Jump to content

Talk:Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→What happened to the skepticism?: added links to articles
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,141,977 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Crime}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Brigham Young University}}.
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Crime}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Mid|UT=yes|UT-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Mid |UT=yes |UT-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Brigham Young University|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Brigham Young University |importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Archive box|
|algo = old(180d)
*[[/Archive 1|March 2003 - December 2007]]}}
|archive = Talk:Kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart/Archive %(counter)d

|counter = 2
== court hearings ==
|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
The information regarding the court proceeding for Mitchell is wrong. He had several state court appearance but was found incompetent to stand trial and force medications was turned down. The last hearing where Smart testified early for was a federal case of kidnapping and transporting a child over state lines for sexual reasons. The standard for federal government insanity is more difficult for a defendent to prove than it is for the state of Utah. The state of Utah's case is still pending but they have allowed the federal government to step in and take charge of this case to ensure that Mitchell is locked away forever. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Awisner|Awisner]] ([[User talk:Awisner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Awisner|contribs]]) 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|minthreadsleft = 0
The issue of Mitchell's insanity has never been brought up. The issue at both State and Federal levels was whether Mitchell was competent to assist his own defense. Thus the issue was related to his mental capacity at the time of the hearings. Insanity relates to mental capacity at the time the crime is committed. It is a complexed process, but we need to avoid conflating insanity and incompetence, because they have different standards, are different procedures and so on. Medicating someone does not effect their guilt because that relates to when they committed the crime, but it can make them competent to assist in their own defense.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
}}

{{archives|banner=yes|age=6|units=months|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
:True, and its important that the distinction is made. Today the defense has filed that they will seek a not guilty for reason of insanity but as yet the defense has not made a case for insanity this early in the trial. [[User:Wombat24|Wombat24]] ([[User talk:Wombat24|talk]]) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

== Bias ==

"self-proclaimed victim's rights advocate", "self-servingly asking", "victimization agenda"... These phrases express insinuations, not objective information. Sounds like bias to me, not even expressed in a particularly subtle way.
(Remark: I'm neither American nor an English native speaker, and this is the very first time I hear of Nancy Grace. I have no opinion whatsoever in this matter.) [[User:Nivoabul|Nivoabul]] ([[User talk:Nivoabul|talk]]) 05:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the article is making statements phrased as fact, when they are in reality claims made by Elizabeth herself and have not been verified via independent sources. Considering that the jury has not yet returned a verdict, the statements such as the multiple daily rapes are at this point still allegations, and should be phrased as such to avoid legal liability. Without a neutral source to verify the claims, and lacking a jury verdict, it is unfortunately a matter of hearsay.
If they are phrased with the qualifier "As told by the victim" or "according to her testimony and interviews" or "he allegedly...", etc. this would fall in line with acceptable media practices regarding pending charges and allegations in a pending criminal case.
Please note I'm not disputing the accuracy of her claims by any means, but it should be made clear these are unverified statements.
[[Special:Contributions/72.175.88.91|72.175.88.91]] ([[User talk:72.175.88.91|talk]]) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

== Biography? ==

With Elizabeth Smart, as an adult, now choosing to be a political activist for the new sex-offender registry bill, does she not become notable beyond just her status as victim? She is not just some pawn or unaffiliated radical in this role: she is making appearances with the senior Senator from Utah and giving interviews on national TV. Should this article be renamed to her name rather than just focusing on the event? The page [[Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim)]] already exists as a redirect, so maybe we can just use that.--[[Special:Contributions/75.37.14.196|75.37.14.196]] ([[User talk:75.37.14.196|talk]]) 13:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:I agree and plan to move the page accordingly. --[[User:Eustress|Eustress]] ([[User talk:Eustress|talk]]) 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC) She was a victum like no other and was found wondering arond on a death camp!
::This note has been here for a long time and there was no response to my second, so I performed the move. --[[User:Eustress|Eustress]] ([[User talk:Eustress|talk]]) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The [[Elizabeth Smart (activist)]] page existed when I began searching today, and it was about this Elizabeth Smart, but the Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) page redirected to this article. I rearranged things so the Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) page goes to Elizabeth Smart (activist) on the theory that we want redirects from bio articles to go to bio articles if the there is a bio article on the person. I especially think this needs to be a watch priority because there have been far too many cases of multiple bios on the same person, although most often are ones like Richard L. Bushman/Richard Lyman Bushman, with middle initial and middle name being seperate. That specific case I do not think we had the problem, but I have seen it. [[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== A section about what it was like for Elizabeth Smart while a captive is needed ==

[[User:MikeWren|MikeWren]] ([[User talk:MikeWren|talk]]) 19:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

* Personally I don't think that a section discussing this type of material is fair to the young woman. If you read the articles section talking about her experience with Nancy Grace, you can see that the girl doesn't want to discuss what happened to her. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, but I have to question what the purpose of a section outlining the '''sick''' details of her abduction would accomplish other than just damaging the girls future. There is already a timeline with short summaries and that should be sufficient. [[User:Redrok84|Redrok84]] ([[User talk:Redrok84|talk]]) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to have accurate and relevant information on the subjects of the article. Knowledge is power and Censorship is wrong. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.7.155.29|68.7.155.29]] ([[User talk:68.7.155.29|talk]]) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:So might makes right, huh? Knowledge is power and power is always good (?!) [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

