Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs

There needs to be a 'controversy' section
There are a number of things about this incident and the "official statements" that are conflicting/suspicious and should have their own section in the article.

For example
 * the first official statements put the call coming in at around 12:56 with law enforcement arriving at around 1:30. NOW their claiming law enforcement arrived within 4 minutes????


 * First statement also lists that the father, though shot, answered the door when law enforcement arrived. That information has since been completely ignored, and the official story now is that both father and mother were DOA when officers arrived.


 * First statement ALSO listed the event initially as "attempted suicide". Again, that information has since been buried/hidden.


 * Report of a possible sighting in Florida, with vehicle having a Wisconsin License plate, was hurridly dismissed by Barron County Sheriff, who seemed to do so simply because Miami PD did not "consult" with him first. I have seen the video, and the design of the plate could be either Wisconsin or Illinois - and though unlikely to be involved it STILL should have been checked out to see if there might actually be a connection.


 * Though both parents were murdered and the girl was missing, Barron County authorities considered such a thing as kidnap for ransom as a viable motive to the detriment of other possibilities.

In all, there are quit a few things - in both the crim AND the investigation - that are odd if not ouright suspicious. And I doubt there will be a solution if it's left entirely up to a small group of authority figures to investigate things.

97.107.34.11 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I found the burglary story quite odd - strange enough to add a paragraph about it under the "Investigation" heading here. Mikerrr (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed the many similarities between this case and the Starkweather case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated content
On the page regarding the active investigation of the unsolved murder of a husband and wife and the disappearance of their 13-year-old daughter, there are quite lengthy claims that are untrue that the sheriff in this case has made statements about where this child is. This seems to be in opposition to the mission and intent of the Wikipedia philosophy. Can this been editted please? The sheriff has NOT stated that this missing child has been spirited out of the country and is under armed guard in a remote location overseas, and that a significant ransom has been demanded. Maybe this will turn out to be true -who knows - but in the meantime it is pure speculation, and should say so. Saxwhit (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw the news report that Barron County Sheriff said that the rumor she had been found was false. But, as I prepared to edit the article, several newer reports came in that she was found alive. SlowJog (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably the wrong place to ask but help with citations needed
Subject says it all. I added a quote regarding the burglary at the Closs home in October from NBC News.com, but I can't seem to get my citation to appear correctly (i.e. with the article title as a link). Guidance appreciated so I'll know in the future but someone simply fixing it is fine with me. Mikerrr (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this what you want? This (below) has the article title as a link to the article.
 * * Jayme Closs: Everything we know about Wisconsin teen's abduction and escape
 * If so, here is the Wiki-text:
 * Jayme Closs: Everything we know about Wisconsin teen's abduction and escape
 * Thanks. Hope this helps.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mugshot Released, where is it?
As You all very well know this case had a happy ending and a suspect was taken into custody. The news broke that pattersons mugshot got released this morning. However it does not show in his info box, is it okay if I put it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billster156234781 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it belongs in the info box in the Suspect section. --В²C ☎ 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are mugshots in the state of Wisconsin "free licensed"? May be an issue.50.111.10.215 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jayme Closs reunited with her dog and aunt.png

Discrepancy about the ownership of the cabin
This article contains a discrepancy about the ownership of the cabin. The article states:


 * A cabin at that address was previously owned by Patterson's parents, but ownership was turned over to the Superior Choice Credit Union about a week after the October 15 abduction.

and


 * The house in Gordon where Patterson allegedly held Closs captive is owned by Patterson's father.

I believe that the discrepancy originates in the sources themselves. This should be looked into and cleaned up, so that the accurate state of affairs is described. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sloppy sources missed that the father transferred ownership to the credit union back in October. —В²C ☎ 05:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, are you sure?  I can understand that a news service might be sloppy in their reporting.  But, one of those sources cited in the article is the official property records of the state/town ... no?  Can we consider the official property records of the state/town to be "sloppy reporting"?  I am not sure of what the correct situation is.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This source seems to be the "official" county tax records.  It lists the "current owner" as "PATTERSON, PATRICK M." (the father of the suspect).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Yet this source says "Records show that defendant Jake Thomas Patterson's father transferred the title of the cabin near Gordon to Superior Choice Credit Union on Oct. 23, eight days after the Oct. 15 attack at the Closs family's home". I wonder what records those are. Perhaps tax records are not updated immediately after title records change? --В²C ☎ 17:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder what a search here for 14166 S EAU CLAIRE ACRES CIR Gordon 54838 would show. It requires registration so I didn't do it. . --В²C ☎ 17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is odd. I also thought the same as you that, perhaps, tax records are not updated very quickly.  But that, in itself, also seems odd.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Oddity about suspect's age
The article describes the suspect as "21 years old". And in the Info-Box, it says "age 21 or 22". Can this be cleaned up? Or can we find an exact birth date for the suspect? It appears quite odd, with the way that it is currently worded. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * His birth date is June 17, 1997 (age 21). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

suspect's family
Is the information about his sister and brother truly relevant to this article? I would vote to remove those statements. His parents' divorce and his father's ownership/transfer of the house should stay. 50.111.10.215 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes relevant. How do we know? Certain sources deemed it to be relevant.  —В²C ☎ 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Newspapers print everything they hear. This is an encyclopedia. How is the fact that his brother has a jv conviction relevant to this incident? 50.111.10.215 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It helps readers understand some context. I go to WP for articles like this one to find all the context in one spot. I don't want to have to dig through dozens of articles to get the full story. That's the point. --В²C ☎ 23:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is interest in the perpetrator. That extends in many directions. We would for instance be interested in home life. Siblings are subjected to similar home lives. I think the interest exists to know the "products" of an environment. The sources are providing this information because it makes sense to want to know this information. Should we take a different tack and deem this information irrelevant? No. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I will quickly add that I don't see this as a "great wrong". There is nothing "wrong" with wanting to have information about an incomprehensible thing. A common perception is that it makes no sense that the perpetrator did what he did. It seems like an irrational act, to put it mildly. So the desire for information is strong. We are just following sources and I do not think the sources are off-base in deciding that this information warrants mention. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * His family is protected under Wikipedia's BLP policy. They are not criminals, and should not be mentioned with the perpetrator. Similarly, my addition of the suspect's mother's and father's name was reverted at Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Yoninah (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Bus Stop said. Please reinsert the information. There is no consensus to delete it. It is from reliable sources. Let the reliable sources - not an editor - determine what information is relevant. 71.167.14.104 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree that this is irrelevant and that they are protected by the BLP policy, which has a very strong presumption of privacy for relatively unknown individuals, which his family is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

