Talk:Brian David Mitchell/Archive 1

message: I think the photo of Elizabeth should be removed. She did not ask to be a celebrity. Let her go back into privacy and live her life away from media blitzes. Kingturtle 04:04 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
:I just saw the movie "A Cry in the Dark" with Meryl Streep and am humbled by something someone said in it: "I don't think people realize how important innocence is to innocent people."
:So I'm wrestling with your concern and suggest replacing the family photo of Elizabeth with something more indirect, such as a shot of the poster she signed for the park celebration, or her parents holding a Reward flyer.  SNowwis
::I'd like to point out that at ElizabethSmart.com, Elizabeth's uncle, Tom Smart, has posted numerous new photos of Elizabeth and her family, and he also submitted these pictures to GettyImages.com, a stock photo company. So I'm not sure if the exclusion of her picture in her Wikipedia article is going to protect her from celebrity. SNowwis
:::ugh, it saddens me that her uncle would do such a thing. it is my humble opinion that she should be given her anonymity back. in fact, the more i think about it, i'm enraged. her family should be protecting her from the post-kidnapping media blitzes, rather than participating in them. Kingturtle 22:43 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
::::Well, the parents did urge the police to drop the sexual assault charges to protect their daughter from questioning along those lines, but at the same time they've criticized the police for their failure to follow up on new leads. So the police are pressing on. I tell you, this theme of silence vs. need-to-know is something that fuels many of our big stories these days. It's only natural in this case that if millions of American families were emotionally engaged in the search for ES, those people will not want to be sent packing with so many unanswered questions involving such bizarre circumstances. There was strong suspicion that ES was a runaway, leading to more suspicion that the family invented the abduction story in order to mobilize a national search party. Perhaps you should map out the proper rules of engagement in alerting the public about missing teenagers in order to manage the public's expectations. SNowwis
On a different note, that picture doesn't look to me as though she was almost 15 when it was taken. If I'm right, then since the issue is kidnapping and possible sexual assault, isn't her age an influencing factor on the reactions of a reader? As such, should the picture be changed, or perhaps subtitled "Elizabeth Smart, however many years before the incident"? Onebyone 01:40, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I think we should move this article to "Elizabeth Ann Smart", since the middle name will distinguish her from the author. WhisperToMe 03:55, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: She is not known by the name "Elizabeth Ann Smart" though.  The articles already distinguish between the two via the disambiguation page. - Hephaestos 05:41, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: "Middle names should be avoided unless they are the most common form of a name (as in, say, John Wilkes Booth). " – from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names). - Hephaestos 19:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Elizabeth Ann Smart

message: The article says she's from Salt Lake City but lives in Sandy.  Which is it? RickK 00:32, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy is a suburb of SLC. —Frecklefoot 20:09, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's she from?

message: I moved the page because I thought it was tacky to have someone living (NTM young )be attached to a crime in the article title. Call me silly... 戴眩sv 01:17, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved page

message: What's with the title? What's wrong with Elizabeth_Smart_(kidnap_victim)?
--Jiang 05:14, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with what was the status quo a couple of days ago, and probably fit the search engines just fine.  Apparently someone had willies over describing the currently newsworthy one as a "kidnap victim" and that's fine with me too.  But as far as searchability on Google etc. I really could care less, and will soon probably move all this back to where it was before the USA "news" agencies decided to do stories on it. - Hephaestos 05:33, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: This should be moved back to Elizabeth Ann Smart.  The argument that she isn't known by her middle name is just plain silly. ☮ Eclecticology 19:11, 2003 Oct 29 (UTC)
She didn't set out to be a media sensation - besides, that's too vague. On the other hand, it's not entirely clear that she was kidnapped. Unless the two drifters she was found with, are convicted of kidnapping...
I think this is a time for using a middle name. If we have to, we can mention in the article that she "doesn't go by her middle name". (I'm Edmund Ward Poor III, but I go by Ed Poor because I like the sound of "Ed" better than "Edmund") --Uncle Ed 19:46, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Naming issues aside, it's entirely clear that she was kidnapped, whether or not anyone in particular is charged, tried or convicted of the crime. -- Someone else 19:52, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, you're entirely right about that. I'm just trying to find an agreeable comprimise for the article title. --Uncle Ed 20:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Change?

