Talk:Disappearance of Etan Patz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corrections[edit]

I have corrected a number of factual mistakes in this entry about the disappearance of my son, Etan. In addition, I spoke with investigators and then deleted some lurid speculation concerning his death. 162.84.234.3 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Stan Patz NYC[reply]

The introduction refers to kidnapped. There may be reason to believe he was killed - lurid speculation says cannibalised as well - but the article should stick to the known facts. He may not have been kidknapped. The only known fact is that he was, and remains, missing. No one knows what happened - apart from those responsible (if another person was responsible), and Etan (if he is still alvie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made two edits, earlier. Both were relatively minor, and involved how "The New York Times" is displayed. I fixed it so that these words on this page will now lead you to the wikipedia article for the New York Times. EnglishHornDude (talk) EnglishHornDude —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Removed speculation[edit]

I took out the following:

"The fact the the New York prosecutor alone would allow another innocent victim to not be prosecuted, shows a side of the prosecutor out to make a name. Is Patz more important than the other child he wouldn't have prosecuted if Ramos had admitted the Patz crime.

Also it should be noted Ramos was only 90% sure the boy he was with was Patz. And that was long after the crime first happened."'

The first sentence seems to me like unverifiable speculation re: the prosecutor's motives; I can't even decipher the meaning of the second sentence; and the third is unverifiable.

I apologize if I've stepped on anyone's toes or committed any other wiki-offenses; this is my first edit under this account and approximately my third or fourth overall edit. I'm still learning. Gladys j cortez 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the motivations of the anonymous person who added speculative and incorrect information about how Stuart GraBois, the Asst US Attorney, handled the informants and the investigation back around 1990.

Why should "It ....be noted in fairness, Ramos has never been charged with any other murder or attempted murder."? (Should it be noted that he was never charged with jaywalking or tax evasion?) Why be "fair" to a serial pedophile, who has scarred the lives of countless children and then make incorrect allegations against the man who got him off the streets?

Stanley K. Patz Oct 17, 2006

Will you know issue an apology to this guy as it turns out he didn't kill your son? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.65.80 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are to refrain from libelling anyone, regardless of how badly they seem to deserve it. Publicly accusing someone of murder could be construed as libel. It behooves us to be "fair" to everyone. Any information posted must be verifiable, and Ramos has not been convicted in connection with this case. The crimes for which he has been convicted as well as his defeat in civil court have been duly noted. His involvement in this incident, if any, is not a documented fact, which is reflected in the article.71.63.119.49 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but that was not what Stan was complaining about. The language of the statement is what is questionable, because it implies that somehow because Ramos was not charged with any other murder that that is evidence for his innocence. It is nothing of the sort as anyone with any common sense who has lived on planet Earth knows. The sentence goes beyond simply stating he was not charged for Etan's death, but very speciously and biasly drags the fact that he was not charged with other homicides into the discussion and passes it off as some sort of counter evidence.

And why is a side note about one suspect being in NAMBLA so prominently featured? And in an article about a missing child, two sources used link back to material that defends pedophile groups like NABLA. And look at the soft language, "damaging to the organization." Give me a break, NAMBLA is not an organization, it is a criminal sexual abuse syndicate. The fact that one of its members did not commit a specific crime does not change that. The sentence makes it sound like that NAMBLA is some sort of victim of unfair media attacks. This is why wikipedia and it's pedophile co-founder deserve not a damn dime of money! This smells like inside vandalism to promote pedophilia. And what's next, "The Sept. 11 attacks and the resultant media criticism was very damaging to the Al-Qaeda organization." But I guess "fairness" above all, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The failure to charge someone is not evidence of innocence. But likewise it means that the authorities did not have enough evidence to charge him - he may well be innocent. I rather think accusing him of murder goes well beyond possibly being construed as libel - it is libel. As is accusing the wikipedia co-founder of promoting pedophilia. As for accusing NAMBLA of not being an organisation but a criminal syndicate, that is absurd. Of course it is an organisation. It may also be a group of perverts, but that is another matter. To stick to the facts, and avoid name calling and defamation, is not "inside vandalism to promote pedophilia". Comments like that go well beyong POV, into paranoid delusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramos release date[edit]

Someone incorrectly stated that Jose Ramos had already served his sentence, but was still being held since he had not completed rehabilitation counseling. In fact, he is still serving time on his sentence which runs to November 7th, 2012.

Stanley K. Patz Dec 15, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.116.173 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "NAMBLA suspect" is gone ... for now![edit]

I do not know, nor do I care, who insists on keeping that NAMBLA reference in the "Suspect" section. I have removed it and it should stay removed. If you can weave in a brief narrative of other suspects, then the NAMBLA reference may be rewritten and included.

That stupid sentence sounds like a solid defense for NAMBLA. As someone else posted here, NAMBLA is a controversial and much-hated group of distasteful people.