== Page name ==
Shouldn't this be at [[Elizabeth Smart]], with [[Elizabeth Smart (disambiguation)]] used to distinguish her from the British author? This seems more consistent with precedent elsewhere, since Elizabeth Smart is not commonly known by her full name with middle initial. --[[User:Saforrest|Saforrest]] ([[User talk:Saforrest|talk]]) 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave Elizabeth Smart as a disambiguation page. There are probably other woman with this name who are notable, and on the extremely unlikely chance that there are not there quite probably will be soon. With common names unless someone is world-wide without question identified as the person with that name ([[Joseph Smith]], [[Andrew Jackson]], maybe [[John Adams]]) it is best to have the basic name be the disambiguation page because otherwise people will create lins that go to the article on the wrong person. Even if with the disambiguation page there is not a listing of the intended person, it will at least be earsier to point the person in the right way of making a new article.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== "Alma Mater" ==

This term only applies to schools that you are have attended in your past, not to a school you are currently attending.

If you wish to disagree, please show some references independent of wikipedia that show otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/216.211.255.98|216.211.255.98]] ([[User talk:216.211.255.98|talk]]) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:[http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=alma+mater&search=search Dictionary.com] says an ''alma mater'' is "a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated"—the [[Present perfect tense|present perfect tense]] "has studied" indicating that it can signify anyone who has attended a school at all in the past (which would include current students). This definition also seems to suggest that there is some ambiguity in its use, which is probably what has led to this disagreement. An alma mater is merely one's "nourishing mother." Best regards --[[User:Eustress|Eustress]] ([[User talk:Eustress|talk]]) 23:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Current students are not attending the school in the past, they are attending it in the present. I also don't agree that "has studied" is a present perfect tense.