duration of kidnapping
I just changed the way we count the duration of the kidnapping from using the "age in days" template to the "duration in days" template. The difference is in whether the first and last dates are included in the calculation. I'm sure Jayme Closs and her family would want every single day included in that count... so it's 88, not 87. See this diff. --В²C ☎ 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence vs facts
Being legally guilty of a murder and kidnapping is different from being known to have committed the killing and abduction in question. Yes, we presume legal innocence, but there is no question by any reliable source anywhere about the facts that Patterson killed Jayme's parents and kidnapped her, and we should not hesitate in stating these facts, as seems to think we should. Even Patterson's parents, grandfather and attorneys are not questioning these facts, nor is any reliable source. It's ridiculous for us to do so. --В²C ☎ 19:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPCRIME (per the edit summary). The encyclopedic way to handle it in the article is to state the suspect has confessed to the crimes and frame the relevant details in that context, while not stating directly in Wikipedia's voice "Person X did it."  In due time, after a court of law convicts them and they are no longer entitled to a legal presumption of innocence, we can then rewrite the article to state "Person X did it" right from the start.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You continue to conflate legal guilt and question of facts. We should not say that he's guilty of doing these things, but there is no question that he did them. No question. It's not for a court to determine whether he did them, the court determines whether he violated any laws and, if so, what the legal consequences should be. This isn't about that.  --В²C ☎ 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME says: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Okay.  But what you deleted did not say or even suggest he committed any crimes. He may be found innocent by reason of insanity, or perhaps he was blackmailed into doing what he did.  But his potential legal innocence is irrelevant to the undisputed fact that he shot and killed the parents, kidnapped her, and held her captive for 88 days. --В²C ☎ 20:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The shooting of the parents and the kidnapping of their child were crimes, ergo stating in Wikipedia's voice "John Smith shot person X and Y, and kidnapped person Z" is indeed stating that the person committed crimes. As soon as a conviction is secured, we can rephrase the content to state it directly in that fashion, but until we get to that milestone the policy compliant way to state things is write "John Smith confessed to shooting person X and Y, and kidnapped person Z" instead.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Those acts have not been proven to be crimes, and may never be. Again, he may be innocent by insanity, or who knows what. But we’re not talking about these legal ramifications. Independent of all that it’s a broadly known fact acknowledged by all relevant reliable sources that Patterson killed the parents and kidnapped the girl. Avoiding saying that is silly and saying it is not contrary to BLPCRIME. —В²C ☎ 21:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course we're talking about the legal ramifications anytime we use criminal words that can send someone to jail for the rest of their life. Claiming otherwise is illogical. Since there is a confession and it seems to have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, I think we're fine noting the confession but until the conviction is entered, we should use "kill" over "murder" as kill is a neutral factual statement that correctly describes what has been confessed to, while "murder" is a crime. Also, agree with AzureCitizen that we only can cover the confession as a confession, not a statement of absolute fact. Confessions are regularly crap and there's been a lot of work done on false confessions recently, so let's just state the facts and not play the role of the courts. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, murder implies a crime and so we should use kill instead. But we should not have to avoid saying he killed the parents; he clearly did. There is no question about that. Whether he murdered them is not known until if and when there is a conviction. That's exactly my point. --В²C ☎ 00:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is for the courts to determine, not us. We report what sources report, which is that he confessed. The reader is free to draw their own conclusions from his confession. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why courts? Why are reliable sources not enough like for anything else? If reliable sources have determined he killed (not murdered) the parents, why can't we say that too? --В²C ☎ 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because in the United States, where this crime took place and where the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation are located, it is courts who try fact and law, and even a confessed killer is presumed innocent until the courts determine he is guilty. False confessions are in fact a thing, and unless and until a court enters final judgement all we have here is a confession. That is not enough for us to report anything other than the fact that he confessed. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to the ramifications of that fact. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've started a broader discussion about this here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. --В²C ☎ 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment / Question: Do people realize that Wikipedia is not a court of law?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the entire point. We provide protection to individuals who have been charged with crimes per WP:BLPCRIME which very clearly states A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. We report of the confession. We report on the arrest. We report on the charges, but until a court determine that the confessions is valid enough to enter a conviction, we do not state it as a fact. Even if the person involved is likely guilty as sin. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. We’re talking about the voice of Wikipedia reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. Has nothing to do with courts or law. —В²C ☎ 04:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the BLP policy unequivocally says it does. We do not make determinations of facts on criminal matters. Courts do. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know BLP says that. My question is more about why adhere to that so strictly even in blatantly obvious cases where RS and editor consensus all unanimously agree there is no question about the fact in consideration, but I’m willing to drop it. Thanks again. —В²C ☎ 07:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Joseph E. Duncan III