message: Has anyone been able to access this website? Is it real? I tried it and some variants (ElizabethSmart.net, ElizabethSmart.org) with no success. Can someone look into this?
BTW, per the discussion above, I think this article should be titled "Elizabeth Smart"—no one in the media mentions her middle name. —Frecklefoot 16:31, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is a good indicator of how much gets read on a talk page. :-)  If you haven't the time to read the above then Elizabeth Smart will tell you. ☮ Eclecticology 19:31, 2003 Oct 30 (UTC)
I did read it, but perhaps I wasn't clear. Elizabeth Smart is a big media news item right now. It is likely that users will add wikilinks to her name not realizing there is another person by that name or what her middle name is. To avoid confusion, her name, Elizabeth Smart, should be used as the main article and the disam to Elizabeth Smart (author) can go at the top of the page. In the meantime, however, the disam page is the next-best solution. —Frecklefoot 19:58, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ElizabethSmart.com

message: In this article, sometimes she is referred to as Smart; sometimes she is referred to as Elizabeth. The wikipedia convention is that it should always be last name. Are there any reasons to refer to her by first name? Kingturtle 15:56, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because there are several people named "Smart" in the issue. Does Smart refer to her father, mother or her herself? You are right about Wiki convention, but I think the ambiguity of the term in this case is the reason for referring to her by her first name. But I notice she is often referred to by just her last name, especially near the beginning of the article. —Frecklefoot 17:45, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Convention 

message: Personally, I really love Elizabeth Smart. Every night, I try to find information on her and I have a really bad feeling inside for her. I mean, the things she had to go through. She was tortured. The man who calls himself 'Emanuel' should be killed. His wife too. Why would a man of God kidnap a young girl at 14 at knife-point and then steal, and then rape? All I want to know is why. I cannot express the feelings I have for Elizabeth Smart. She is the luckiest girl in the world. Much Love to You Elizabeth.
Brianna Burns
:The torture and rape will have to be proven in a court of law. That Emanuel was the original abductor will also have to be proven. I hope that Elizabeth is getting proper counseling, and lots of it. Kingturtle 04:09, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Smart- 9 months of hell on earth 

message: :I changed the word "would" to "could" in the sentence "The screen being cut from the inside would indicate that Elizabeth and/or her sister were willing participants in Elizabeth Smart's disappearance" in the The Kidnapping section.  While I believe the whole idea is ridiculous I suppose the way the screen was cut does leave open the possibilty that the arguement could be made.  That said, however, saying the screen being cut from the inside WOULD indicate willing participation of either of the Smart's daughters assumes a fact that has not been proven.  Only in the absence of any other explanation could such a conclusion be made, and there is no such absence.
--67.138.164.123 6 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
There was a sound explanation in Bringing Elizabeth Home book about this incident. However, I forgot what it said! I'll look it up... Bayerischermann 09:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording Choice 

message: This website was taken down a long, long time ago. Should it still be linked to in the article? Bayerischermann 09:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, removed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
A lot of teenagers have their own personal websites on the net, in the form of diaries, photo galleries, guestbooks, and a plethora of whatever they typically put up. Why didn't she take it over and use it for her own personal purposes, as described above? --Shultz 03:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that she's back with her family, I think she'd rather be forgotten.  I think her family kinda wants all the attention to go away.  I know if I was, well, sexually abused, I wouldn't want to stay in the public eye. I think they want the public to forget about the whole thing so she can try and live the semblence of a normal life. If she had her own personal website, it would just serve as a constant reminder of what happened to her. — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ElizabethSmart.com 

message: The way the article is structured currently it describes an event. How can an event have a birth? I'm removing the tags that refer to people rather than events, if that's ok with everyone. If the article is ever restructured to refer to Elizabeth Smart herself, please replace the tags. Cheers Jdcooper 10:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been a headache for a lot of us for a long time.  The article should be named Elizabeth Smart, but apparently there's some Canadian writer by that name too.  So we tried Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim), but some users thought that was kind of cruel and POV (e.g. Elizabeth Smart (alleged kidnap victim) would be more NPOV).  I have no idea when the article got moved to it's current location, but the article is about Elizabeth Smart and her kidnapping.  Since it is about a person, it should have the tags, but should be moved to a more appropriate location too. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, i read the whole argument above. i would have gone ahead and been bold (moved it), but for the argument. i don't understand how Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) is cruel - is that not what she is famous for? and as for the POV, surely the point of an article name is to make the article easy to find. i would find the addition of "alleged" over-pedantic for an article title, since the reader could read the article to find out about the controversy. and plus, stating that the kidnap was alleged is just as POV, just in the other direction. Jdcooper 21:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: again, thats fine with me. anything that seems to refer to the person, rather than the event. Jdcooper 12:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1987 birth? 

