Talk:Disappearance of Asha Degree

If you have info, call ... hatnote?

Please stop reverting my edit. It causes absolutely no harm, and there's no reason to get all uppity, and high and mighty, and say that's not how Wikipedia is done. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. While it may be appropriate to link, in the external links section, to a police agency's page on the disappearance, we should not be soliciting tips to the police department's phone number in this manner. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. We're not really advertising, this is neutral, it's not an opinion piece, it's not a scandal, it's not self-promotion (I do not work at the police department), and it's not marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

But it does not feel like it fits the Manual of Style. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography for more guidance on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it doesn't feel like it fits? Ok, so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.210.217 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And how exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mollydog1500: As the editor primarily responsible for putting this article together, allow me to weigh in.

Our articles are meant to be as purely descriptive as possible. They are intended to be information sources and nothing more. Yes, as Fred said, we can and (I think) do have a link to the page to call tips in in the external links section at the bottom; anyone reading the article and wanting to share information they believe might be helpful with the appropriate authorities will likely find it there when they finish reading the article.

And honestly, wouldn't you rather people read the article first so they know what is known about the case before they decide to call in, instead of just having them call in with some information that might be completely useless because they didn't bother to read the whole article? (Read the comments section on just about any news article on the Internet that has one and you'll see what I mean, if you don't know this already).

I would be very happy one day if one of the articles I've developed about missing-persons cases or unsolved crimes generated the lead that solved the case. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Per the WP:SOAPBOX link that Fred directed you to, I would commend #1 to your attention: "advocacy". IMO putting the tipline number in a hatnote on every article about an active missing-person case is advocacy, as benevolent as it may be (Note that on Disappearance of Leah Roberts, another article I've worked on about a college-age woman gone missing, also from North Carolina, a month after Asha, there is no such hatnote, and in fact no other "Disappearance of ..." article should have one, either, whether there is an active tip line or not.

We believe this works better for us and everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't you think if people were reading this article, they must know some about her? What if I just put it on the bottom? Yeah, so not all have them, but this case greatly intrigues me. If they found this, high chance they knew at least some about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Usually if there's a "Find so-and-so" page on Facebook, I put in a link at the bottom. Does the CCSD still have a page? We could put that in the xlinks section (but strictly as a "page about the case with tipline number" link.) Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollydog1500 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In the last month, there have been nearly 3,000 views of this article.[1] Some are probably the same person multiple times, but in all likelihood that's hundreds of readers. Do you think all of them know something about her of some use to the case? And if they did, why had they waited to find a Wikipedia page about her to call in? —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Has it happened upon you they may possibly find something suspicious and look up words related and find stuff related to Asha? And obviously not all them. But some may. And I'm counting on some. Mollydog1500 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC) If nobody will reply, I'm changing it. I'm not sitting in silence. Mollydog1500 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted you; I see having this information in the article itself as against WP:SOAPBOX. In the absence of a clear consensus that it is not, you should not go ahead and restore it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to wait forever and never end up doing it. Mollydog1500 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Finding Asha Degree blog

I don't completely object to including information about the blog in this article, but I don't think any great weight or detail should be given to it. It's a self-published blog by an amateur, who appears to have no qualifications or experience with missing persons cases. I would equate it with the likes of other Internet forums and blogs (Websleuths, /r/UnresolvedMysteries, Topix, etc.) where people can discuss theories related to cases. There are so many blogs online; you could probably find thousands discussing the JonBenét Ramsey case, but that does not warrant inclusion. Finding Asha Degree has been mentioned in some articles, but I don't think that justifies mentioning it in the lede. I removed the mention of the blog from "They, along with a blogger who has tried to solve the case, have speculated that she might have been abducted instead", as I think the investigators' opinions are the only noteworthy ones. Degree's own mother said it contained "half truths". To editor Daniel Case: please comment. Melonkelon (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Melonkelon: I included it only because a) it was covered by a reliable source and b) for the reader who wants to check it out via the link from said reliable source, it goes into more detail about the aspects of the case that support speculations that it was an abduction than law enforcement officials generally are, or have been (and no, of course we're not going into the blogger's theories in detail in the article, for the usual reasons). I gave a graf to it in the article, I don't think it deserves any more mention than that because that's all that takes to cover its existence and Ms. Degree's reactions to it, the only aspects notable enough to mention in the article. And since it gets that one graf in the article, a passing mention in the intro is enough, since it has been discussed by a reliable source as part of the case. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely unsourced, unsubstantiated rumor

I don't often lose my temper on a place like Wikipedia, but a recent post on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6mqsdk/im_99_sure_wikipedia_lied_to_us_all_about_some?sort=confidence) drew my attention to the fact that this mention of a bag being found with Asha's basketball outfit, family photos etc. is pretty much just made up. Theres three sources whoever made this up has 'cited', and not one of them mentions any of these items, just that a bag was found.

