158367 It's happening again. In the past few days I have reverted two potential edits by different users who added the children's names. (I hope it was appropriate to add your Wikipedia username here so that you would see my message. If it was inappropriate, feel free to revert it and let me know. Thank you.) Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m pretty sure it’s the same person coming back with different accounts and IP addresses. It’s a Biography of Living Persons violation and persistent disruptive editing by the same user, who persists in making the same identical disputed edit without discussing it on the talk page. I would say we need to request that the page be protected again and perhaps that the IP range be blocked. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Right now it is locked and only Wikipedia editors with "pages with edits awaiting review" rights (I have them) are able to approve or disapprove the edits, so I think the protection is working. I just wanted to let someone know that it's still going on. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have just made a request that the article be placed under temporary full protection. Temporary semi-protected status was lifted yesterday and the user immediately returned and resumed making the disputed edit without discussion. I also warned the first editor who made the first edit you reverted yesterday. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Contradictions
there seem to be some serious unsourced contradictions in the Captivity section. e.g.: Vadim Galimov (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Taking her from their car onto their property, Garrido placed a blanket over Dugard's head and ushered her into an area of his backyard where sheds and storage units stood, placing her inside a tiny one that was soundproofed. After he finished raping her for the first time he left her naked in the structure..." vs. "A week after Garrido kidnapped Dugard, he raped her for the first time while she was still in handcuffs, which she wore during her first week in captivity". The first statement is sourced to an LA Times report on the trial, the second seems to have no specific source cited.
 * "...while she was still in handcuffs, which she wore during her first week in captivity" vs. "Almost three years into her captivity, the Garridos began to allow Dugard freedom from her handcuffs for periods of time" – both don't seem to have specific sources cited.


 * First, where's the contradiction?
 * Second, none of these passages are missing sources. All of them have citations at the end of the passage or paragraph, per WP:PAIC.
 * The redundant explanations of the first time he raped her, however, is a valid point. I don't know how I missed that after all these years. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll get to it as soon as possible. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If I understand it right, your question is about the contradition in the second set of excerpts. I'll concede it's not a direct contradiction per se, but it does seem like odd wording – the first sentence may lead the reader to believe she was no longer handcuffed after the first week, which the second sentence disproves almost immediately. Vadim Galimov (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think fixed the problems with the passages in question. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The handcuff thing is still a bit strangely-worded, but otherwise it seems the wording of that section is much more accurate/accessible. Thank you! Vadim Galimov (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021
change He would continue raping her daily,[20] doing so at least once a week for the first three years of her captivity.[21]  to He would continue raping her frequently,[20] doing so at least once a week for the first three years of her captivity.[21]

comment: the original text is self contradictory. 2601:644:4480:FED0:E1A7:5D26:BED8:B851 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. I've taken out the "daily" bit. The ABC article has a video that I think a lot of the body was based on, but the video is unavailable to me right now. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)