message: The last sentence of the Recovery section reads:
 Psychologists not associated with the case have speculated that Smart
 likely would exhibit symptoms of Stockholm syndrome, where kidnap 
 victims eventually embrace the beliefs of their captors. Smart's father
 immediately claimed that Elizabeth had been brainwashed, which was
 supported by Barzee's estranged 27-year-old daughter, who added that 
 drugs  may also have been involved. Authorities indicated that no drugs 
 were found on the kidnapping suspects and there has been no evidence 
 that Mitchell or Barzee practiced any brainwashing techniques on others. 
 Furthermore, mind control theories are not part of accepted  
 psychological science, and the concept of brainwashing is not used by 
 most psychologists and social scientists.''
There's a pretty strong implication here that the whole thing was a hoax and that Smart and maybe her dad were conspiritors from day one. Maybe that's so, but shouldn't that be stated explicity and sources sited?
*"Psychologists not associated with the case...": Does this mean that psychologist who ARE associated with the case have opposed the Stockholm Syndrome suggestion? If so, citatations? Otherwise the sentence should be re-phrased?
*"Smart's father immediately claimed that Elizabeth had been brainwashed..." (note use of immediately) -- "Authorities indicated that 
...there has been no evidence [of this]" Ditto, allegations of drugs...  but "no drugs were found". Is there some evidence that Smart's father was actually involved, causing him to make a (suspiciously rapid and thus perhaps pre-planned) brainwashing claim that was clearly baseless? Which authorities, and what their credentials. Just policemen, and if so what qualifications did they have to detect signs of brainwashing? Is there more here than meets the eye, or not?
*"...mind control theories are not part of accepted psychological science, and the concept of brainwashing is not used by most psychologists and social scientists." Is this so? Is Stockholm Syndrome not generally accepted by psychology? I don't honestly know. What about Patty Hearst? I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm just surprized to see it, and oughtn't stuff that goes against popular perceptions (wrong as those often are, granted) be sourced?
Along with the part earlier about about the window screen, not to mention the party videos etc., the reader gets the impression that the whole thing was most likely a conspiracy. Surely some respected persons have stated this explicity? If so, can they not be cited? If not, is it encyclopedic to leave this impression? I think the reader is left with a half-allegation hanging in the air and not enough info or sources to decide for himself. Herostratus 13:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of Recovery section 

message: I'm new to this article, so I'm going to ask instead of being bold by just changing.  I was wondering if there had been some attempt to mention Under the Banner of Heaven, which covers the Smart kidnapping extensively? —This unsigned comment was added by Alienus 01:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the Banner of Heaven 

message: I just rewrote almost the whole article.  Hope its better.  I think it is.  
71.147.13.49 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Re-Write 

message: ==== Lead ====
The lead is well done, is in summary style and suitable for an artcle of this length. The only thing I would change is spell out "9" as nine, and that only because it looks kind of funny to me. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to get the cites first and then perfect them later .  I will also be citing in the rest of the article.  I think perhaps it has too many footnotes, but I will put them in first and delete overuse or redundancy later. --Overdubbed 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the detail is important.  My insights into this are based upon constant interaction with a variety of people all over the internet who had opinions about this case, chiefly suspecting the parents but also suspecting others.  This list of details was very important to these people and wikipedia says that the editor must consider the questions that a reader may have. So I do not agree that this is too much unnecessary detail. --Overdubbed 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your helpful comments. --Overdubbed 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed Discussion 