It's bad enough having people vandalising pages on here, but this claim made here has been repeated in other places so often that it's become part of the case. The poster on Reddit, and I, may be wrong and there might be a proper source out there that shows the bag contained the items mentioned, but until someone can find such a source, I'm removing the reference.

If this is a lie, regardless of whether or not it was done with malicious intent, the wikiproject in charge of this should really take a closer look at other articles like this and maybe consider locking them.Jesuschristonacamel (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My apology and explanation

As the primary contributor to this article, I am writing to address the Reddit thread linked above discussing this article.

There was never any intent on my part to mislead or lie. However, it was a mistake to have written details of the contents of the second bookbag found when there was no reliable source describing them. In reviewing how that got in there, I think I may have erroneously come to believe that one of the many sources besides Wendy Hughes' blog (which does not meet standards here for reliable sources, interesting though it has been to read) that described the contents of the first bookbag found also described the contents of the second one.

Typically, before writing any article, on any subject, I peruse as many of the potential sources as possible, then let it all sit in my head for a couple of weeks. Usually by the end of that time I have sort of visualized what the article will look like when finished, and I have a clear idea of what source says what, and it's easier to write.

In the case of this article, I had thought it would be an interesting one to have, but as we had missed the 15th anniversary (when putting it on the "Did You Know? ..." section on the front page would have gotten it a lot of attention), I figured instead that we should wait until 2020 (In fact, I hadn't known a lot about Asha's case in early 2015 when I sat down to write Disappearance of Leah Roberts, another North Carolina-based missing-persons case, for that 15th anniversary in March 2015; if I had I would have tried to write it then).

But then someone else started this one early in 2016, and I saw it and figured that if we were going to have it then it should be good, so I threw myself into polishing it up. I thus didn't have as much time as I usually give myself, and in the process of reviewing a lot of what I could find (as the Redditor OP notes, a lot of the original stories about this have long since been archived and can't easily be found via search engines), I let myself get confused.

I apologize to the Degrees and anyone else close to the case if this report has caused them any more pain than what they've already suffered. I apologize to the Internet for letting this happen. And I thank the OP at Reddit for bringing this up ... I'd like to take a look at some of those other articles. Your last observation is also very interesting ... hopefully some reliable source will bring it up one day and maybe it can then be included in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Clothing taken

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.

---

Daniel Case, I'm having a difficult time understanding your perspective on the edits that we have been disagreeing over. Can you provide a link to wikipedia guidelines surrounding "excessive detail"? I think that it is indisputable that items taken are relevant in almost all missing persons cases; in this instance it is unclear if the clothes were recovered in the backpack so mentioning items associated with her disappearance could be important to the case and of interest to readers. I don't think the material in question is excessive; it is only 127 characters.

I would ask other editors watching this page to weigh in also. For clarification, the disagreement is about which of the following passages is better, or asked another way, does the first passage have excessive detail?

version 1: Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including blue jeans with a red stripe, a long-sleeved, white nylon shirt, a red vest trimmed in black, black overalls with Tweety Bird on them, and a black and white long-sleeved shirt."
version 2: Iquilla said that later she realized some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom. 

^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: Thank you for initiating discussion here instead of continuing to revert. As far as policy or any commonly referenced editing guideline goes, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which opens with: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Further down WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE restates this as "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

So per that, I think, if you want to include this detailed list of the missing clothing because you think it might relevant you should do so with a sourced explanation of why that information is or might be relevant. Your feeling that it might be, while certainly understandable and not unique to you, is not enough to justify its inclusion.

My reference point, to which I alluded in one of my edit summaries, was this edit to another article about a missing persons case, which took out a lot of similar information that, I should add, I had included when I had originally written the article, but whose removal on grounds that it was trivial and crufty I agreed with in retrospect. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, thanks for your response. In this specific case, I would argue that the guidelines you provided are vague and aren't very specific to this disagreement. The immediate line after what you quoted says "Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." I'd argue the weight of the disputed content outweighs concerns of "excessiveness", which I'd further argue is subjective. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts; I'm going to open an RfC to attract additional input from the community. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Basilosauridae: I don't know how much more specific those guidelines could be while still being useful for the whole project. I still don't see why it is so important we give those specifics—you really haven't said much more than "I think so".

One of your edit summaries mentioned "evidentiary value" ... well, we're not putting together a case for prosecution here.