I am attempting to change this to list BYU as her current college, but the use of Alma Mater is incorrect in normal usage.[[Special:Contributions/216.211.255.98|216.211.255.98]] ([[User talk:216.211.255.98|talk]]) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The past is any time before the present. Wikipedia uses some terms in ways that are uncommon because of its own needs for regularization. However BYU does have a "student alumni association" which is open to students who have more than 40 credits, or something like that (I may be off on the number), so the notion that you can not only be an alumni without graduating but while still enrolled works. Your alma mater is where you are an alumni from. Anyway, presently Miss Smart is serving as a missionary in France, so she is not '''not''' presently a student, although I would not be surprised if she got a mission deferrement of her enrollment, which would mean she is a non-enrolled student. However she is not currently studying at BYU, so it is really hard to argue that saying "Miss Smart has studied at BYU" is a false statement.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Time is measured in different increments and thus lengths; a single term lasts for multiple days so one should consider it to all be a single event for purposes of tense. It would not be correct to use the past tense to represent the current term until it has actually completed.
One way to become a student-alumnus is to graduate and then later in life return for more education. But I always understood it as a group of Alumni who are active with the current students, a sort of bridge-building and social organization that helps out. And 40 credits usually would mean you have earned some sort of undergraduate degree, and thus would be an alumnus. So that doesn't present a good counterargument.
.
I'm not sure where I stand on the proper use of 'Alma Mater', or if it's even strictly defined. I do know, however, that it is most commonly used to refer to a school one attended in one's past.
.
But even if you 'jump the gun' and use it upon initial attendance, you will eventually be technically correct, so it's somewhat of a moot point to begin with.
- NathanGroth <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.175.88.91|72.175.88.91]] ([[User talk:72.175.88.91|talk]]) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Requested move back to Elizabeth Smart kidnapping==
Starting discussion in a new section, as the previous discussion took place almost a year ago. This page needs to be moved back to [[Elizabeth Smart kidnapping]]. Despite the claim in the previous discussion, her victims' rights advocacy is not sufficiently notable independent of her kidnapping to warrant a bio article; [[WP:BLP1E]] instead calls for coverage at an article about the one notable event (her kidnapping). The issue is best illustrated by the severe undue weight problem in the bio at present; we have a biography article with 26K of material discussing the subject's victimization as a child, and just three lines on her life outside of that event. Despite limited public appearances and a bit of related activism, Elizabeth Smart is still basically a private figure, and needs to be respected as such. [[User:Baileypalblue|Baileypalblue]] ([[User talk:Baileypalblue|talk]]) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. A private figure with no notability beyond the kidnapping. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Make the article about the event, but don't try to explain the article in the title. Keep it short and unambiguous. Thousands of people are notable only because of a single event, and it is not customary, and very unwieldy, to try to explain the event in the title. That is what the article is for. [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.126|199.125.109.126]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.126|talk]]) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:*Perhaps you could expand on your comment/suggest an alternative title; since you say "make the article about the event" I take it you agree the article can't remain as a biography? I don't see how [[Elizabeth Smart kidnapping]] is any more unwieldy than, say, [[Lindbergh kidnapping]], or the [[Steve Bartman incident]] article cited on [[WP:ONEVENT]] as an example of how this type of article should be named. I don't see how an article title on the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping could be shorter or less ambiguous than [[Elizabeth Smart kidnapping]], but alternative suggestions are welcome. [[User:Baileypalblue|Baileypalblue]] ([[User talk:Baileypalblue|talk]]) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::*I have just seen too many arguments over what to call an article. The Steve Bartman article, for example, should it be called Steve Bartman interference, Steve Bartman foul ball, Steve Bartman loss? Why not just call it Steve Bartman? Make the article about the event, but don't try to describe the event in the title, which can easily get very unwieldy (think Baby Jessica). Just call it [[Elizabeth Smart]]. The current title is close enough, though. Who knows, someday there may be another Elizabeth Smart. [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.102|199.125.109.102]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.102|talk]]) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*''"I have just seen too many arguments over what to call an article."'' Then those arguments should be had. Their existence should not spur articles to be placed at an incorrect title. If this article is about an event, it should be named as such. If it is to be about a person, then that person should meet notability criteria (which she does not). — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*Agreed. Furthermore, naming the article ''Elizabeth Smart'' (with or without the middle initial) implies it is a biography, and a biographical article like this one creates an intolerable undue weight problem; this is precisely why [[WP:BLP1E]] exists. Poorly titled articles are bad in any case; this kind of mis-titling is particularly bad because it directly conflicts with [[WP:BLP1E|BLP]]. The anon's suggestion that we simply title this article about an event by the name of its central figure is antithetical to Foundation policy, consensus and standard practice. [[User:Baileypalblue|Baileypalblue]] ([[User talk:Baileypalblue|talk]]) 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*The point is that it becomes unnecessarily cumbersome to try to come up with an article title about the event that does not include the person's name. I see no expectation that if the article name consists of the person's name only it implies a complete biography of the person, when in fact it is only about one event, and I see no reason to tag it with (event) or something like that to indicate that the article is about the event instead of about the person. Article names should be short and not ambiguous. Elizabeth Smart is both. Sure, there is a one word description for kidnapping, but why add it at all? And when the event is more complicated, and there is no one word description? Just use the person's name in every case. Keep It Simple Seriously. [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.126|199.125.109.126]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.126|talk]]) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*The title ''Elizabeth Smart'' is not at all ambiguous; its subject is the person Elizabeth Smart (therefore it is a biography article); use of that title for a different subject, such as an event involving Elizabeth Smart, would introduce ambiguity. You may not expect to see a biography of Elizabeth Smart at ''Elizabeth Smart'', but readers will, and Wikipedia is optimized for readers, not editors. Again, your position is directly contrary to [[WP:BLP1E]] and standard practice; feel free to propose a change in policy, if you like, but that policy must be followed so long as it is in force. [[User:Baileypalblue|Baileypalblue]] ([[User talk:Baileypalblue|talk]]) 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*Google has 179,000 hits for "Elizabeth Smart",[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22elizabeth+smart%22] and only 4,250 for "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping".[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22elizabeth+smart%22] Use the most common name, which is "Elizabeth Smart". [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.126|199.125.109.126]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.126|talk]]) 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::*That's probably the worst use of ghits I've seen in a Wikipedia discussion. "American Revolutionary War" gets 396K ghits [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=RhK&q=%22American+Revolutionary+War%22&btnG=Search]; "George Washington" gets 21.4 million ghits [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22George+Washington%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]; by your reasoning [[American Revolutionary War]] should be renamed [[George Washington]]; name all articles about events according to their primary figures, it's just too cumbersome to title articles correctly. [[User:Baileypalblue|Baileypalblue]] ([[User talk:Baileypalblue|talk]]) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
*'''Move''' as proposed; makes sense. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
*{{Done}} &mdash; per [[WP:BLP1E|biographies of living persons policy, one event notability]] &mdash; article covers the kidnapping; person only meets [[WP:BIO|biography notability guidelines]] for the event, and article is almost exclusively comprised of the event. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::Smart merits her own article for the same reasons [[John Hinckley, Jr.]] does. Her involvement is bigger than the one incident now, and the article on her abduction is just a detailed subarticle of her life. --[[Special:Contributions/67.242.41.170|67.242.41.170]] ([[User talk:67.242.41.170|talk]]) 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Briam David Mitchell ''might'' merit his own article for the same reasons as John Hinckley, Jr, but Miss Smart does not. This is especially true since in theory John Hinckley would be reirecte to [[Ronald Reagan assasiantion attempt]], a cumbersome title I know, but he lived, and it being a seperate article from Ronald Reagan is probably justified by need to keep articles so they will load in a timely fashion on people's computers. The google hits argument would be a little better if "Elizabeth Smart abduction", "Elizabeth Smart kidnapped", "Elizabeth Smart found", "Elizabeth Smart case" "Elizabeth Smart missing" and such were also searched, but even then he would be ignoring the fact that there are multiple Elizabeth Smarts alive today (and presumably others who are dead).[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== What happened to the skepticism? ==

What happened to the skepticism? There's plenty of evidence suggesting Elizabeth Smart ran away, and then changed her story to support a kidnapping and preserve her family's reputation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p02s01-ussc.html

When the officers confronted her, she told them she was Mitchell's daughter and that her name was Augustine. "You think I'm that Elizabeth Smart girl that ran away and I'm not," she said.

