Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:45, 13 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ariel Castro kidnappings 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ariel Castro kidnappings 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cleveland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.ClevelandWikipedia:WikiProject ClevelandTemplate:WikiProject ClevelandCleveland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑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 Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 7, 2013. The result of the discussion was Snow keep.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ariel Castro kidnappings. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ariel Castro kidnappings at the Reference desk.

Locations

The article refers to Lorain Ave, W 116th and W 110th streets, please refer to a map to see that no Lorain Ave exists near those streets.

Look at this map and please explain again since Lorain seems to intersect all the Streets. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong words - immigrants and emigrated

"Ariel Castro, 52 years old at the time of his arrest, is the son of Puerto Rican immigrants; his father, Pedro Castro, emigrated to the continental United States in 1954, first living in Pennsylvania and then moving to Cleveland. His mother, Lillian Rodriguez, lives nearby in Cleveland."

Immigrant is not the right word here, as Puertoricans have been bona fide US citizens for almost 100 years now. They emigrate when they move to a country other than the United States.

Suggestion: "... son of Pedro Castro, who moved to the U.S. mainland from Yauco, Puerto Rico to Pensilvannia and then settled in Cleveland, Ohio."

Why do this? Because I have already heard too many morons dragging in Obama's immigration policy, and it clearly doesn't apply to US citizens. I mean, do Hawaiians also immigrate? --Rivera151 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to move. You don't emegrate/immigrate from one part of a country to another. Ya I know PR is a territory, but it is a US possession with US citizens.

Title

Surely there must be a better title than "2013 Ohio missing trio"?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Something like "Offender's Name" or "Cleveland captive girls case" perhaps? Paris1127 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above anon. How about " kidnappings"? (but should wait until the suspect(s) have been officially charged before going that route). Kilopi (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is how another high profile case was handled: https://en.wikipedia.org/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping emphasizing the victims name in the title. However, in this case we have three unrelated victims so the title gets pretty long. Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I advise waiting before changing the name. It often happens that some of the early details about breaking news are incomplete or just plain wrong. In a few days it will be easier to arrive at a good title. In the meantime, we have redirects to this page from Amanda Berry, Ariel Castro, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight, so finding the page should not be a problem.

If anyone has a reliable source for the other two arrests or middle names of any of the above individuals, I will be happy to create redirects so that anyone searching on those phrases finds this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The current name is descriptive and works. The title should reflect what the press call the case, and when I was looking last night there did not seem to be anything specific. I would suggest using the suspects surnames (as they are brothers) but we would immediately hit a BLP issue.Martin451 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of the discovery date seems rather incorrect, though. Perhaps something like "2000s Cleveland abductions", since they were all abducted then. (Or "disappearances" if the sources don't fully back up abductions/kidnappings for now; I haven't read much on this.) Still a little awkward, but it's more relevant that they went missing in the early 2000s, not that they were found in 2013. ("Cleveland captive girls case" as suggested above seems decent as well; no date is really needed at all, given it spanned many years. Though, "women", since one was 20 when abducted and they were all adults by 2013.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, a good title would be ""2000s Cleveland abductions"". --Meluuu (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of "girls" would be inappropriate, given the age of Knight - and perhaps even Berry - at the time of their disappearance. One option is to simply used "Kidnappings of..." or "Disappearances of..." and then the full names. Or how about "Tremont, Cleveland, Ohio kidnappings"? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Using their full names seems excessively long, but makes sense: "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight". I don't think we can describe these all as "kidnappings" yet, since it seems at least one may have initially gone with the men (many sources still just saying things like "went missing"), even if the long-term captivity was obviously against their wills. So using "captive" may be better, since them being held captive for so long seems to be the most notable element (and the captive part is definitely agreed upon by sources), not just that they disappeared; thus "Cleveland captive women case", modified as we both noted to use "women". I don't think we need to mention the neighborhood or state in the title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have a slightly different take on this. Even if they willingly went with the perpetrator initially, once they started to be held against their will it becomes a kidnapping, regardless of how long they are held captive. If the girls/women's names go in the title than they should be in order of disappearance, as the article now lists them.Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above suggestion of title "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight". Until charges are filed or police release a statement confirming the victims were held against their will, the article title should reflect the case file which were 3 missing persons cases (suspected of being related). I really don't like the idea of using the date they were rescued in the title. Mrjack900 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is best to wait a week instead of trying to figure out the best name for a fast-breaking event. Imagine that we did as suggested above and renamed it "Cleveland captive girls case", only to find that there are six more captives in Dayton. Or that (insert your favorite politician) was involved. Or that it was all a publicity stunt. Or the first indication of what later turns out to be a huge multi-state serial killer case. Just wait. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The current title is more out-of-whack than an interim title should be, in my opinion, or I'd agree with that. (Particularly calling them a "2013 missing trio", when they are women who disappeared a decade ago and were found in 2013.) Nothing wrong with discussing the title; nobody's (currently) move-warring over it or anything... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the strong consensus I am seeing for a better title, I withdraw my objection. It isn't the end of the world if we retitle it twice. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a good title in mind yet, want to see how things develop today. I do OPPOSE minor changes to the title like punctuation right now because it just is annoying. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find myself agreeing with both perspectives, that a better name will probably come from the press soon enough, but that our current page name is awful, clumsy, and inaccurate. As such I would support the idea of using the women's names in full for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, per Mrjack900's reasoning for just reflecting "missing persons", so I withdraw my suggestion of "captive women case". The question then is, alphabetize, or list in order of disappearance as LegacyPac suggests? They're alphabetized in the lead, so I think alphabetizing in the title makes sense; putting them in the order of disappearance makes it unclear as to why they aren't alphabetized, and doesn't really add anything. So, Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight. (And "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, reappearance of three missing women" is just...horrific, though more accurate than the old title!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I moved it back while we discuss and have move-protected the page so that doesn't happen again. As soon as we have a consensus here any admin can move it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, lame title from the start, but I know it's tough to find one everyone likes and is eye appealing. And now 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio? Enough commas? Can a sub title with the women's name's be used? Something like Missing Women Found 2013 Cleveland, Ohio and then under that their names? Kennvido (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Trio Kidnapping. They are definitely not missing. Doh. Chaan (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping is only alleged at this point. Until the crime is proven, the word "kidnapping" can't be used in the title. --Crunch (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Castro case is clear and concise and consistent with other cases of this nature on Misplaced Pages. I strongly believe this article should be moved to an "Ariel Castro case" page.Alligatorwine (talk) 4:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The press is referring to this story as the "Ariel Castro case." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligatorwine(talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As odd as it seems, BLP protects the alleged perpetrator even more than the victims here. We cannot mention his name without mentioning that he is only a suspect, which doesn't fit into a title (it'd have to be "Case of kidnappings allegedly perpetrated by Ariel Castro" or something, which doesn't really work and would probably still be a BLP violation.) That might be a good title if he is convicted.– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspect sketch from 2004 = Arial Castro?