message: The lead is well done, is in summary style and suitable for an artcle of this length. The only thing I would change is spell out "9" as nine, and that only because it looks kind of funny to me. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Although not in perfect form (very few anywhere in the Wiki are, so no biggie), the article is now fairly well cited. I'd add the site and database record title to note one. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to get the cites first and then perfect them later .  I will also be citing in the rest of the article.  I think perhaps it has too many footnotes, but I will put them in first and delete overuse or redundancy later. --Overdubbed 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: =====Unnecessary Detail===== 
"Returning home, the family had evening prayers together and kissed each other good night.[4] As the family got ready for bed, Ed made sure the doors were all locked, but he didn’t turn on the alarm. "If the children got up and moved (in the night), it would set the alarm off. And so we just, we’re not going to bother with it," Lois later explained.[5]" 
and later gave these hints as to what happened:
* A white man about the height of her brother Charles (5'8")[10] about 30 or 40 years old, wearing light colored clothes and a golf hat. [11] [12] (He was actually wearing black, did not have a golf hat and was 49).[13]
* He had dark hair, also has dark hair on his arms and on the back of his hands.[14]
* The man threatened Elizabeth with a gun[15] (it was actually a knife but Mary Katherine thought it was a gun).[16]
* When Elizabeth said "ouch" after stubbing her toe on a chair the man said something that sounded like: "You better be quiet, and I won’t hurt you."[17]
* She heard Elizabeth ask "Why are you doing this?" and though the answer was not clear Mary Katherine thought the answer might have been "for ransom".[18] [19]
* The abductor was soft-spoken — even polite, calm and nicely dressed.[20]
* Although the stranger spoke to Elizabeth quietly, Mary Katherine thought the kidnapper's voice seemed somehow familiar. But she couldn’t pinpoint where or when she had heard it.[21]
* She never got a good look at his face.[22] This fact was kept a secret by the police during the investigation.
It is acceptable to keep this detail in a GA article, but would not be in an FA. (see WP:FA)--CTSWyneken(talk) 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the detail is important.  My insights into this are based upon constant interaction with a variety of people all over the internet who had opinions about this case, chiefly suspecting the parents but also suspecting others.  This list of details was very important to these people and wikipedia says that the editor must consider the questions that a reader may have. So I do not agree that this is too much unnecessary detail. --Overdubbed 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your helpful comments. --Overdubbed 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abduction 

message: "Returning home, the family had evening prayers together and kissed each other good night.[4] As the family got ready for bed, Ed made sure the doors were all locked, but he didn’t turn on the alarm. "If the children got up and moved (in the night), it would set the alarm off. And so we just, we’re not going to bother with it," Lois later explained.[5]" 
and later gave these hints as to what happened:
* A white man about the height of her brother Charles (5'8")[10] about 30 or 40 years old, wearing light colored clothes and a golf hat. [11] [12] (He was actually wearing black, did not have a golf hat and was 49).[13]
* He had dark hair, also has dark hair on his arms and on the back of his hands.[14]
* The man threatened Elizabeth with a gun[15] (it was actually a knife but Mary Katherine thought it was a gun).[16]
* When Elizabeth said "ouch" after stubbing her toe on a chair the man said something that sounded like: "You better be quiet, and I won’t hurt you."[17]
* She heard Elizabeth ask "Why are you doing this?" and though the answer was not clear Mary Katherine thought the answer might have been "for ransom".[18] [19]
* The abductor was soft-spoken — even polite, calm and nicely dressed.[20]
* Although the stranger spoke to Elizabeth quietly, Mary Katherine thought the kidnapper's voice seemed somehow familiar. But she couldn’t pinpoint where or when she had heard it.[21]
* She never got a good look at his face.[22] This fact was kept a secret by the police during the investigation.
It is acceptable to keep this detail in a GA article, but would not be in an FA. (see WP:FA)--CTSWyneken(talk) 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the detail is important.  My insights into this are based upon constant interaction with a variety of people all over the internet who had opinions about this case, chiefly suspecting the parents but also suspecting others.  This list of details was very important to these people and wikipedia says that the editor must consider the questions that a reader may have. So I do not agree that this is too much unnecessary detail. --Overdubbed 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary Detail

message: None in this section. Citations have resolved any present before. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your helpful comments. --Overdubbed 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/OR Constructions 