She admitted she ran away, she cut the window screen from the INSIDE, etc. Whether it's true or not, it deserves a "Controversy" section, if only so it can be refuted. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.169.54.203|75.169.54.203]] ([[User talk:75.169.54.203|talk]]) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

What on earth are you talking about? The article you linked has the quote you mentioned, but where is your "plenty of evidence" that she ran away? I have never EVER heard that theory bandied about in all of the discussion of this case I've heard. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.67.97.117|207.67.97.117]] ([[User talk:207.67.97.117|talk]]) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: The "plenty of evidence" is clearly Elizabeth Smart's own words as reported by police, which is corroborated by forensic evidence showing she cut her way out of the screen window of her house from the INSIDE. Obviously, that can't be done by a kidnapper coming from the OUTSIDE. Unless I'm mistaken, the story of what happened to Elizabeth Smart has been revised, and if the original version was the true version, then she seems to be villainizing a weird homeless man because of the damage it would do to her reputation to admit she joined him willingly. [[User:Qwasty|Qwasty]] ([[User talk:Qwasty|talk]]) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::According to Elizabeth Smart's testimony, Mitchell "placed his hand on my chest and then put the knife up to my neck. He told me to get up quietly and if I didn't then he would kill me and my family. He was whispering, but it was still loud enough it could wake someone. He was dressed in sweats, sweatshirt, stocking cap, tennis shoes."

::After the child was led to the camp in the woods, Mitchell's wife "eventually just proceeded to wash my feet and told me to change out of my pajamas into a robe type of garment. And when I refused, she said if I didn't, she would have Brian Mitchell come rip my pajamas off. I put the robe on. He came and performed a ceremony, which was to marry me to him. After that, he proceeded to rape me." Tethered to a tree, Smart was raped sometimes as many as four times a day.

::And it was Mitchell who changed the child's name to Augustine.[[User:Justmeherenow|<span style="font-family:Mistral"> '''↜J'''us'''t </span><span style="font-family:Mistral;font-size:x-small"> M<u>&thinsp;E&nbsp;</u></span><span style="font-family:Mistral">h'''''er''e&#8202;''','''&#8202;now</span>]] 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::: Initially the story was that she was kidnapped with a gun, not a knife. I don't think this knife has ever been found, so it exists only in the stories so far, and there's no evidence that Brian Mitchell ever actually entered the house. If I remember correctly, after it became known that the window screen was cut from the inside, then the story was changed to say she was kidnapped with a knife. At the moment, I'm too lazy to find contemporary cites that show that timeline and change of story, but I'm sure anyone who wants to can do it. Maybe I'll do it later. Either way, the flaws in the story need to be put together in one place so it can be determined if they're significant or not.

::: For example, there were also minor flaws in Richard Ricci's story (two failed polygraphs, unverifiable alibi), which lead to his imprisonment, interrogation, refusal to confess, and then murder. But, in the end it turned out those flaws meant nothing because he really was innocent.

::: In Elizabeth Smart's case, either the flaws in the story mean nothing, and at best indicates she was suffering from severe Stockholm Syndrome that began in the first seconds of her abduction, or the flaws are a sign that she was a willing participant in the ordeal, which is what it looks like at first glance. From the minimal information in the article, there's not enough objective information for the reader to make any conclusions.

