Talk:Murder of Kristin Smart

message: This page is heavily biased in the assumption of guilt of the Paul character. This does not agree with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. --Nutschig 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a POV-section template to the section heavily related to the Paul character. I will also work on breaking this page's long paragraphs into more readable ones. Any ideas about how to expand this page? I'll try and get more info from the campus police on this, I'm a first year at Cal Poly. --Nutschig 10:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Flores has not been charged or convicted in her disappearance or presumed death so I don't think his name should be included at all in this Wikipedia article. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, Flores was a major figure in the initial investigation and is named by reliable sources. The article does not suggest he was guilty. See WP:BLPCRIME for the relevant policy. clpo13(talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also extremely biased towards the police, in that it is very gentle on their inadequate investigation and rather lavish about the money spent on the case. (I cannot edit the article on this device without great difficulty, hence just mentioning this here.) Salopian (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: This article is really, really bad.  Besides the really bad fact that it's insinuating the guilt of one of the characters without backing it up with sources, there are all sorts of pointless wikilinks (it's not wikilinking an article to just put brackets around random words), it's not written in an encyclopedic tone, and there's probably too much detail for an encyclopedia article anyway.  I tried to start cleaning this up, but I got discouraged after just a few minutes.  Hopefully someone else will step up and help out here, and I'll try to get back to it when I can. —Cleared as filed. 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad, bad, bad 

message: From the FBI kidnap site, it says she disappeared on May 25, 1996 at 2 a.m.  That date isn't Spring Break (usually in mid-late March at Poly), that was the Friday evening-Saturday morning of Memorial Day weekend that year.  The first few paragraphs of the article need fixing to account for that, but I don't know the underlying factual details.  E.g. " she had broken up for the spring quarter break and attended a birthday party of a fellow student. "  Broken up what, with who, and how is it relavant to events roughly 8 weeks later?  I think we all see the article needs a massive re-edit, but who knows what it shoudl really say?-- Bill 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date accuracy 

message: This statement from the article is problematic:
::Kristin's parents, Denise and Stan Smart, took a civil case of wrongful death against Paul Flores in 2005, but dropped it after Flores pleaded the fifth amendment.
That would not prevent them from getting a judgement against him, in fact, it would help.  The standard of proof is lower in a civil case.  I'm not even sure a person CAN pleade the 5th in civil court.  If he was named as defendant, he is compelled to testify and doesn't get to choose not to testify as he would if he were a defendant in a criminal proceeding.  In short, this statement needs clarification and a citation. Lisapollison 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Case

message: In the article, it says that Tim Davis was in inspiriation for Peter Griffin on "Family Guy" but there is no source or any mention about it on the Family Guy wiki article. Does anyone know if this is true or not? And, if it is indeed true, does it really even belong in this article?--Audee 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Guy?

message: According to this article sonofsusan.com's creator was found to be harassing Flores. Including this as a reference or external link could be problematic even though the Flores don't have an article here, we're still expected not to publish or link to personal information information about anyone. Anynobody 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sonofsusan.com, court, and Wikipedia

