While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Note: An earlier article on this same subject, titled simply Asha Degree, was deleted in 2008. I believe this article has demonstrated the notability found to be lacking in that discussion. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop reverting my edit. It causes absolutely no harm, and there's no reason to get all uppity, and high and mighty, and say that's not how Wikipedia is done. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not. We're not really advertising, this is neutral, it's not an opinion piece, it's not a scandal, it's not self-promotion (I do not work at the police department), and it's not marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Because it doesn't feel like it fits? Ok, so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.210.217 ( talk) 02:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
And how exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Mollydog1500: As the editor primarily responsible for putting this article together, allow me to weigh in.
Our articles are meant to be as purely descriptive as possible. They are intended to be information sources and nothing more. Yes, as Fred said, we can and (I think) do have a link to the page to call tips in in the external links section at the bottom; anyone reading the article and wanting to share information they believe might be helpful with the appropriate authorities will likely find it there when they finish reading the article.
And honestly, wouldn't you rather people read the article first so they know what is known about the case before they decide to call in, instead of just having them call in with some information that might be completely useless because they didn't bother to read the whole article? (Read the comments section on just about any news article on the Internet that has one and you'll see what I mean, if you don't know this already).
I would be very happy one day if one of the articles I've developed about missing-persons cases or unsolved crimes generated the lead that solved the case. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Per the WP:SOAPBOX link that Fred directed you to, I would commend #1 to your attention: "advocacy". IMO putting the tipline number in a hatnote on every article about an active missing-person case is advocacy, as benevolent as it may be (Note that on Disappearance of Leah Roberts, another article I've worked on about a college-age woman gone missing, also from North Carolina, a month after Asha, there is no such hatnote, and in fact no other "Disappearance of ..." article should have one, either, whether there is an active tip line or not.
We believe this works better for us and everyone else. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Has it happened upon you they may possibly find something suspicious and look up words related and find stuff related to Asha? And obviously not all them. But some may. And I'm counting on some. Mollydog1500 ( talk) 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC) If nobody will reply, I'm changing it. I'm not sitting in silence. Mollydog1500 ( talk) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to wait forever and never end up doing it. Mollydog1500 ( talk) 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't completely object to including information about the blog in this article, but I don't think any great weight or detail should be given to it. It's a self-published blog by an amateur, who appears to have no qualifications or experience with missing persons cases. I would equate it with the likes of other Internet forums and blogs (Websleuths, /r/UnresolvedMysteries, Topix, etc.) where people can discuss theories related to cases. There are so many blogs online; you could probably find thousands discussing the JonBenét Ramsey case, but that does not warrant inclusion. Finding Asha Degree has been mentioned in some articles, but I don't think that justifies mentioning it in the lede. I removed the mention of the blog from "They, along with a blogger who has tried to solve the case, have speculated that she might have been abducted instead", as I think the investigators' opinions are the only noteworthy ones. Degree's own mother said it contained "half truths". To editor Daniel Case: please comment. Melonkelon ( talk) 21:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't often lose my temper on a place like Wikipedia, but a recent post on Reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6mqsdk/im_99_sure_wikipedia_lied_to_us_all_about_some?sort=confidence) drew my attention to the fact that this mention of a bag being found with Asha's basketball outfit, family photos etc. is pretty much just made up. Theres three sources whoever made this up has 'cited', and not one of them mentions any of these items, just that a bag was found.
It's bad enough having people vandalising pages on here, but this claim made here has been repeated in other places so often that it's become part of the case. The poster on Reddit, and I, may be wrong and there might be a proper source out there that shows the bag contained the items mentioned, but until someone can find such a source, I'm removing the reference.
If this is a lie, regardless of whether or not it was done with malicious intent, the wikiproject in charge of this should really take a closer look at other articles like this and maybe consider locking them. Jesuschristonacamel ( talk) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
As the primary contributor to this article, I am writing to address the Reddit thread linked above discussing this article.
There was never any intent on my part to mislead or lie. However, it was a mistake to have written details of the contents of the second bookbag found when there was no reliable source describing them. In reviewing how that got in there, I think I may have erroneously come to believe that one of the many sources besides Wendy Hughes' blog (which does not meet standards here for reliable sources, interesting though it has been to read) that described the contents of the first bookbag found also described the contents of the second one.