message: I came across this Elizabeth Smart page in a very odd and slightly disturbing manner.  I was on the :Category:Latter-day Saint musicians page, and was surprised to see Elizabeth Smart kidnapping listed there.  My first thought upon seeing the listing was "what idiot had the poor taste to name their band something like that?"  Thankfully, it's not the name of a band, but this really ought to be fixed.  Elizabeth Smart is LDS, and is a musician, but she certainly doesn't go by the name "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping" as a LDS musician.  She should either be removed from :Category:Latter-day Saint musicians (she is by no means famous as a LDS musician, or as a musician at all), or this article needs yet another name change.  To see Elizabeth Smart kidnapping listed alongside Warren Zevon and Mack Wilberg is just bizarre.
In fact, the title of this article becomes an issue with regards to all but one of categories it is included in.  Any category that is comprised of a list of people such as :Category:1987 births, :Category:American children, :Category:Kidnapped children, :Category:Living people and :Category:People from Salt Lake City should, I would think, only have the names of people included in them, not the name of an event.  Obviously it wouldn't be too terribly shocking to see Elizabeth Smart kidnapping on the :Category:Kidnapped children page, but it makes no sense for any of the other categories.
So I guess the issue here is: if this article is going to be referenced in both 'people' categories and 'event' categories, it needs a name that is appropriate for both.  What was wrong with "Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)?"  Not  PC or something like that?  How about "Elizabeth Smart (kidnapping survivor)?"  --JenR 15:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better placed using just her name. Obviously, the kidnapping would be a large part of the article, but other information could be added about her musical talents, etc., in order to flesh out the article a little more. I'm sure she'd prefer to not have everything in an article about her focus on only the event that made her name well known. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just going to pull it out of the category -- I happened on this page the same way.  If/when she makes a career as a musician, a general-purpose article about her (with music focus) would be appropriate for the category.  But as it stands, her being a music major now is incidental to the main topic of this article. VT hawkeyetalk to me 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this article's appearance in the other categories?  If you read the middle paragraph of my initial post on the subject above and look at the other categories this article is listed in, the title is still an issue.  In fact, it seems to me that to be a biography of a living person, the title should refer to the person as a person, not as an event.  If Elizabeth Smart was notable for some additional reason, then it would be appropriate to have a page for her as a person and a page for the kidnapping event.  But I think we can easily say that isn't the case at this time.  Does anyone have an objection to changing the title to "Elizabeth Smart (kidnapping survivor)?"  It's accurate and I don't think it could be considered offensive or non- PC.  JenR 05:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. Smart is not (in late 2006) notable as a musician. The only thing encyclopedic about her is as the victim of a notorious kidnapping. Gwen Gale 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name and its appearance in categories 

message: :One of the most important impacts of this kidnapping was the family's successful use of the media including the Internet. Numerous volunteers searched throughout many areas, coordinating their actions through a centralized web based search center. The case also helped publicize the AMBER Alert system. Daily media attention brought about much sensationalism and pundit speculation. Night after night, talk shows such as CNN's Larry King Live featured numerous commentators with one opinion or another regarding the kidnapping.
Did the family actually successfully use the internet or the media? As far as I can tell from a quick look through the article especially the timeline, whatever the family may have done it didn't actually do much. What lead the the breakthroughs in the case were: 1) The sister remembering the voice/who it was 2) The sketch resulting from 1 appearing on America's Most Wanted. I guess the second could be called a successful use of the media, but it doesn't appear to have to do with the internet at all. The Daily Media attentions and AMBER alert also doesn't really appeared to have done anything much Nil Einne 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful use of the internet? 

message: This entry in the timeline is either a joke or vandalism, right?
"15 Jan. 2007 -- Elizabeth Smart undergoes plastic surgery to become a man"
I'll strike it out unless somebody says otherwise...
147.145.40.44 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a joke, right? 

message: Not to be rude but you can't get a sentence without a citation. It's very well cited, yes, but over cited. Three through six are the same, and some don't have links. Do one cite for that, at the very end. If they don't have links, write "according to..." It makes my head spin.-Babylon pride 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: As far as I know, Americans spell "kidnapped" with one p. I know that the general practice is not to change what's already there, if both versions are correct; but I wonder would it be more appropriate to use American spelling in this case. Thoughts? ElinorD (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kidnapped" is the correct spelling, even in the U.S. Scott182 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, my mistake. I thought I had read that somewhere, and I was ready to believe anything about those strange people who spell "grey" with an "a" ;-) Thanks for clarifying. ElinorD (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of "kidnapped" 