The question of defaming any suspect in custody is stupid and insulting.75.21.149.143 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a "brief narrative of other suspects" necessary for inclusion of the nambla item? The nambla item passes WP:V and WP:RS and should be included. Do you have a policy which supports exclusion? – Lionel (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that the infobox needs fixing?[edit]

It actually says | known_for = Kidnap victim, Pedophilia. According to grammar rules, this is written as though Patz is a pedophile AND a kidnap victim rather than a kidnapped victim by a pedophile. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's unsourced garbage. I actually think "kidnap victim" is a stretch as well...should probably read "disappearance" or something of that sort.--Chimino (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Kidnap" ?[edit]

Can we once and for all decide if Etan should be described as a "kidnapped" child in the lede? I see in some of the talk contents above (and in reviewing the article) that since the child had disappeared, there is a bit of speculation over if this is a definitive fact or not. Please advise. 38.109.88.201 (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All mentions of kidnapping were unsourced, so I removed them. I'm surprised this article hasn't been more tightly vetted given the subject's high profile. Thanks for bringing it up! Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the legwork! 38.109.88.201 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future move[edit]

Depending on how recent developments progress, we may soon be moving this page to Murder of Etan Patz. Just a heads-up. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's established that he was murdered, the event would still be better known for the disappearance than the murder, so I would argue against such a move. It should go through the WP:RM process. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true. When the time comes, someone should RM it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new sources Feb 2014[edit]

--Jeremyb (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

compensation verdict[edit]

"Etan Patz's parents, Stanley and Julie Patz, pursued a civil case against Ramos.[10] They were awarded a 'symbolic' sum of $2 million, which they have never collected.[11] Ramos served a 20-year prison term in the State Correctional Institution – Dallas in Pennsylvania for child molestation.[6]" Just for my own interest, but what will happen to this compensation verdict, if Hernandez will be found guilty for murdering Etan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.25.137 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disappearance of Etan Patz. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Etan Patz → Murder of Etan Patz – Subject convicted of victim's murder and kidnapping. --GouramiWatcherTalk 03:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane talk 22:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, but weakly because there was a conviction in this case. Although Etan disappeared, his body was never found, so this is considered a disappearance, similar to other "Disappearance of _____" articles (e.g. Disappearance of Jerry Michael Williams, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, both of whom were declared legally dead in absentia like Etan was). By contrast, "Murder of _____" articles describe that there is physical proof the victim was killed, sometimes with eyewitness, and that their body was found in some place (e.g. Murder of Meredith Kercher, Murder of Travis Alexander). To this day, there is no physical proof that Etan was murdered despite this (valid) conviction. Again, this oppose is weak, and it is purely for consistency with other articles about similar topics. epicgenius (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it has recently been adjudicated as a murder, this case is more well known for the decades-long unexplained disappearance and its relation to the missing children's movement. If it had been an obvious murder, much more common at the time, it is sad to say the case might be unknown today. It is probably better to leave it at its current title, and create a redirect from the proposed title. Station1 (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have named plenty of bodyless murder conviction articles "Murder of ..." after someone got convicted and yet the bodies' locations/dispositions remain unknown. Two such that I have worked on extensively are Murder of Robert Wykel and (a fairly well-known case) Murder of Janet March. In the former case the state of Washington didn't even have any evidence as to how the crime might have happened or what had become of the body (similar to this case; although it did have a good case for motive that we didn't have here) but it still got a conviction on the second trial (just like this case). I honestly don't see why we need to hold a discussion on this; it's a no-brainer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Station1. While it might recently be a classified as a murder, it is notable for being an unexplained disappearance and the main title should reflect that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requesting help editing the article on my son, Etan Patz[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I would like to work with somebody concerning rewriting parts of the page, Disappearance of Etan Patz. I see that the article has been amended recently because it is up to date on the jury verdict and the postponed sentencing. I would like to engage whoever made those changes.

For the most part, the overall story is accurate. But there are many details that should be corrected: the bus stop was at W. B'wy and Prince, not W.B'wy and Spring; hundreds of leads came in daily during the first weeks, not "few leads"; SH was never our "babysitter"; many things about Jose Ramos are written here as facts but are only allegations, etc.

[redacted]. My offer to work with somebody is limited to the Wikipedia page and is not for any other publication, periodical, newspaper, etc.

FWIW, I believe the headline should remain as "Disappearance" because that was the enduring mystery for 33 years.

74.64.32.183 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Stan Patz, NYC[reply]

  • 74.64.32.183 Is any of this reported publicly by reliable sources? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the change from Spring to Prince St as an obvious error. The source (NY Times) confirms Prince is correct. Station1 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: Marking as partially implemented. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disappearance of Etan Patz. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"First child on a milk carton"[edit]

There is no source for the assertion "First child on a milk carton" and the article reflected that, so I have updated the infobox to match. Per WP:OTD tomorrow. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Murder of Etan Patz[edit]

As Hernandez has been convicted of Patz’s murder, the title should be renamed to Murder of Etan Patz. TheXuitts (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed above at #Requested move 15 February 2017. - Station1 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_Etan_Patz&oldid=1209663240"