Typically, before writing any article, on any subject, I peruse as many of the potential sources as possible, then let it all sit in my head for a couple of weeks. Usually by the end of that time I have sort of visualized what the article will look like when finished, and I have a clear idea of what source says what, and it's easier to write.
In the case of this article, I had thought it would be an interesting one to have, but as we had missed the 15th anniversary (when putting it on the "Did You Know? ..." section on the front page would have gotten it a lot of attention), I figured instead that we should wait until 2020 (In fact, I hadn't known a lot about Asha's case in early 2015 when I sat down to write Disappearance of Leah Roberts, another North Carolina-based missing-persons case, for that 15th anniversary in March 2015; if I had I would have tried to write it then).
But then someone else started this one early in 2016, and I saw it and figured that if we were going to have it then it should be good, so I threw myself into polishing it up. I thus didn't have as much time as I usually give myself, and in the process of reviewing a lot of what I could find (as the Redditor OP notes, a lot of the original stories about this have long since been archived and can't easily be found via search engines), I let myself get confused.
I apologize to the Degrees and anyone else close to the case if this report has caused them any more pain than what they've already suffered. I apologize to the Internet for letting this happen. And I thank the OP at Reddit for bringing this up ... I'd like to take a look at some of those other articles. Your last observation is also very interesting ... hopefully some reliable source will bring it up one day and maybe it can then be included in the article. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Daniel Case, I'm having a difficult time understanding your perspective on the edits that we have been disagreeing over. Can you provide a link to wikipedia guidelines surrounding "excessive detail"? I think that it is indisputable that items taken are relevant in almost all missing persons cases; in this instance it is unclear if the clothes were recovered in the backpack so mentioning items associated with her disappearance could be important to the case and of interest to readers. I don't think the material in question is excessive; it is only 127 characters.
I would ask other editors watching this page to weigh in also. For clarification, the disagreement is about which of the following passages is better, or asked another way, does the first passage have excessive detail?
version 1: Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including blue jeans with a red stripe, a long-sleeved, white nylon shirt, a red vest trimmed in black, black overalls with Tweety Bird on them, and a black and white long-sleeved shirt." version 2: Iquilla said that later she realized some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom.
†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 05:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
So per that, I think, if you want to include this detailed list of the missing clothing because you think it might relevant you should do so with a sourced explanation of why that information is or might be relevant. Your feeling that it might be, while certainly understandable and not unique to you, is not enough to justify its inclusion.
My reference point, to which I alluded in one of my edit summaries, was this edit to another article about a missing persons case, which took out a lot of similar information that, I should add, I had included when I had originally written the article, but whose removal on grounds that it was trivial and crufty I agreed with in retrospect. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
One of your edit summaries mentioned "evidentiary value" ... well, we're not putting together a case for prosecution here.
I would contrast it with the food found in JonBenet Ramsey's stomach; where it is of undisputed relevance that it was peaches.
My ability to contribute to this RfC will be somewhat limited over the next week since I am heading off tomorrow morning to Wikimania in Cape Town. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Copy and pasted from above:
...the disagreement is about which of the following passages is better, or asked another way, does the first passage have excessive detail?
version 1: Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including blue jeans with a red stripe, a long-sleeved, white nylon shirt, a red vest trimmed in black, black overalls with Tweety Bird on them, and a black and white long-sleeved shirt."
version 2: Iquilla said that later she realized some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom.
†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 18:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, thank you for your feedback. I am open to a compromise. One of my arguments for version 1 is that it includes details that could be potential useful in the search, so I would say that the items that should be mentioned should be the most unique items. My suggested version would be:
Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including a red vest with black trim and black overalls featuring an image of Tweety Bird.
†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Something bugged me about the detailed inclusion of all the clothing; it took until almost the end of Wikimania for me to realize what it was.
There is a context in which the exact clothes are relevant: the theory put forth by Wendy Hughes, who started the " Finding Asha Degree" blog that Asha was carefully groomed by a sexual predator close to the family who knew enough about her life and the family routines and thus had enough of Asha's trust to get her to do the things that would appear as if she had suddenly run away in order to better abduct her.