message: A lot of this is unsourced, and I don't remember a lot of those statements being made in the media.  Additionally, do we really need a blow-by-blow account of the abduction (under the section "Abduction")?  I don't think so; I'd rather prosify it.  Comments?  --Iamunknown 05:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything for which there is not a source should be immediately cut from this entry. For example, the entire long section on the "Details of captivity" should be cut. Most of the entry is a blatant violation of the right to privacy enshrined in WP:BLP. FNMF 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely, and offer my compliments to those who are willing to clean it up. ElinorD (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the section on the details of captivity. It is not necessary, and I am not convinced these details are actually known publicly. There were no citations or references. I believe that this prurient attention to the purported details violated WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. It should not be put back unless reliable sources are included for every claim made, and it also should not be put back until a consensus of established editors conclude that it is correct to do so. At present, I do not believe that it is correct to include this section, referenced or not. FNMF 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
See above - polls are evil too. Please if anyone opposes this move, then give reasons why Wikipedia is better off with a biography, instead of an article about the kidnapping.--Docg 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we can have both and sustain both.  That's all that matters.  This isn't an either/or proposition for once. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? There is notable information about her that is unrelated to her being a kidnap victim? Is there?--Docg 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
: See the extensive discussion above.  --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are no further discussion on this, I'll close the proposal as failed and leave the page here.  It does seem to be forming well as an article about the event, and this is also compatible with the Biographies of living persons policy injunction to cover the event, not the person.  Unless there is an overwhelming reason why this article must be a biography of the person (which seems incredibly unlikely) then there is no reason to change. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there's consensus for your move, Tony.  I suggest you not close the proposal at all, since you're the one who made the move to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's definitely a good idea to leave it open if you want time to make a case for an exception to the BLP on this particular case. --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really no need for an exception, here, as there's no BLP issues prior to the move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me there is nothing much at stake between the two titles, but that one article is clearly sufficient. The article covers everything that needs covering under either title. If anything it could be abbreviated further. FNMF 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I draw Badlydrawnjeff's attention to this relevant clause of the BLP, in particular: "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted."  So if there is a reason why we shouldn't follow general practice here, but should instead cast this article about the young girl herself, we'd need some justification for it. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, an incident-based title is preferable. This will make it easier to incorporate future developments involving both victim and perpetrator, without necessitating undue biographical entries for each. FNMF 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Elizabeth Smart (alleged abductee)" would definitely not be best. FNMF 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Advocating for crime legislation on national television - and upbraiding a famously disliked media personality in the process - seems pretty notable to me. And while she obviously would not have been given the opportunity had she not been abducted, that doesn't change the fact that it's a completely separate event. Here's an analogy. Being a radio host is notable by itself - even if, as in the case of Curtis Sliwa, it only happened because of his involvement in a separate notable event. Ribonucleic 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. To use your example, there are thousands of radio hosts on the air. Should each and every one have a biographical article on Wikipedia? I would say no, unless there is something notable about them, either because of their radio show, or something they've done outside of it. Simply hosting a show does not make them notable, nor does being an activist who has been on television automatically qualify Elizabeth Smart as notable. -- Kesh 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Im confused...it says the perps were charged with Sexual assault, but the article dosnt detail about it at all.--76.173.248.173 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape? 

message: In view of current practice, I propose a title change to "Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart." to avoid the emphasis on the personal name DGG 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also propose abbreviating the first section, on the actual kidnapping. It is the subsequent events which are notable. DGG (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change

message: Why are we providing Emmanuel's age but not Barzee's?
Could we have it?
--84.20.17.84 10:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barzee's age 

message: I think this thing below is really important info. I'd add myself, but my English sucks. From the radio show This American Life:
Act Three. Invisible Girl.
Scott Carrier and his family live in the same Salt Lake City neighborhood as Elizabeth Smart, the fourteen-year-old whose kidnapping made international news in 2002. Though pictures of Smart were everywhere in Salt Lake City, and thousands of volunteers searched for her, her captors brought her back to the neighborhood she was taken from, and they walked freely through the streets with her. But no one recognized her. Scott talks with his neighbors and with his son Milo (who attended grade school with Smart) about what was happening in their heads that they didn't recognize her, when she was there in plain sight. Scott is the author of Running After Antelope. His story received support from hearingvoices.com, which gets support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (12 minutes)
you can listen to the show here: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1125
the show itself is a good reference, i'd guess. Any takers? Parababelico 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible Girl