I would contrast it with the food found in JonBenet Ramsey's stomach; where it is of undisputed relevance that it was peaches.

My ability to contribute to this RfC will be somewhat limited over the next week since I am heading off tomorrow morning to Wikimania in Cape Town. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, Similarly I could say that I don't see why it is so important to you that we don't include these details. If I understand correctly, your argument is based on it being excessive detail, but no guidelines have been provided that make it clear that this is a case of excess detail. The guidelines you provided reference databases of lyrics, statistics, etc, and I would argue aren't really applicable to this discussion. Beyond that, you haven't really provided concrete reasons why it shouldn't be included, and appears to be based on your own assessment of what is and is not excessive. As I argued above, I think that the details of what items were taken are relevant to this article, properly sourced, of interest to readers, and is only 127 characters. Regarding the comment on "evidentiary value", you are correct that we are not building a case. However, I would classify this article as a true crime related article, and I would consider "evidence" to be a pillar of any quality true crime related article. I try to keep things grounded in wikipedia guidelines and policies, and in this case, I don't think that either of us has a stronger policy-based argument, which is why I think its best to get input from the community. I'm a patient person and won't make any "bold" moves until you've had a chance to weigh in on the discussion, enjoy your trip! (oh and for the record, it was pineapple in Jonbenet's stomach. ;) ) ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 04:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Basilosauridae: It is largely because I've added detail like this to quite a few articles in the past that has been taken out on these grounds. I could give you more examples later, but obviously I'm too busy right now. (and you were right about the pineapple ... where did I get peaches from?) Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy and pasted from above:
...the disagreement is about which of the following passages is better, or asked another way, does the first passage have excessive detail?

version 1: Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including blue jeans with a red stripe, a long-sleeved, white nylon shirt, a red vest trimmed in black, black overalls with Tweety Bird on them, and a black and white long-sleeved shirt."

version 2: Iquilla said that later she realized some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom.

^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Version 2 per what Daniel Case have said.--Miaow 17:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of compromise if possible. Both of you have done great work in writing this article, and this disagreement is comparatively minor. Maybe we can find middle ground on something like: "Asha's bedroom was missing her favorite clothing, such as a pair of blue jeans with a red stripe". C0617470r (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Compromise (Summoned by bot) Disclaimer: my personal style of writing is very minimal, and would probably produce something along the lines of V2, but I would also write much shorter article. That aside, a think a compromise can be reached, perhaps on mention half the garments, say only one shirt and one pair of pants, or leave out the normal stuff entirely (only mention blue jeans and overalls). The article is nice, so I would hate to have it come to throwing dice to see what is added, as that may seem callous. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Compromise. I like C0617470r and L3X1's suggestion of a compromise. Version 1 is too detailed, while version 2 doesn't have enough detail. I'd suggest something along the lines of, "Iquilla later realized that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including a pair of jeans, two long-sleeved shirts, and a pair of overalls." Melonkelon (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Compromise as 1 is too detailed and 2 is too short. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Compromise. Melonkelon's text gives a good summary. The red stripe on the jeans may also be worth mentioning because it is unusual and police may have kept an eye out for it.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi everyone, thank you for your feedback. I am open to a compromise. One of my arguments for version 1 is that it includes details that could be potential useful in the search, so I would say that the items that should be mentioned should be the most unique items. My suggested version would be:

Iquilla said that some items of clothing were missing from Asha's bedroom, including a red vest with black trim and black overalls featuring an image of Tweety Bird.

^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The real issue (to me)

Something bugged me about the detailed inclusion of all the clothing; it took until almost the end of Wikimania for me to realize what it was.

There is a context in which the exact clothes are relevant: the theory put forth by Wendy Hughes, who started the "Finding Asha Degree" blog that Asha was carefully groomed by a sexual predator close to the family who knew enough about her life and the family routines and thus had enough of Asha's trust to get her to do the things that would appear as if she had suddenly run away in order to better abduct her.

Personally, I find that theory interesting, as it's about the only theory that remains mostly consistent with the reported facts, but Ms. Hughes' blog is not currently a reliable source, so while I read it I didn't put anything from it in the article. I did, however, feel its existence was worth mentioning as an indisputably reliable source had taken note of its existence as a way of solving this perplexing case, and had not done so in passing, getting some negative comment from Iquilla Degree about it and Ms. Hughes' theory. However, apparently some people feel that we shouldn't even acknowledge the existence of sources we don't consider reliable. I didn't really feel like arguing the point at the time.

That said ... in this post Hughes goes into detail about the clothes, listing every single garment as well, and suggesting that the choice of garments was made not by Asha herself but this unnamed adult to better create the impression that Asha had chosen to run away.