::: [[User:Qwasty|Qwasty]] ([[User talk:Qwasty|talk]]) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Qwasty, can immediate "Stockholmd syndrome" simply be understood as a pubescent female's somewhat natural reaction when overpowered by a raiding older male, instilled in the psyche over millions of years as part of an instinct for self-preservation? You do realize that with a conspiracy theory involving a faked abduction involving Patty Hearst, we would at least be talking about an adult woman instead of a mild-mannered 14-year-old whom we would be speculating to conceivably have pre-planned an elopement with a mentally-ill, much older man whom by all accounts she had met just briefly previously. Still, such possible conspiracies, regardless of how unlikely, have to be at least entertained by the authorities as part of their investigative process -- so "rock on" with your armchair-quarterback's version, I guess.[[User:Justmeherenow|<span style="font-family:Mistral"> '''↜J'''us'''t </span><span style="font-family:Mistral;font-size:x-small"> M<u>&thinsp;E&nbsp;</u></span><span style="font-family:Mistral">h'''''er''e&#8202;''','''&#8202;now</span>]] 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
::::''Qwasty said: "In Elizabeth Smart's case, either the flaws in the story mean nothing, and at best indicates she was suffering from severe Stockholm Syndrome that began in the first seconds of her abduction, or the flaws are a sign that she was a willing participant in the ordeal, which is what it looks like at first glance."''
::::Qwasty, let's look at the following excerpts of Smart's testimony from the federal court transcipt:<small>
::::<u>Anything that I showed resistance or hesitation to, he would turn to me and say, the Lord has commanded you to do this</u>. '''You have to experience the lowest form to be -- the lowest form of humanity to experience the highest.
:::::''Did he ever try to convince you that having sex with him was no big deal or normal?''
::::Yes.
:::::''What would he say?''
::::He said that's what a husband and a wife do.
::::::[ ... ... ... ]
:::::''Did he think highly of himself?''
::::Yes.
:::::''What was his opinion of himself?''
::::That '''he was the Davidic king''', that he was '''the Lord's servant, and he was doing the Lord's work.
::::::[ ... ... ... ]
:::::''Let me have you pause. What was he wearing when he went with the Kemps?''
::::It was more casual attire. He had his hair pulled back in a ponytail, and he had an elastic around his beard so it was --
:::::Was he in that robe that he typically was in, the religious-type robe?
::::No. No.
:::::''Was he in regular clothes?''
::::Yes.
:::::Did he indicate to you that he pretended to be someone else to them?
::::Yes.
:::::And what did he say?
::::He said that he pretended to be an investigator in the church, and that by doing that they'd invited him into their home. And he saw a picture of a young girl on the piano, and he asked them if it was their granddaughter, and they laughed. And the wife said, no, it's my daughter. I'm divorced from my first husband, and she spends every other weekend and Wednesdays here. And so he asked a few more questions about her, and then went on as if nothing was normal -- as if nothing was abnormal.
:::::''Did he tell you what the purpose of his meeting with the Kemps was?''
::::Yes. He said he was going out to find the second wife.
:::::''Did he indicate to you about the age of this girl that he noticed in the photo?''
::::Yes. He said she looked about my age.
::::::[ ... ... ... ]
::::Winter was starting to get closer, and '''the underground house that they were digging was nowhere near being finished.''' And so they decided that they would have to move somewhere warmer. And then '''he said that he felt that that was what the Lord wanted him to do and that they were going to go find wife number two.'''
:::::''Was there any other reason why he wanted to leave Utah?
::::As far as I know, that was it, just away for the winter and to find another young woman.</small>
::::-- Qwasty, I myself just don't see much in Mitchell's attempts at brainwashing that would tend to point to some extended period of pedophilic grooming of his intended victim, as you've speculated. Also, click the link [http://www.ksl.com/?sid=8139474&nid=148 here] and scroll down a bit to see the campsite where Smart had been brought to immediately after her leaving her bedroom with Mitchell. Do these digs look like a type of environment that a 14-year-old upper middle-class girl would "run away" of her own volition to?
::::Also see [http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2007/july2007/july2007leb.htm#page10 "Understanding Stockholm Syndrome"] (hosted on the FBI's website).<blockquote>[...W]''hen authorities rescued and safely returned her ''[Smart]'' home, people questioned how, in 9 months, she could not escape or ask someone—anyone—for help. But, her abductors did not hold her captive, as initially believed. In fact, she walked in public, attended parties, and even refused to reveal her true identity when first approached by police. Perhaps, even more puzzling than her initial reluctance to escape was her apparent concern upon rescue about the fate of her captors. “What’s going to happen to them? Are they in trouble?” she asked. When informed by officers that they likely would face punishment, she started to cry and sobbed the whole way to the station.''</blockquote>And finally:<blockquote><u>''Cut Screen Story Was the Start</u>. May 4, 2003. The most damaging falsehood in the Elizabeth Smart saga had nothing to do with a diary or sexual preferences or the inconclusive polygraph tests, relatives say. It had to do with a window covering. "It was the screen," said Tom Smart, Elizabeth's uncle. Smart is referring to the entry point used by the man who took his niece on June 5 and how a story by two reporters, citing anonymous sources, used the cut screen to cast suspicion on the Smart''[...]. [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SLTB&p_theme=sltb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=100D4B20A6F74D65&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM ''(link to ''Salt Lake Tribue'' newstory)''][[User:Justmeherenow|<span style="font-family:Mistral"> '''↜J'''us'''t </span><span style="font-family:Mistral;font-size:x-small"> M<u>&thinsp;E&nbsp;</u></span><span style="font-family:Mistral">h'''''er''e&#8202;''','''&#8202;now</span>]] 07:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does deserve a Controversy section. If Wikipedia is to be a very open site, this information should be published. There are enough citations to support this information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.40.32.13|72.40.32.13]] ([[User talk:72.40.32.13|talk]]) 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Give us a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to support your claim. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


She had lots of sex with the guy and a friend of mine found a sex video of her on the 'nets from when she was with the guy that shows her enjoying the sex.<ref>http://www.mofopolitics.com/2012/02/19/that-sucks-elizabeth-smarts-husband-doesnt-get-to-have-sex-with-elizabeth-smart-in-her-prime/#comment-28505</ref> <ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700079774/Elizabeth-Smart-recounts-Mitchells-sex-porn-revelations.html</ref>

== Nancy Grace interview ==
I believe one part of this section of the article is misleading, "... directing her questions to Senator Orrin Hatch for the remainder of the interview." If you read the entire transcript of the interview, Nancy Grace does not solely direct her questions to the Senator after Elizabeth stated she did not want to talk about her kidnapping; she does in fact ask Elizabeth and her parents more questions that they responded to. I think that this part should either be deleted or at least have the wording changed to not appear so biased. [[Special:Contributions/68.3.165.84|68.3.165.84]] ([[User talk:68.3.165.84|talk]]) 03:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

::Since no one volunteered to do so I have went ahead and re-written this part of the page so it appears less biased. I also added the transcript of the show for a source. It was very evident that the previous section about this interview was extremely biased against Nancy Grace. I think this better suits the article by keeping it neutral.[[Special:Contributions/68.3.165.84|68.3.165.84]] ([[User talk:68.3.165.84|talk]]) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


