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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Wisconsin may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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
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? /info/en/?search=Charles_Starkweather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 ( talk) 13:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article contains a discrepancy about the ownership of the cabin. The article states:
and
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 AzureCitizen seems to think we should [4]. 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)
I've started a broader discussion about this here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_BLPCRIME_requirement_for_conviction_too_restrictive?. -- В²C ☎ 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 Joseph A. Spadaro 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)
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)
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. Born2cycle, you may reply here to my points if you wish to. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) @ AzureCitizen: do you recall where you found that address? wbm1058 ( talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058:, 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)
I noticed this source [5] 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)
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.
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)
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Wisconsin may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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
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? /info/en/?search=Charles_Starkweather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 ( talk) 13:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article contains a discrepancy about the ownership of the cabin. The article states:
and
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 AzureCitizen seems to think we should [4]. 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)
I've started a broader discussion about this here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_BLPCRIME_requirement_for_conviction_too_restrictive?. -- В²C ☎ 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 Joseph A. Spadaro 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)
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)
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. Born2cycle, you may reply here to my points if you wish to. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) @ AzureCitizen: do you recall where you found that address? wbm1058 ( talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058:, 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)
I noticed this source [5] 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)
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.
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)