I’ve removed the inclusion of Joseph E. Duncan III in the see also section again per WP:ONUS. Unless I am mistaken, he did not commit these crimes, he is a living person, and there are likely any number of similar circumstances in the United States and elsewhere in the world that could be linked to, so the inclusion of this murderer in an article about a completely unrelated crime is completely arbitrary and in my view should not occur. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You either misunderstand or misstate the purpose of the "See also" section. The policy about a "See also" section, linked here: WP:SEEALSO, specifically states, quote: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.  It is fairly obvious (I would have thought) that a criminal murdering an entire family in order to abduct a child is a rare event.  Other than the Closs example and the Duncan example, I cannot think of any.  So, contrary to what you posit, Duncan did not have to actually commit the Closs kidnapping in order to be listed as a "See also" link.  Also contrary to what you posit, his (Duncan's) being a living person is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of "See also" links.  Also contrary to what you posit, there are rare -- if any -- similar circumstances and/or similar crimes.  As I stated above, I cannot think of any, other than the Closs case and the Duncan case (i.e., situations in which a perpetrator murdered an entire family in order to kidnap the targeted kidnapping victim).  That is a pretty unique crime.  Hardly among "any number of similar circumstances", as you posit.  (Or, please cite the many numbers of similar cases, so that I can better assess your argument.)  Also contrary to what you posit, the inclusion of Duncan is not "completely arbitrary".  Once again, you either misunderstand or misstate the purpose of the "See also" section.  And, once again, the policy about a "See also" section, linked here: WP:SEEALSO, specifically states, quote: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.  Duncan more than merits inclusion in this article's "See also" list.  I look forward to your counter-arguments to all of the points that I listed here.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary (on your revert) states, quote: how on earth is a murder from 13 years ago relevant here?. This is further evidence -- and further illustrates -- that you either misunderstand or misstate the purpose of the "See also" section.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not talk down to me. I'm aware of how Wikipedia works. We don't link to a completely random murderer in an article about another crime that happened more than a decade later. This isn't even tangentially related. It's an article about a crime. That link is to the biographical article on a living person who killed an entirely different family in a completely different part of the country 13 years before this crime was created. That takes tangentially related to the furthest possible extreme and would only serve to confuse readers. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You believe that these two kidnapping events -- with accompanying family murders -- are not even "tangentially related" because they happened to different families; in different states; in different years; by different killers? Is that what you are suggesting?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, re: responding: I don't have the time right now to find sources, but I will look over the weekend. I also don't think even if these were the only crimes like this that justification of a link to the biography of the perpetrator would be warranted. A link to the article on the crime if we had it may be, but not a biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That is merely semantics, and irrelevant ones at that, I would posit. Duncan's "biography" (if you can even call it that) is really simply an enumeration of all of his crimes, court trials, sentences, etc.  In other words, his "biography" merely details his "life of crime".  So, the Shasta Groene kidnapping crime -- with accompanying Groene family murders -- is merely one of his litany of crimes.  So, again, this is just semantics.  And it's a distinction without a difference.  His biography is his life of crime. They are one and the same.  As is probably the case for most other criminals, who have no independent notability other than due to their crimes.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How am I "talking down to you"? Actually, what I did was to rebut (counter) each of your points.  Which is how "argument" works.  So, again, please tell me -- with specificity -- how am I "talking down to you"?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is further evidence -- and further illustrates -- that you either misunderstand or misstate the purpose of the "See also" section, intelligent people can in good faith and good will have legitimate disagreements. I do not need to be educated on the purpose of a see also section. I've been around the block on this project and I know how things work. It's not productive to claim someone doesn't understand something when what they have is a legitimate disagreement with you. I'm fine with that disagreement, it happens, but the conversation isn't moved forward when one side claims that the other is either acting in bad faith (misstate) or doesn't know what they're talking about (misunderstand). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, then, counter some of my points (as I have already asked you to do). That is what an "argument" is.  Make some points.  And counter the opponent's points.  I am waiting.  And, yes, it is my opinion that you misunderstand the "rule" or that you misstate it.  And I used your own words as evidence of what led me to form my opinions. Also, a "mistake" is not acting in "bad faith".  "Bad faith" implies deliberate conduct, not accidental errors.  So, your assessment that I am "talking down to you" because I -- according to you -- stated that you are acting in bad faith or you don't know what you are talking about is wrong.  Your interpretation of my statement that "You either misunderstand or misstate the purpose of the "See also" section." is completely flawed.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it’s very appropriate to include the link to Duncan in the See Also section per what Spadaro said. I understood the connection immediately and appreciated the link personally. —В²C ☎ 04:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It has zero relationship at all here. If you want to link them, create a list of this type of crime. I am sure there are more than enough notable killers who have killed families to kidnap people. Singling him out for this is an undue association for another living person: you would ordinarily see the alleged perpetrator in the see also section. If the person who confessed to this crime had his own article, then that would be an appropriate usage of the see also section, but this isn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You (again) state that, quote, there are more than enough notable killers who have killed families to kidnap people. I personally know of none, other than the Closs and Duncan cases.  I asked you (above) to cite some of these "many cases".  But, you have not done so, other than to indicate that "you are sure that they exist".  Please offer some examples, aside from Closs and Duncan.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you honestly don’t see the connection with a BLP of someone convicted of a similar highly unusual crime as is described in this article, I can’t help you. Let’s see what others think. But I have to say, I’m shaking my head in disbelief. —В²C ☎ 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine yielding to consensus, even if I oppose it, but I don't consider this to be consensus, and we don't reinsert challenged content about living people (and yes, a link counts as this) while discussion is ongoing. I've posted at BLPN to get more eyes on this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the BLPN page: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And this why we have WP:Crying "BLP!". —В²C ☎ 05:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So, are there reliable sources explicitly drawing a connection between this case and Duncan's? If not, no, it absolutely does NOT belong.