== Richard Ricci ==
== Richard Ricci ==


Richard Ricci was a handyman that died while in prison for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Should we start a page for him or create a section in this article?
I wanted to start an article about Richard Ricci. The page that corresponds to him seems to be redirected to Elizabeth Smart's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ricci); any ideas on how to take care of this so Richard Ricci has a separate page? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.12.28.45|142.12.28.45]] ([[User talk:142.12.28.45|talk]]) 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Here is a quick link. --> [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Richard_Ricci&action=edit Edit][[User:Justmeherenow|<span style="font-family:Mistral"> '''↜J'''us'''t </span><span style="font-family:Mistral;font-size:x-small"> M<u>&thinsp;E&nbsp;</u></span><span style="font-family:Mistral">h'''''er''e&#8202;''','''&#8202;now</span>]] 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:(Otherwise, go to [[Richard Ricci]], you'll be redirected to this article, then scroll to the top of the page and click the link that leads you ''back'' to the Richard Ricci redirect page. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Richard_Ricci&redirect=no )[[User:Justmeherenow|<span style="font-family:Mistral"> '''↜J'''us'''t </span><span style="font-family:Mistral;font-size:x-small"> M<u>&thinsp;E&nbsp;</u></span><span style="font-family:Mistral">h'''''er''e&#8202;''','''&#8202;now</span>]] 00:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:: I think Richard Ricci is the greatest victim in this case, and given how poorly torture and murder is documented in American prisons, I think he is quite noteworthy. [[User:Qwasty|Qwasty]] ([[User talk:Qwasty|talk]]) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

== Merge ==

Elizabeth Smart has no notability aside from being a kidnap victim, and the two articles should be merged. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge: The Right thing to do!

: You're going to need to come up with a slightly more convincing argument than that to convince me to remove to merge tags. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 02:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' both articles. Smart is a notable activist. That her high-profile is due to her kidnapping is a fact, but this is besides the point; compare the case of [[Natascha Kampusch]], who became a talkshow host.[[User:Justmeherenow|'''''↜ (''‘<span style="font-family:Mistral">J'''us'''t </span><span style="font-family:Mistral;font-size:x-small"> M<u>&#8202;E&nbsp;</u></span>’<span style="font-family:Mistral">h'''''er''e&#8202;''','''&#8202;now</span>''''')''']] 08:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per [[WP:BLP1E]], ''If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.'' as well as ''...when an individual plays a major role in a minor event, ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event.'' Can you find me ''any'' sources that cover Ms Smart as anything ''but'' a former kidnap victim? [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

: I say that for now, Elizabeth Smart is not particularly notable for anything other than her alleged kidnapping. Maybe that will change in the future, but for now, there's a lot of people more notable than she is for activism, but who aren't notable enough for their own article. At best, her activism is worthy of maybe a paragraph or two in this article under an aftermath section. [[User:Qwasty|Qwasty]] ([[User talk:Qwasty|talk]]) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' Smart is notable for 1 event and she can be adequately covered in the kidnapping article. She isn't particularly well known as an activist and any activites there are a direct extension of what she is known for, the kidnapping. This can all be well covered in the kidnapping article.--[[User:RadioFan|RadioFan]] ([[User talk:RadioFan|talk]]) 11:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
* '''Keep separate''' She isn't notable for one event, she has established notability after the fact as a political activist. [[User:Multixfer|&lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt;]] ([[User talk:Multixfer|talk]]) 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
** Can you find any [[WP:RS]] establishing that notability? [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

* '''Merge''' I'm not seeing evidence that she's a noted for anything by this one event. A Google news search will bring up tons of hits but after looking through 10 pages of them, I'm not finding anything that is not directly related to the single event of her kidnapping. There's coverage of the competency hearing for her abductor, mentions of her appearance on Larry King or a few other programs, and coverage of the recovery process for her and her family but all of these are related to the kidnapping. Her father has appeared before congressional committee considering amber alert legislation [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/earlyshow/main1385122.shtml] and she's appeared once as well there but this is all directly related to the kidnapping. Its going to take a lot more before she's known for anything other than this one event.--[[Special:Contributions/198.85.228.129|198.85.228.129]] ([[User talk:198.85.228.129|talk]]) 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

