Talk:Death of Lydia Schatz

Latest comment: 6 months ago by 104.158.99.253 in topic Contested deletion

Contested deletion edit

This page should not be speedy deleted because Lydia Schatz death received a lot of media attention. Just google her name. There should be a normal deletion discussion. --HannahLiberty (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Only as a crime victim. Eeekster (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, of course. That is what she is known for... or should i write an article about her parents instead? The case received a lot of attention.-- HannahLiberty (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The crime is notable, she is not. Write about the crime. Eeekster (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
So Death of Lydia Schatz would be a notable article? Is it possible to change the article name?-- HannahLiberty (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it could be. I renamed the article. If someone wants to nominate this for deletion, it can go through the normal discussion process. —Ute in DC (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have provided additional reliable sources as well and tweaked the wording a bit. Might still need copy-editing.-- Obsidin Soul 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Michael and Debbi Pearl edit

This article says that the offenders used Michael Pearl's methods for child training. The Pearls don't advocate beating children to death or abusing them. This should be made clear in the article. Its not really relevant to the crime itself, although it has been discussed.166.137.101.172 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

If we include that hand wringing disclaimer, we should also include information about all the many, many other cases in which people following the advice of "To Train Up A Child" ended up killing the children in their care. You know, if that's all somehow relevant to this article. "The Pearls" we could say "Insist that the preponderance of people following their methods who turn out to be murderous child abusers is simply a coincidence. A perpetual, ongoing, coincidence." 70.50.56.83 (talk)

There are no "many, many other cases". Anti-Christian activists have managed to come up with 3 cases with any link to the book. None of them were following advice from the book, they simply had the book. Many children are killed by parents who have read other child rearing books, do you also insist that every article about every child that is killed list the books their parents read? Or is this a special book that you particularly hate for other reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.158.99.253 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of Lydia Schatz. 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) 10:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply