Talk:Amber Hagerman

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: Texas

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Texas portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Untitled

What does "DFW" mean? Perhaps "Dallas-Fort Worth"? —Felix the Cassowary 12:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a common U.S. abbreviation that shouldn't really be there without any mention of what it means. Dismas|^(talk) 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

I have no idea what 'She had been alive two whole days before being killed.' means in this context. Can someone please clarify? Nicander (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It makes no contextual sense whatsoever. You could just as easily say she'd been alive nine whole years before being killed. 216.67.35.43 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Jimmie??

"According to Jimmie,..." It would be a good idea to introduce this Jimmie. 85.224.168.67 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow it will be Amber Hagerman's 15th yr of her abduction. Her gravestone says her death is January 17, 1996 not what Wikipedia says of Jan 15 1996. I have lived in Arlington for 17 years and have a picture of her gravesite for proof.

Ginny2221956 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who is "Whitson" who testified before Congress?

Donna Whitson, Amber's mother. She is now Donna Norris. I edited the article to indicate that. Cerdic (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raped?

In the article it is not stated clearly if she was raped. СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't even implied that she was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her father's granddaughter?

There's a passage in the article where it mentions that Amber was the second child in the family to be abducted. One sentence in particular reads "Her father's two-day-old granddaughter was abducted in 1991..." The reference for the sentence is a newspaper article which is no longer online. Is it just me or is this rather confusing? Maybe not confusing but at least poorly worded. Did Amber have a much older (6-7 years at least) brother or sister who then had a child who was abducted? Essentially this would be Amber's niece or nephew, right? Dismas|^(talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the case ever solved?

This is a terrible thing to happen...but was the perp ever apprehended and fried? The article does not make that clear. It seems to be more focused on the legacy: Amber Alert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.156 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some ip blanked everything about the actual incident and nobody caught it. vandalism or sentimentalist 'remember the victim' extremism, who knows Asdf98761 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written like a story

This needs to be more factual and fix the line spacings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnbandit (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.226.134 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this might be overkill, but this is written almost like a story. It's almost totally un-encyclopedic. 71.102.11.209 (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AMBER Alert?