* '''Keep separate''' The qualifier for [[WP:BLP1E]] is that the individual remain "low-profile," which she has not. Smart is a household name and has moved on with her life to bigger and better things. —'''''[[User:Eustress|Eustress]]''''' <sup>''[[User talk:Eustress|talk]]''</sup> 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
: She is a household name ''for the kidnapping''. I'm still waiting for any [[WP:RS]] establishing notability for anything other than being kidnapped: meeting Bush, commenting on other people kidnapped, playing the harp or becoming a missionary don't cut it. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''merge''' this is a really clear case where only the kidnapping is notable. If she should become notable later, there is no deadline. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:That happened in 2003, when she was found alive. [[User:BlueAnthem|BlueAnthem]] ([[User talk:BlueAnthem|talk]]) 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Merge''' lest you honestly believe the [[PROTECT Act of 2003]] and her subsequent roles surrounding the issue of [[child abduction]] are not notable or you believe that Elizabeth Smart has been low profile after her abduction. Neither are true. [[User:BlueAnthem|BlueAnthem]] ([[User talk:BlueAnthem|talk]]) 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. No-brainer. No one would care about Elizabeth Smart if she hadn't been kidnapped. [[User:Vidor|Vidor]] ([[User talk:Vidor|talk]]) 08:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. She is only notable in relation to this case. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.134.95.103|70.134.95.103]] ([[User talk:70.134.95.103|talk]]) 00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*'''Oppose Merge''' Elizabeth has co-authored with 4 others and the Justice Department a booklet on surviving a kidnapping which on its own would justify a separate entry as a co-author, as it does for the other 4 who helped with that book [http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/childabduction.html You're Not alone]. She has also lobbied congress and others, as a recent women's conference notes: "Elizabeth has helped promote The National AMBER Alert, The Adam Walsh Child Protection & Safety Act and other safety legislation to help prevent abductions. Last year Elizabeth worked with the Department of Justice and four other recovered young adults in creating a survivors guide ..." ( [http://www.womensconference.org/elizabeth-smart/ The Womens Conference hosted by California's First Lady] ). I'd say that this last description alone amply satisfies [[WP:RS]]. She isn't only getting on with her life in college or the mission but has become a child protection advocate in her own right, and I'd say good for her! If anything, eventually wikipedia will probably need a page on 'Elizabeth Smart: child protection advocate' etc [[User:Wombat24|Wombat24]] ([[User talk:Wombat24|talk]]) 06:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose merge'''. Smart has attained independent notability outside of the kidnapping through her activism, TV appearances, and the fact she has had writings published. [[Special:Contributions/68.146.81.123|68.146.81.123]] ([[User talk:68.146.81.123|talk]]) 16:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. 99% of the public only know her for being kidnapped. Her article proves that. The part of her article that talks about the rest of her life isn't notable. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.119.54.67|24.119.54.67]] ([[User talk:24.119.54.67|talk]]) 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== '''New entry needed for Brian David Mitchell''' ==

I was searching for details on Mitchell but the wiki search redirects to this page. So before adding a bio on him I was hoping to pass it by you here and see if there is any support to start a new page on Brian David Mitchell. Wiki has pages on many criminals and although Mitchell is still going through the legal system, I feel that there is enough information out in the public arena to justify a basic outline on who he is, noting that he is 'accused' of these crimes off course. Also as the case goes to a public court later this year there is certain to be more people searching for information on the accused. And I personally feel its wrong to redirect a search for him to a page that is titled "Elizabeth Smart..." since she is the survivor of the crime and not the accused criminal.

Mitchell is a very peculiar criminal who will undoubtedly be studied more and more in the future (whatever the final outcome of the case) so I'd suggest that it is important for Wikipedia to have the basics about him and then expand that information as more becomes public. [[User:Wombat24|Wombat24]] ([[User talk:Wombat24|talk]]) 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== Richard Ricci - Murdered? ==

He died from a brain hemorrhage! Unless he had a stroke, the only other cause is severe head trauma. The timely nature of his death after he refused to admit that he kidnapped Elizabeth Smart demands more investigation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.171.16.52|86.171.16.52]] ([[User talk:86.171.16.52|talk]]) 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Wikipedia is a place to place credible, accepted information, not to advance pet ideologies and conspiracy theories. If you think there is legitimacy to this theory, seek to get it published in a newspaper as an article, seek to alert the ACLU, Amnesty International or similar groups to it, demand the Utah Attorney General do an investigation or so on. However, such total conspiracy/ police brutality allegations with no back-up in fact have no place in wikipedia.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 03:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== July 24, 2002—Attempted kidnapping at Elizabeth's cousin's house. ==

I wanted to get more information about this, but the link referenced no longer works. (http://www.courttv.com/news/smart/040403_cousin_ap.html) It needs to be updated. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.144.158.51|70.144.158.51]] ([[User talk:70.144.158.51|talk]]) 11:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Avoid google counting and balance event/bio articles ==

I am not sure if the current set up with the [[Elizabeth Smart (activist)]] article is likely to survive since I have made it openly known that that article exists. However, the fact remains that the kidnapping is only identified with Elizabeth Smart, much of the facts involved in the case hardly relate to her at all. This is because there were multiple false leads folowed during the investigation, there was the [[Salt Lake Tribune]]/[[National Enquirer]] court battle about sources, journaists selling to others instead of giving to their employers, etc. Then there is the fact that over 8 years after Elizabeth was kidnapped and over 7 years after she was rescued her main kidnapper has not gone to trial and the main accomplice only very recently worked out a plea bargin. So whether or not we have an article on Elizabeth Smart, we also need one of the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping becuase it is a large case that has already had multiple hearings and multiple levels before multiple judges.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also noted a study of google hits for Elizabeth Smart versus Elizabeth Smart kidnapping done in an earlier discussion. Such a study ignores the fact that there are many other Elizabeth Smarts, Elizabeth is a '''very''' common first name, and although Smart is not Smith it is not Dzerczynsky either.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