Personally, I find that theory interesting, as it's about the only theory that remains mostly consistent with the reported facts, but Ms. Hughes' blog is not currently a reliable source, so while I read it I didn't put anything from it in the article. I did, however, feel its existence was worth mentioning as an indisputably reliable source had taken note of its existence as a way of solving this perplexing case, and had not done so in passing, getting some negative comment from Iquilla Degree about it and Ms. Hughes' theory. However, apparently some people feel that we shouldn't even acknowledge the existence of sources we don't consider reliable. I didn't really feel like arguing the point at the time.
That said ... in this post Hughes goes into detail about the clothes, listing every single garment as well, and suggesting that the choice of garments was made not by Asha herself but this unnamed adult to better create the impression that Asha had chosen to run away.
I would have had no problem including this theory in the article had it come from a reliable source. But it doesn't, at present.
Including that same list in our article, to me, gives the impression that we are on some level lending credence to Hughes' theory, our assessment of her blog as a source notwithstanding. It would invite well-meaning newer editors not yet familiar with WP:IRS but familiar with the case to add more material from that blog, cited or not, and create some unnecessary maintenance headaches for those (like myself) who watchlist this article and work to maintain its integrity.
Now, someday, Wendy Hughes may decide, as James Renner did with his Maura Murray blog, to turn hers into a book. If said book is, like Renner's, published by a reputable publisher who has an editor and at least one lawyer go over it as most publishers do (as opposed to some sort of self-published Amazon single), and that book includes the list of clothing and her theory about who chose them and for what purpose, then we can put all that in the article.
Until then, I think, we should leave the list out, as it seems to me like a backhanded way of getting something from an unreliable source into the article. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You say it "seem[s] like" an interesting detail. We need a more specific reason than that. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Something is not adding up in the disappearance section. At the beginning there is a line that says: "Around 8 p.m. that night, both children went to bed in the room they shared. Almost an hour later, the power went out in the neighborhood after a nearby car accident."
Meanwhile at the end of the paragraph, it says that "Iquilla awoke at 5:45 a.m. to get the children ready for school. That morning, this involved drawing a bath for them because they had not been able to take one the night before due to the power outage."
But weren't the kids already asleep when the power went out? Would Iquilla have had to wake the kids up again to give them a bath? This seems odd. TheJay123 ( talk) 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Note: An earlier article on this same subject, titled simply Asha Degree, was deleted in 2008. I believe this article has demonstrated the notability found to be lacking in that discussion. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop reverting my edit. It causes absolutely no harm, and there's no reason to get all uppity, and high and mighty, and say that's not how Wikipedia is done. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not. We're not really advertising, this is neutral, it's not an opinion piece, it's not a scandal, it's not self-promotion (I do not work at the police department), and it's not marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Because it doesn't feel like it fits? Ok, so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.210.217 ( talk) 02:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
And how exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 ( talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Mollydog1500: As the editor primarily responsible for putting this article together, allow me to weigh in.
Our articles are meant to be as purely descriptive as possible. They are intended to be information sources and nothing more. Yes, as Fred said, we can and (I think) do have a link to the page to call tips in in the external links section at the bottom; anyone reading the article and wanting to share information they believe might be helpful with the appropriate authorities will likely find it there when they finish reading the article.
And honestly, wouldn't you rather people read the article first so they know what is known about the case before they decide to call in, instead of just having them call in with some information that might be completely useless because they didn't bother to read the whole article? (Read the comments section on just about any news article on the Internet that has one and you'll see what I mean, if you don't know this already).
I would be very happy one day if one of the articles I've developed about missing-persons cases or unsolved crimes generated the lead that solved the case. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Per the WP:SOAPBOX link that Fred directed you to, I would commend #1 to your attention: "advocacy". IMO putting the tipline number in a hatnote on every article about an active missing-person case is advocacy, as benevolent as it may be (Note that on Disappearance of Leah Roberts, another article I've worked on about a college-age woman gone missing, also from North Carolina, a month after Asha, there is no such hatnote, and in fact no other "Disappearance of ..." article should have one, either, whether there is an active tip line or not.