Per a request from WP:AN/RFC, this discussion is closed with the consensus being to merge the article to AMBER Alert. The concerns raised by the supporters of WP:1E far outweigh the lone opposition to the merge proposal that simply asserted notability instead of comparing the article to our relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (people). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is very small to be a biography. The subject is a 9-year-old victim, and I don't see how notability of the dead little girl guarantees an article. --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for merge or outright deletion. Clear case of WP:1E. In fact, I'm not sure if there is much content to merge at all; the content is more or less already present on the AMBER Alert article and I'm not sure the infobox would be appropriate for that article. Perhaps this article can be deleted per WP:1E and we can be done with it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge There is less information about her death in this article (Amber Hagerman) than in AMBER Alert, and the very little bit here that is not about the alert system or the murder that precipitated it (the comic book and the movie) could either be merged (as examples of social pressure for creating the system) or removed as relatively unimportant details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WhatamIdoing. It's pretty much all at the other article, as it should be. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge in that the life of Amber Hagerman is more than her death and the subsequent creation of the AMBER alert system. If her murder was sufficient to establish her as notable (when many murder victims and perpetrators do not meet this criterion), then the articles should stand separately. That said, I am not vehemently opposed to this particular merge based on the reality that this article is rather small and could be merged without loss of significant information, but I am quite concerned about precedent and tone: some of the reasoning given above, such as the suggestion for "outright deletion" (the person's name IS a plausible redirect, after all) and the implication that a murdered 9 year old is inherently "not notable" - which comes across to me as dismissive and a bit unkind (JMO and with AGF that this may not be the intended tone). If the murder is notable, and it is the murder of only one person (as opposed to a multiple victim situation), and that one person's death led to something significant (like the AMBER alert system), then I think WP:NOTABILITY is met and it isn't inherently a WP:1E situation where we are talking about a main participant in a real life drama. (Once again, I will note that Lawnchair Larry has his own article and is famous for only one thing). Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge; it matters not at all if the merger reads as "dismissive" or "a bit unkind" or as a judgement of personal worth. Surely all would agree that Amber Hagerman's life had significance beyond the circumstances and aftermath of her death- including a Wikipedia entry; those things are not for us to validate. Not being independently noteworthy does not equate to a judgment on her worth. Essentially, the noteworthy element- the murder and aftermath -easily encompass the person. The example of "Lawnchair" Larry Walters is apt- as there is only a single article focusing on the noteworthy event, the person who caused it, and the cascade of social impact.Mavigogun (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment: you will note that Lawnchair Larry is titled Larry Walters, not Near-Darwin-award-winning antics of a guy who flew lawnchairs. Why is a grown up idiot more noteworthy on wikipedia than Amber Hagerman? Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a merger proposal, not a renaming request. Please put your perspectives of titles aside and just concentrate on the content themselves. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Potayto, Potahto. I've already said that this article itself is not particularly strong and probably could be merged, if we were to be entirely objective, though I would prefer to see it built upon and expanded. But, the real underlying issue is if a nine year old girl is notable or if she's "nothing but" a content fork to the thing named in her honor. My point about Lawnchair Larry appeared to be taken opposite of what I intended, so I commented. We seem bent on a trajectory of deeming people as "non-notable" even when something notable occurred precisely because of them, which is a very odd and illogical argument to make. Montanabw^(talk) 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how it works. If the real-world, published reliable sources spend more time talking about the AMBER Alert than they do about its namesake—or about a product rather than a company, or about a song rather than its composer, or about an invention rather than its inventor, then we follow their lead. (Converse also true, for all the examples I given, plus more.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, then, we really must, therefore, by your reasoning, merge Eli Whitney into cotton gin. Oh wait, he's a white male, so even if Catherine Littlefield Greene really invented it, he's still terribly notable for filling out the patent form. Or Francis Scott Key into The Star-Spangled Banner, or... But the drumbeat of the white-male bias and the systematic dehumanization and discounting of women, children, people of color and anyone else of minority status shall continue apace. Far be it for me to challenge that status quo. (Grumbling and stalking off in the face of an obvious snowstorm ...) Montanabw^(talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amber Hagerman is a dead victim of ~~bullying~~abduction and kidnapping and nothing more. Comparing a mere dead victim without a full background to a historical figure is not how to justify your stand. --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"And nothing more"? What a terrible thing to say about anyone. Statements like these re-victimize the person; it is one thing to be neutral and discuss notability, it is another to be calloused; such a statement as this is calloused; telling this girl she was "nothing" is more or less what led to her suicide in the first place. My god. I'm just sort of stunned here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I misread the article and have mistaken her for someone else. As for your comments, events can overbalance life if life is not well-covered. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, I cannot seem to make it clear that it is a logical impossibility for someone's death to be notable and not themselves be notable. It's one thing when there are many victims of a tragedy, it is another when there is a single victim of a notable tragedy. Notability is very broad, but where only one victim, that person is inherently notable if their fate is notable. This is a distinction without a difference. Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are conflating "notable" with WP:Notable. When we say that this girl is not WP:Notable, we don't mean that she wasn't important, remarkable, prominent, or whatever else the dictionary gives as synonyms for this common English word. We mean that the girl doesn't qualify for a separate, stand-alone article on the English Wikipedia, e.g., significant secondary sources about her that aren't about something else (in this instance, the AMBER Alert system). It is common for a person to be notable without being wiki-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I think we have two different things going on here. The WP:NOTABILITY issue I'm raising is that it is completely illogical for an event involving a single individual to be notable but then individual not notable (either they both are, or neither is) - though in the case of AMBER Alert, I suppose we are in a gray area. The other issue, though, is that I am just feeling very shocked and saddened at the tone and attitude of some of the wikipedians here, who are so terribly dismissive of the life of a human being; it isn't an issue of objectivity, it's an issue of basic human decency. I can hear a reasoned "notability" argument, but the callousness of the comments here and at other articles about people who have died in tragic circumstances is very troubling. Montanabw^(talk) 17:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.