Talk:Tiger kidnapping

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tiger kidnapping article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This term has been used in the Irish and British media throughout 2006, as the prevalence of such incidents has increased dramatically north and south of the border in Ireland.

Plenty of sources there. It's been used by the BBC and Irish Times amongst others.

Haven't the time to go find the links myself; just a quick note to avoid deletion of an article on such a notable term.

zoney ♣ talk 14:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, here's some starting points:

'Big rise' in NI kidnap robberies, BBC News Online, 7 Nov 2006.
Dublin family escape after botched tiger kidnapping, Irish Times (via Eircom.net), 9 Nov 2006.

There have been more than one incident in a single week on a couple of occasions over the last number of months; definitely a notable rise.

zoney ♣ talk 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible sources[edit]

Here's what I found with a quick Google on the subject:

http://www.crg.com/pdf/tiger_kidnap_report_LR.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7154374.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article1265444.ece

http://www.goreyguardian.ie/breaking-news/national-news/psni-arrests-3-over-tiger-kidnapping-and-robbery-1474237.html

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=82193

I only scanned quickly but they might help establish notability.--otherlleft (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres more, details are sketchy atm but the term is obviously gaining recognition - http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhididqlauau/ 86.40.189.61 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dictdef[edit]

As it stands, this page is just a dictionary definition. The uncited and weaselly descriptions should be deleted, since they've been unsubstantiated for about six months. The existing reference goes to verifiability of the definition, not any demonstration of the term's notability, nor does it demonstrate that the article can be anything more than a dictdef stub. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert at this time to avoid an edit war, but please review the deletion debate and WP:DEADLINE as well as the links on this talk page that will be used to establish notability. Just because the article is currently a stub in no way suggests that it is merely a dictionary definition.--otherlleft (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All we have is what the article says. The references that were recently added simply show the term being used--they don't help show that this is more than a dictionary definition article, nor do they establish notability. The recent edits actually reinforce the status of the article as dictdef because they refer to the term, not the practice the term identifies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you nominated this article for deletion based upon that premise, and I argued to keep it, I'm going to ask an admin that was not involved in the discussion to weigh in. In the meantime I will remove the template.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to have a look. Holding hostages to force someone to withdraw money from a cash machine, and similar crimes, is not something unique to the British Isles. very quick check at GNews found "Three people accused of forcing a Southern Maryland bank manager to take money from the PNC where she worked while they held her 18-month-old son hostage ..." & probably af ew hundred others in the archive. etc. The stalking that leads to the name would seem pat of a great many crimes. the name itself seems to be British Isles only. I'd leave the article here in the hope of further expansion -- if it talks at all about any particular crimes it doesn't belong in Wiktionary & that would be a way of distinguishing DGG (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the practice of holding hostages is a world-wide phenomenon. But I can't figure out what the wide-spread application of this modus operandi has to do with this article not being a dict-def. You should be basing your decision on what you've found in the article itself, not what you've found on some other website, right? Precisely how long should we leave this inappropriate article up in the hopes that it suddenly becomes appropriate? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, basing the notability of an topic upon the current state of its article is bad practice. Wikipedia has no deadline, and since the recent AfD found a consensus to keep the article, that's the best option. One anonymous editor did suggest removing it as you've proposed, but as you can see from the discussion, the idea was rejected. Give this article time to develop.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence doesn't make sense[edit]

Read this sentence: "Although the first recorded tiger kidnapping occurred in 1972, the term is believed to date back to the 1980s and gained more widespread use in the 1990s". Now read it again. Does it make sense? manadude2 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty clear but I've tweaked the phrasing to stop ambiguity. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have got rid of the "Athough" as it still didn't make sense, it sounds better now. manadude2 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That interrupted the sentence flow. I've done various reorganising and rephrasing to bring structure to the article: I've never seen such a small stub be so awkwardly organised before! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the original sentence? The crime is one thing, the term for it is another. If Julius Caesar was in fact born by Caesarian section, certainly no one said, "let's do a Caesarian section" when he was born. 72.229.42.246 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification required[edit]

I assume, after reading the whole article, that the distinction between a "tiger kidnapping" and an ordinary one is that a person connected to the abducted person is coerced into committing a crime. That needs to be made explicit in the opening paragraph; this isn't clear enough: "A person of importance to the victim is held hostage as collateral until the victim has met the criminal's demands." That description surely applies to all kidnappings, not just the "tiger" variety. If the idea is that the "demands" involve the commission of a crime, that needs to be made explicit. (It wasn't until I saw the reference to the movie Firewall that this became obvious to me.) Also, "victim" is usually used primarily to refer to the person who is kidnapped. Perhaps "target" would be a better term for the person being coerced, since there are other victims (and in the case of a murder scheme, the primary victim may have no connection at all to the target of extortion or to the kidnap victim.) 72.229.42.246 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]