We believe this works better for us and everyone else. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Has it happened upon you they may possibly find something suspicious and look up words related and find stuff related to Asha? And obviously not all them. But some may. And I'm counting on some. Mollydog1500 ( talk) 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC) If nobody will reply, I'm changing it. I'm not sitting in silence. Mollydog1500 ( talk) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to wait forever and never end up doing it. Mollydog1500 ( talk) 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't completely object to including information about the blog in this article, but I don't think any great weight or detail should be given to it. It's a self-published blog by an amateur, who appears to have no qualifications or experience with missing persons cases. I would equate it with the likes of other Internet forums and blogs (Websleuths, /r/UnresolvedMysteries, Topix, etc.) where people can discuss theories related to cases. There are so many blogs online; you could probably find thousands discussing the JonBenét Ramsey case, but that does not warrant inclusion. Finding Asha Degree has been mentioned in some articles, but I don't think that justifies mentioning it in the lede. I removed the mention of the blog from "They, along with a blogger who has tried to solve the case, have speculated that she might have been abducted instead", as I think the investigators' opinions are the only noteworthy ones. Degree's own mother said it contained "half truths". To editor Daniel Case: please comment. Melonkelon ( talk) 21:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't often lose my temper on a place like Wikipedia, but a recent post on Reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6mqsdk/im_99_sure_wikipedia_lied_to_us_all_about_some?sort=confidence) drew my attention to the fact that this mention of a bag being found with Asha's basketball outfit, family photos etc. is pretty much just made up. Theres three sources whoever made this up has 'cited', and not one of them mentions any of these items, just that a bag was found.
It's bad enough having people vandalising pages on here, but this claim made here has been repeated in other places so often that it's become part of the case. The poster on Reddit, and I, may be wrong and there might be a proper source out there that shows the bag contained the items mentioned, but until someone can find such a source, I'm removing the reference.
If this is a lie, regardless of whether or not it was done with malicious intent, the wikiproject in charge of this should really take a closer look at other articles like this and maybe consider locking them. Jesuschristonacamel ( talk) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
As the primary contributor to this article, I am writing to address the Reddit thread linked above discussing this article.
There was never any intent on my part to mislead or lie. However, it was a mistake to have written details of the contents of the second bookbag found when there was no reliable source describing them. In reviewing how that got in there, I think I may have erroneously come to believe that one of the many sources besides Wendy Hughes' blog (which does not meet standards here for reliable sources, interesting though it has been to read) that described the contents of the first bookbag found also described the contents of the second one.
Typically, before writing any article, on any subject, I peruse as many of the potential sources as possible, then let it all sit in my head for a couple of weeks. Usually by the end of that time I have sort of visualized what the article will look like when finished, and I have a clear idea of what source says what, and it's easier to write.
In the case of this article, I had thought it would be an interesting one to have, but as we had missed the 15th anniversary (when putting it on the "Did You Know? ..." section on the front page would have gotten it a lot of attention), I figured instead that we should wait until 2020 (In fact, I hadn't known a lot about Asha's case in early 2015 when I sat down to write Disappearance of Leah Roberts, another North Carolina-based missing-persons case, for that 15th anniversary in March 2015; if I had I would have tried to write it then).
But then someone else started this one early in 2016, and I saw it and figured that if we were going to have it then it should be good, so I threw myself into polishing it up. I thus didn't have as much time as I usually give myself, and in the process of reviewing a lot of what I could find (as the Redditor OP notes, a lot of the original stories about this have long since been archived and can't easily be found via search engines), I let myself get confused.
I apologize to the Degrees and anyone else close to the case if this report has caused them any more pain than what they've already suffered. I apologize to the Internet for letting this happen. And I thank the OP at Reddit for bringing this up ... I'd like to take a look at some of those other articles. Your last observation is also very interesting ... hopefully some reliable source will bring it up one day and maybe it can then be included in the article. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Daniel Case, I'm having a difficult time understanding your perspective on the edits that we have been disagreeing over. Can you provide a link to wikipedia guidelines surrounding "excessive detail"? I think that it is indisputable that items taken are relevant in almost all missing persons cases; in this instance it is unclear if the clothes were recovered in the backpack so mentioning items associated with her disappearance could be important to the case and of interest to readers. I don't think the material in question is excessive; it is only 127 characters.
I would ask other editors watching this page to weigh in also. For clarification, the disagreement is about which of the following passages is better, or asked another way, does the first passage have excessive detail?
version 1: Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including blue jeans with a red stripe, a long-sleeved, white nylon shirt, a red vest trimmed in black, black overalls with Tweety Bird on them, and a black and white long-sleeved shirt." version 2: Iquilla said that later she realized some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom.