I would have had no problem including this theory in the article had it come from a reliable source. But it doesn't, at present.

Including that same list in our article, to me, gives the impression that we are on some level lending credence to Hughes' theory, our assessment of her blog as a source notwithstanding. It would invite well-meaning newer editors not yet familiar with WP:IRS but familiar with the case to add more material from that blog, cited or not, and create some unnecessary maintenance headaches for those (like myself) who watchlist this article and work to maintain its integrity.

Now, someday, Wendy Hughes may decide, as James Renner did with his Maura Murray blog, to turn hers into a book. If said book is, like Renner's, published by a reputable publisher who has an editor and at least one lawyer go over it as most publishers do (as opposed to some sort of self-published Amazon single), and that book includes the list of clothing and her theory about who chose them and for what purpose, then we can put all that in the article.

Until then, I think, we should leave the list out, as it seems to me like a backhanded way of getting something from an unreliable source into the article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This information isn't related to that blog. This information was published in news articles back in 2000. Her mother said that items of clothing were missing from her room. I don't see the connection with the blog or the blog writer's theory. Including this information seems relevant to case. Asha disappeared and some of her clothes were also missing. I didn't add this information after reading I blog, I added it after I read it in a couple of old articles and it seemed like an interesting detail about the case. "It seems to me like a backhanded way of getting something from an unreliable source into the article". Again, this information has nothing to do with that blog. Melonkelon (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Then what other justification can you give for having it in the article? How is it relevant?

You say it "seem[s] like" an interesting detail. We need a more specific reason than that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, hope you enjoyed your trip. As Melonkelon stated, this is not from the blog, and multiple sources could be added that detail the clothes taken. So far, the majority of the users who contributed to the RfC suggested a compromise, which I support as well. Did you have a chance to review my proposed compromise above? It reduced much of the list and includes items that are unique and of possible interest. To address your question to Melonkelon, and as I've already stated, this constitutes as "evidence", which I think is an important aspect to any true crime related case. As you are the main person that is arguing for the exclusion of properly sourced facts relevant to this article, I don't think the burden of argumentation for inclusion lies on Melonkelon or myself; if you are still in favor of your version, I would challenge you to present an argument based on relevant wikipedia policy and guidelines. I don't intend for this to come off as confrontational and I hope we can continue to work together to improve this article. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of Asha's list of missing clothes would be relevant if the blog's theory is also introduced, but we need a reliable source to support this theory.

If only the list is included, it is irrelevant, as there must be an encyclopedic reason to add the details of the clothing, otherwise it would appear to be a simple list. I think that is partly what the administrator tries to tell you :)--Miaow 18:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Miaow, thanks for contributing. As previously stated, the clothing taken has nothing to do with the blog and can be cited with multiple additional sources. Additionally, I presented a comprise above that significantly reduced the amount of clothing items listed to only two. The encyclopedic reason for inclusion is that it is evidence in a true crime article, which is a vital aspect of a true crime article. I've mentioned that a few times and no one has disputed it. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection between including this information and the theory. You can include this information in the article without including the theory. Asha's mother said she realised clothing was missing on February 16, 2000, after checking Asha's closet. This information was reported in the Shelby Star on February 17. The theory presented by the blog didn't exist until about 2015 or so. This information is not related to any theory, it's simply a fact that several outfits were missing, either taken by Asha or someone else. The theory was Melonkelon (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the information is there. Basilosauridae is proposing to add more details as "[..] black overalls featuring an image of Tweety Bird". Why would it be relevant to mention that a black overalls has a Tweety Bird's image? This is not too much detail? --Miaow 01:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

Disappearance

Something is not adding up in the disappearance section. At the beginning there is a line that says: "Around 8 p.m. that night, both children went to bed in the room they shared. Almost an hour later, the power went out in the neighborhood after a nearby car accident."

Meanwhile at the end of the paragraph, it says that "Iquilla awoke at 5:45 a.m. to get the children ready for school. That morning, this involved drawing a bath for them because they had not been able to take one the night before due to the power outage."

But weren't the kids already asleep when the power went out? Would Iquilla have had to wake the kids up again to give them a bath? This seems odd. TheJay123 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

OK ... the issue here is that those two sections use different sources. The 8 p.m. bedtime comes from the then-county sheriff in the Shelby Star story. The no-bath thing comes from Iquilla Degree in Jet. It's possible the sheriff could have been mistaken about the time, as the latter source has Iquilla begin her narrative with when she realized her daughter was missing so she offers . Any suggestions on what we can do wording-wise would be welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's valid. The wording is fine but when I read it I noticed the contradiction; however, this explanation makes sense, thank you. TheJay123 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)