You either misunderstand or misstate the purpose of the "See also" section. And you and Born2Cycle fundamentally misunderstand one of Wikipedia's most basic policies regarding synthesis.

If you honestly don’t see the connection with a BLP of someone convicted of a similar highly unusual crime as is described in this article, I can’t help you And if you don't understand that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not whatever you pull out of your ass, you have no business editing BLPs specifically and probably Wikipedia in general. --Calton | Talk 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it your contention that a "See also" link can only be added when a reliable source explicitly draws a connection between the subject of the "See also" link and the subject of the article proper? Is that your contention?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , please explain. How does this differ from listing all of the following:
 * Gary Heidnik
 * Fritzl case
 * Kidnapping of Colleen Stan
 * Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard
 * Michael J. Devlin
 * Tanya Nicole Kach
 * Natascha Kampusch
 * Elizabeth Smart
 * Steven Stayner
 * in the See Also section of Ariel Castro kidnappings? Where is the objection much less all this outrage to that? And how about the listing of all these:
 * Disappearance of Zane Plemmons
 * Evaristo Ortega Zárate
 * José Antonio García (journalist)
 * María Esther Aguilar Cansimbe
 * in the See Also section of Disappearance_and_displacement_of_Mario_Segura? I found these two example in a few minutes. There are many other similar examples.  How many more would you like to see?
 * Why are you guys so bent out of shape about this one instance of a very common practice (linking in the See Also section of a crime-related article to articles about topics related to similar crimes)? Do you think there needs to be Reliable Sources tying each of these too? Why are you imposing a standard here in this case that is not applied anywhere else?  It's such a common practice is it really out of line for  and me to expect the relevance and appropriateness of such an entry in the See Also section to be obvious to any experienced editor? --В²C ☎ 18:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you guys so bent out of shape about this one instance of a very common practice (linking in the See Also section of a crime-related article to articles about topics related to similar crimes)? Do you think there needs to be Reliable Sources tying each of these too? Why are you imposing a standard here in this case that is not applied anywhere else?  It's such a common practice is it really out of line for  and me to expect the relevance and appropriateness of such an entry in the See Also section to be obvious to any experienced editor? --В²C ☎ 18:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO the best way to resolve these sort of disputes is to ask whether there's any realistic chance the see also could one day be removed because there is a link in the FA quality article to the see also. If there isn't then it's best to leave them out. It is true that see also's tend to become a dumping ground for whatever someone thinks is remotely similar, but this clearly isn't the intention of them. Yes sometimes FAs have see alsos also, but when there is dispute over whether they belong, especially when there are BLP concerns, the simplest solution is to require that they are only placeholders for links which will eventually be included in the article (or a navigation box). Nil Einne (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a rather curious way to look at it, and I'm not sure I even understand it ("ask whether there's any realistic chance the see also could one day be removed because there is a link in the FA quality article to the see also"? What FA quality article?) but here is the actual relevant guidance at WP:SEEALSO: Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. And also: The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links), nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
 * Nothing there even suggests the standard is demanding be adhered to here: are there reliable sources explicitly drawing a connection between this case and Duncan's? If not, no, it absolutely does NOT belong.  And I agreed with  because he supported inclusion of the link in question with substantial reasoning demonstrating solid "editorial judgement and common sense" about relevance initially in the edit summary and later here in this section, not to mention that it was obvious based on common practice in many if not most other similar articles all over WP. Again, why the outrage?  Why the drama?  I honestly don't get it. --В²C ☎ 18:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also: The WP:SEEALSO policy specifically states, quote: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.  If one topic is "indirectly related" and "tangential" to another topic, why on earth (and how on earth) could we expect reliable sources to "explicitly link them" (as User:Calton has suggested demanded)?  That "standard" makes no sense at all.  And I'd like to know where that "standard" came from.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my world where I'm repeatedly persecuted by a small group of disgruntled editors (some admins, sadly) for violating rules pulled out of thin air, or for rules interpreted far more strictly than they are for others. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for the latest round of lashings I'm forced to endure. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Calton has specifically accused editors of, quote, "pulling stuff out of their asses". Well ... where exactly did User:Calton find this "rule" that he is citing (about the requirement that reliable sources provide explicit links in order for a "see also" link to be valid and acceptable)? Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Location