:The search was apparently comparing hits for "Elizabeth Smart" and "Elizabeth Smart kipnapping", this ignored hits for "Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped", "Elizabeth Smart abduction", "Elizabeth Smart rape", "Elizabeth Smart case", "Elizabeth Smart kipnappers", "Elizabeth Smart missing", "Elizabeth Smart found", "Smart's kidnappers charged", "Brian David Mitchell is a nut case", "Mitchell charged with abduction", "Mitchell found incompetent", "Mitchell found competent" and so on. It may not even pick up "Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers" or "kidnapped Elizabeth Smart" as in the sentance "The couple who kidnapped Elizabeht Smart are getting divorced."[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== Categories needed for Brian David Mitchell ==

I really do not think Mitchell needs to have a seperate article, but I think he should be placed in categories such as [[:Category:People excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] and maybe his birth-year category. The redirect page has been restricted to only administrators dealing with it, so I had to suggest this. I think categorizing of redirects is a good thing, and it makes the push for bios of marginal people unneeded, since if we categorize the redirect people can find the articles of the event based on thinking of the categories of the main people involved.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 02:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
: Well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brian_D._Mitchell&diff=397704745&oldid=397680717 here is the diff] for the one category mentioned above, contributed at alleged perpetrator BDM's blp.--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

== Reason for abducting her? ==

What was their reason, in their minds, for abducting her? To make her their adopted daughter? Sex slave? What? --[[Special:Contributions/96.22.166.8|96.22.166.8]] ([[User talk:96.22.166.8|talk]]) 14:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
:I think if you read the article you'll know about as much as the rest of us about the answer to that question. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

== Please do not delete merge tag ==

<s>while merge discussion is under way on the [[Brian David Mitchell]] talkpage</s>.--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:(No longer underway.)--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== Seperate articles and redirect restucturing ==

I just changed the redirection of [[Elizabeth Ann Smart]] so it goes to [[Elizabeth A. Smart]]. I think with her being employed by ABC as an expert on the experience of families with members of the family abducted we have probably reached a point where she has independent notability. I am thinking that we have also reached a point where the talk pages of [[Elizabeth A. Smart]] and [[Elizabeth Smart kidnapping]] need to be seperated. It might be worth discussing whether Elizabeth Ann Smart or Elizabeth A. Smart is a better article name.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

== PSI Tech ==

It might be a nice idea to add a section about PSI Tech's (www.remoteviewing.com) psychic attempts to help find Elizabeth. You can find their own post-find article about it, in which they attempt to dress up their complete failure to find her (or even identify the state of her health) at http://www.remoteviewing.com/remote-viewing-news-articles/the-signal-line/031403/index.html.

You might also search for other sources on the topic of this failure, such as at: http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=557. This site, although not terribly professional, certainly brings to question the "talents" of PSI Tech's corp of psychics, and brings to light their attempts to cover up their failure.
[[User:ReveurGAM|ReveurGAM]] ([[User talk:ReveurGAM|talk]]) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I see no reason why we should report on the total failure of a group to have any effect on the status or discovery of Miss Smart. Covering how certain things did not effect other things just does not make sense. Including this is just a bad idea.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 06:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are 3 reasons: One, her parents, after hearing of their efforts, directly contacted PSI Tech and requested that they assist in the location of their daughter. Second, the negative findings of PSI Tech had a significant emotional impact on her parents. Third, Wikipedia should be comprehensive, not minimalist, don't you think?[[User:ReveurGAM|ReveurGAM]] ([[User talk:ReveurGAM|talk]]) 06:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be encyclopedic - not full of trivial facts. If Wikipedia was comprehensive, each entry would be a book.
[[User:MarkinBoston|MarkinBoston]] ([[User talk:MarkinBoston|talk]]) 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:Granted, a book is not needed. However, I strongly disagree with your categorization of the first two reasons I gave as being "trivial" - that is demeaning to the family and trivializes the emotional stress that arose from PSI Tech's failure and, indeed, misleading (or perhaps deliberately deceptive) statements before, during and after the event. Do what you will - I grow tired of Wikipedia editors who can't see beyond their own limited scope.[[User:ReveurGAM|ReveurGAM]] ([[User talk:ReveurGAM|talk]]) 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

== Seperate talk pages ==

I just made the [[Elizabeth A. Smart]] talk page seperate. It really does not make sense to have seperate articles with the same talk page, especially with Elizabeth being highered as a consultant by a national TV news network, so that there is a growing body of discussions related to her that have no relevance to her kidnapping.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 06:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

== 1st paragraph need fixing ==

The last 4 sentences did not flow

"Barzee, in 2009, and Mitchell, in 2010, were eventually convicted. Her abduction and recovery were widely reported and were the subject of a made-for-television movie and a published book. He was held in the Salt Lake County Jail following his sentencing on May 25, 2011. On August 31, he was transferred to federal prison to begin serving a life sentence for his crimes." <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Janvo|Janvo]] ([[User talk:Janvo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Janvo|contribs]]) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 05:08, 16 February 2024

Richard Ricci

[edit]

Richard Ricci was a handyman that died while in prison for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Should we start a page for him or create a section in this article?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidnapping_of_Elizabeth_Smart&oldid=1207972361"