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disappearance of Kristin Smart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829002427/http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1701-1750/sb_1729_bill_19980811_chaptered.html to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1701-1750/sb_1729_bill_19980811_chaptered.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just removed the "Controversy" section. The reason is that it was a mix of unverifiable sources (including materials cited as "personal observation"), original research, conjecture, and what reads as promotional material for Arpad Vass' grave detection machine. It looks like https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-kristin-smart-buried-in-this-backyard-neighbors-and-a-wonder-dog-say-yes could provide a citation, along with others, so the author needs to take that content and revise it to cite something others can see.
However, the level of detail about Buster and Vass’ “machine” would make them appropriate for separate articles that could be linked to for information, but the attempt to justify the dog and the technology is out of place in this article.
Note that because the section addressed living individuals by implication, it requires a high level of citation and the avoidance of personal research or non-NPOV content. The current lack of verifiable citation and the tone rendered it inappropriate here.
Note as well that the California Register does not appear to be an acceptable source: It does not seem to be currently published and its presence is as a website that seems to be dedicated almost solely to pursuing its editor’s theories about this case. Calling it a “local newspaper” does not change that it is unlikely to be seen by a neutral reader as anything other than a single-issue website designed to promote a particular viewpoint. Even if its editor is correct in his assertions (which actually seems to be more likely than not, to me), it is not a neutral source and so any citations should clarify that it represents one individual’s theory about the case.
For the author of this content, a rewrite would need to do the following:
# Avoid making tangential claims that plead for the validity of the argument (such as the history of Buster elsewhere or Vass' statements about accuracy). These would either go in separate articles or citations, but this article is not the place to argue for this.
# Point to published and reliable sources
# Avoid any original research or conjecture. The following paragraph is an example of the kind of thing that clearly falls outside Wikipedia editorial policy:
To be clear, statements like “there is a strong belief” coupled with an assertion of fact that is as yet unverified are problematic. Who has this “strong belief”? How do we know that it is true? There is a whole lot of weasel wording in that section.
Also, the clear implication in the statement about invoking the fifth amendment is that Flores is lying. Even if true (something I have no position on), pleading the fifth is a strategy suspects and individuals take for many reasons, often on the advice of legal counsel, and in the U.S. legal system, doing so is not evidence of guilt. To use this to imply guilt – clearly the intention here – is not acceptable.
I actually took the time to try to salvage some of this by finding reliable sources to cite some of this, and was stymied. I gave up, and it is the contributor's job to get the text right, not other editors’.
Again, if you want this section to survive in some form, you must find sources that meet Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and tone down the promotional tone and attempts to imply guilt of a living individual. You can state that the dog alerted at a location and that Vass' machine indicated the same location. But what you will be left with is at most a few sentences that can be incorporated elsewhere in the article.
Fenevad (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Controversy" Section: Reasons 

message: Article says: "On January 18, 2020, the Stockton Record reported that the FBI informed Smart's family that additional news about her disappearance would be coming and that the family "might want to get away for a while" but did not provide any specific information".
Stockton Record has updated their story:
https://www.recordnet.com/news/20200118/could-answers-be-coming-in-kristin-smarts-disappearance
CORRECTION: Jan. 22, 2020
The Smart family was contacted by a retired FBI agent who has provided general guidance to them over the years. Incorrect information was included in the print and initial online version of this article.
There's a lot of difference between "the FBI" and "a retired FBI agent who has provided general guidance to them over the years."
I'll try to correct the article but someone with more experience might want to look at the Stockton Record and write with better finesse.
172.58.107.48 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI did not inform family in January 2020 

message: This article left me confused.  If the authorities obtained search warrants against him, surely they have evidence against him (which may or may not be released to the public/media).  Does Wikipedia's neutrality policy ("editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.") really mean stone cold, reported facts are to be intentionally omitted? Like if a wife has been killed, and the husband's car was found covered in blood, with the murder weapon in the front seat, Wikipedia would wouldn't report those facts so long as the husband was not yet convicted
? 135.180.193.224 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this criminal is convicted, but in your scenario, many do include such facts, but I routinely remove details about criminal matters that haven't been resolved in court. Accusations of the state are not conclusions of a court, and verdicts intend to be neutral in ways the claims of prosecutors may not be. I support "seriously considering" removal of details of a crime that has not been adjudicated. As a wiki, it's tempting to assemble and contextualize clues around a crime as they unfold, but an encyclopedia not only seeks concise conclusions, but also avoids overly-detailed examinations. Claiming the husband has been arrested and including details of the wife's demise is not equivalent to saying he murdered her. 97.113.63.40 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence against main suspect

message: The articles states that a jury member discussed the case with a priest, and asked him for guidance. Are juries typically allowed to discuss the case with outside parties? Dimadick (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah no. Sgerbic (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: discussed this case with his priest