Is it normal for the infobox to be so specific with location of crime and location of the suspect? I don't think a full address is needed (or really encyclopedic for that matter, seems more like trivia). City and state should be sufficient. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The specific location has been covered extensively in the news, including even showing helicopter footage of the property where she was held. I think it's relevant, useful and helpful. --В²C ☎ 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY says articles should not include postal addresses or other contact information for living persons. Private residences are very problematic here in that as long as they are still habitable and not vacant, presumably at least one living person will be living at the address. I suspect that publishing the addresses in such a highly visible manner could have a negative effect on their property values. I'd be curious to know if there are any precedents where the street addresses of residential properties have been published. I know that addresses are shown for residences listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but what about otherwise unnotable homes whose only "notability" is that they were the site where crimes were committed. The address of the Barron residence was added by a drive-by IP. The Gordon address was added by this edit. None of the cited sources have published either of these addresses, that I could find. I have only seen them published in the police report, a primary source, but I don't think Wikipedia should help readers find this information. Sure news sources have published photographs of the houses, and even pictures taken from the air I suppose, but it's another thing to publish the addresses of the houses in the photos., you may reply here to my points if you wish to. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) do you recall where you found that address? wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed it was being discussed in a thread further up the page, so I thought to include it when I was changing the infobox format. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is right on the mark. Natureium (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is my personal opinion that if the address has been made public in reliable sources, then it should not be an issue for us to identify it in our articles, period. However, if consensus disagrees, and apparently it has if WP:BLPRIVACY accurately reflects consensus (and we must presume it does absent evidence to the contrary, like at least a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS favoring inclusion of the info), then I see no basis to employ WP:IAR or anything else like that in this case, so I wouldn't fight it. --В²C ☎ 01:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What value does a street address provide to the article? Natureium (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis. 10 Rillington Place is famous in England, as is 109 Harding Street in Adelaide. If the addresses become too infamous they will be demolished, as 10 Rillington Place was in the 1970s. And, Wikipedia are not real estate agents, we shouldn't give a toss what happens to "property values". JMO. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was thinking along those lines when I solicited for example precedents. I note that the address in Adelaide is not given in the article, while the address that's so infamous as to have an article title for it has been torn down, which kind of makes my point. While real estate resale values are one consideration, there also should be consideration for the personal property and privacy of innocent new residents. wbm1058 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , The thing is is that the real world is not consistent in what happens to houses associated with murders. Both the Beaumont's home at 109 Harding Street and the Tapp's home at 13 Kelvin Drive still stand and are still used as private residences today. Although, to be fair, both were extensively remodelled and renovated for free after the murders. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, so after extensive remodeling and painting the houses may no longer be recognizable in comparison to the pictures of them that were printed in newspapers and shown on television. The number of the Tapp house isn't given in the Wikipedia article either. Fine, if in the real world, reliable news outlets publish the postal addresses, then there may be some basis for Wikipedia to too. But I've yet to see any sources, even tabloids, publish the address of either house in this case. If the only published sources for these addresses is police reports and court filings, then I think the BLP policy gives pretty clear guidance that the postal addresses shouldn't be in the Wikipedia articles. Indeed there is some advice that these should even be oversighted, though it may be too late for that now. wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some examples of similar articles on Wikipedia that include street addresses are Jaycee Dugard (see infobox), Hannah Anderson (see infobox), and Suzanne Bombardier (see first paragraph of the lead). That said, perhaps a different way to go about this would be to use coordinates instead, and omit the addresses entirely.  That way we don't emphasize the notoriety of the street address, yet readers can still see the locations if they are interested in doing so.  I'll try implementing something like that on my next edit, and editors can discuss the pros and cons.  If anyone feels that's a mistake, feel free to revert the edit and continue to discuss the issue here.