†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 05:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
So per that, I think, if you want to include this detailed list of the missing clothing because you think it might relevant you should do so with a sourced explanation of why that information is or might be relevant. Your feeling that it might be, while certainly understandable and not unique to you, is not enough to justify its inclusion.
My reference point, to which I alluded in one of my edit summaries, was this edit to another article about a missing persons case, which took out a lot of similar information that, I should add, I had included when I had originally written the article, but whose removal on grounds that it was trivial and crufty I agreed with in retrospect. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
One of your edit summaries mentioned "evidentiary value" ... well, we're not putting together a case for prosecution here.
I would contrast it with the food found in JonBenet Ramsey's stomach; where it is of undisputed relevance that it was peaches.
My ability to contribute to this RfC will be somewhat limited over the next week since I am heading off tomorrow morning to Wikimania in Cape Town. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Copy and pasted from above:
...the disagreement is about which of the following passages is better, or asked another way, does the first passage have excessive detail?
version 1: Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including blue jeans with a red stripe, a long-sleeved, white nylon shirt, a red vest trimmed in black, black overalls with Tweety Bird on them, and a black and white long-sleeved shirt."
version 2: Iquilla said that later she realized some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom.
†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 18:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, thank you for your feedback. I am open to a compromise. One of my arguments for version 1 is that it includes details that could be potential useful in the search, so I would say that the items that should be mentioned should be the most unique items. My suggested version would be:
Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including a red vest with black trim and black overalls featuring an image of Tweety Bird.
†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Something bugged me about the detailed inclusion of all the clothing; it took until almost the end of Wikimania for me to realize what it was.
There is a context in which the exact clothes are relevant: the theory put forth by Wendy Hughes, who started the " Finding Asha Degree" blog that Asha was carefully groomed by a sexual predator close to the family who knew enough about her life and the family routines and thus had enough of Asha's trust to get her to do the things that would appear as if she had suddenly run away in order to better abduct her.
Personally, I find that theory interesting, as it's about the only theory that remains mostly consistent with the reported facts, but Ms. Hughes' blog is not currently a reliable source, so while I read it I didn't put anything from it in the article. I did, however, feel its existence was worth mentioning as an indisputably reliable source had taken note of its existence as a way of solving this perplexing case, and had not done so in passing, getting some negative comment from Iquilla Degree about it and Ms. Hughes' theory. However, apparently some people feel that we shouldn't even acknowledge the existence of sources we don't consider reliable. I didn't really feel like arguing the point at the time.
That said ... in this post Hughes goes into detail about the clothes, listing every single garment as well, and suggesting that the choice of garments was made not by Asha herself but this unnamed adult to better create the impression that Asha had chosen to run away.
I would have had no problem including this theory in the article had it come from a reliable source. But it doesn't, at present.
Including that same list in our article, to me, gives the impression that we are on some level lending credence to Hughes' theory, our assessment of her blog as a source notwithstanding. It would invite well-meaning newer editors not yet familiar with WP:IRS but familiar with the case to add more material from that blog, cited or not, and create some unnecessary maintenance headaches for those (like myself) who watchlist this article and work to maintain its integrity.
Now, someday, Wendy Hughes may decide, as James Renner did with his Maura Murray blog, to turn hers into a book. If said book is, like Renner's, published by a reputable publisher who has an editor and at least one lawyer go over it as most publishers do (as opposed to some sort of self-published Amazon single), and that book includes the list of clothing and her theory about who chose them and for what purpose, then we can put all that in the article.
Until then, I think, we should leave the list out, as it seems to me like a backhanded way of getting something from an unreliable source into the article. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You say it "seem[s] like" an interesting detail. We need a more specific reason than that. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Something is not adding up in the disappearance section. At the beginning there is a line that says: "Around 8 p.m. that night, both children went to bed in the room they shared. Almost an hour later, the power went out in the neighborhood after a nearby car accident."
Meanwhile at the end of the paragraph, it says that "Iquilla awoke at 5:45 a.m. to get the children ready for school. That morning, this involved drawing a bath for them because they had not been able to take one the night before due to the power outage."
But weren't the kids already asleep when the power went out? Would Iquilla have had to wake the kids up again to give them a bath? This seems odd. TheJay123 ( talk) 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)