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. . I don't know. Really, showing the coordinates has the same problems as showing the street number. From the discussion above, it seems clear that this was derived from official government records (websites) and not from any published secondary (news) source. Did you use the postal addresses to find the coordinates? Isn't that generally considered "original research" that's discouraged by policies and guidelines, particularly for potentially sensitive information? wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary news source from January 14, 2019 providing the address of the captivity location: Jake Patterson charged with kidnapping, murder in Jayme Closs case. With regard to creating coordinates, they are strewn throughout infoboxes all over Wikipedia and I don't think it's considered original research, otherwise you'd have to remove most coordinates from articles.  WP:OGC explains to editors how to convert street address to coordinates.  If you can point us to a policy or guideline that prohibits or restricts using or obtaining coordinates that way, please do so as we should consider it.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, we have a secondary source that published Patterson's address. We still don't have a secondary source for the Closs (victims') home. Right, it's fine to convert address to coordinates or vice versa as long as one of them is published in a secondary source. What I was getting at is that the coordinates weren't published in a secondary source either. wbm1058 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Here is a secondary news source from October 19, 2018 providing the address of the abduction location:  Jayme Closs: 911 dispatch log released from night of Wisconsin teen's disappearance.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still not entirely sure we need to cover this even if a secondary source covers it, and the BLP policy would seem to prefer we didn't. In the area where I live, publishing the place where someone charged with a crime lived in news reports is somewhat normal. Same with the location of crimes if it was a house. The BLP policy doesn't appear to wish that we include these, even if they are covered by local news. Again, there is a very strong presumption of privacy for relatively unknown person, which everyone in this article is. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I sympathize with TonyB here. This is surely the grey zone, where most sources don't give the addresses but if you look hard enough you can find a few (outliers?) that do. Local sources are most likely to give the addresses, regional less likely, and national and international news reporting is even less likely to report mailing addresses. I've seen weekly local newspapers report "police blotters" that give addresses for most every minor crime that happened in the past week. This is in the zone of "not a newspaper" but that's just an essay, right? In reality you know we follow news pretty closely and usually update these types of stories almost in real time. News reports often disappear from the Internet over time, and may or may not get saved by the Wayback Machine. Whereas, Wikipedia becomes the easiest and quickest way to find the information – even easier than searching the public records archives. While the story is fresh the articles are closely monitored and vandalism is quickly reverted, but if a decade from now a vandal were to change one of these addresses to that of another house just down the street, how quickly will that get noticed and what is the potential harm if not noticed quickly? A newspaper's editorial board may debate their policy on this in private and have all their reporters follow the set policy, but we're compelled to debate in public (content outside ArbCom jurisdiction, unlike "outing") and if the debate is extended and tendentious the "Streisand effect" kicks in drawing more attention to all the cases where the issue comes into play, past and present. Making the debate kind of self-defeating. No easy answer here I see. Unless the WMF, courts or legislators step in and decide the issue for us. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Charges
I noticed this source [//www.startribune.com/more-charges-could-be-filed-in-jayme-closs-kidnapping-case/504573482/] a few days ago. I'm not sure if there's anything new to add to the article, but it does discuss the complexity faced in deciding whether to bring other charges. Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great article on a sensitive topic, thanks for sharing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent and interesting article. I wonder if it would be okay to have a section called "Sensitivity of possible further chargers", or something like that, based very closely on what this and similar articles say? --В²C ☎
 * I would rather not include too much about this, just because this might go against the spirit of WP:BLP. I would like to avoid delving too much into speculation as to what may or may not have happened.  I just put a VERY short bit in the legal proceedings that authorities have no interest in pursuing further charges, but they still have the ability to do so within the statute of limitations, and I would like to leave it at that.  If Closs wishes to talk about the incident or pursue these charges in the future, then I would be more comfortable in including a section like this. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Good article about background of suspect
Here's a good article in the Green Bay Press Gazette with a timeline of the suspect's life leading up to the charges. Could be a good source for expanding this article.


 * Timeline: The life of Jake Patterson, leading to double homicide, abduction charges. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to article: the fact whether Closs was physically or sexually abused while in captivity. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sexual abuse is not discussed in secondary reliable sources, hence there is no basis to include it here in the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)