I don't have the photo uploading skills but if look at the police sketch from 2004 in relation to Gina here (bottom of the page)or bigger here and a photo of the suspect today the similarities are remarkable, especially when you add 9 years of age. The 2004 sketch should be added here as well as the suspect photo - ideally side by side. The sketch is FBI produced so is not copyrighted. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded to the commons. Martin451 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless we have good sources saying there is such a similarity, we can't really say there is one. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. I'm trying to insert the sketch beside the related written description as it was part of the early investigation, released 6 days after the abduction and continued to be used on wanted posters. I'm sure the media will make comparisons in time, we don't need to put OR in the article. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nor should we rush into making changes to the article when we are in the process of discussing whether to make the changes here on the article talk page. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk)

Huh??? This discussion is about getting help inserting a 2004 FBI sketch that is 100% related to the article. That problem is all solved thanks to several other editors who pitched in. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can an experienced user put the suspect's picture from here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/09/ariel-castro-charged-kidnap-rape-cleveland) side-by-side with the 2004 FBI sketch. The pictures are strikingly similar. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.22.77 (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/07/chilling-details-emerge-from-cleveland-of-more-women-held-captive-and-up-to-five-other-pregnancies/
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320564/Ariel-Castro-pictured-Suspect-Amanda-Berry-Gina-DeJesus-Michelle-Knight-kidnap-arrested--BROTHERS.html

Proposed move to "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight"

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.

• WP:BOLDly closed, only one move discussion can be processed at a time for a single article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight – The current title implies these women went missing in 2013, which is not the case, and the "trio" wording is awkward. Without the suspects being charged or more than just media reports, we should probably avoid noting "captive" or "kidnapping" in the title for now. So let's just state that those three individuals were missing persons, which is the extend of official information so far; it's perhaps not the best long-term title, but as a placeholder until more information becomes available, it's simple and properly descriptive. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I support a move away from the current title, as the "2013" is misleading. I don't oppose the suggested alternative but I'm not sure it's the best title, there doesn't seem to be a single snappy title the news reports are using (looking at Google News results searching for "Ohio") but Ohio abductions, Ohio kidnappings, Cleveland abductions, Cleveland kidnappings, Cleveland, Ohio abductions and Cleveland, Ohio kidnappings are all used and should all redirect to this article if they aren't used for the title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not (yet) particularly concerned with the final title. I created the redirects Cleveland kidnap and Cleveland kidnapping in trying to find this article and support making more redirects. Is it WP:BOLD to make those redlink redirects Thryduulf suggests, or is it just going to make it a pain for a future page move (because a deletion would be required)? -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made the redirects above. As they redirect here and have no other edit history this article can (I believe) be moved over them by any editor. If for any reason they can't (e.g. multiple moves causing edit history) then any administrator can delete the redirect page to make way (seen {{db-move}}). Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the current title is incorrect and clumsy. What about three missing in O-hi-o...? Lugnuts 18:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sold on this title. The story is way bigger than the Disappearances - they were found/escaped after all. It is a Kidnapping. Maybe "Kidnapping of Michele Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina DeJesus" but than again there is still:

• a missing girl from the neighborhood,
• a possibly connected unsolved rape (old connection, not today)
• a young child found in the house belonging to Amanda
• maybe 5 (or more) additional births in the house

The proposed title vic list already excludes the 6-year-old and 5 other children. Unless you want to argue that kids are just a consequence of the kidnapping, which they are, but they are still vics in their own right.

Maybe Cleveland Multiple Kidnappings'??? Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear if these were all initially kidnappings/abductions (one family states one of the victims may have run away)...even though they were obviously held captive, thus suggesting not using those in the title yet. It is not necessarily a kidnapping from what we know, but is a false imprisonment situation. But "2000s Cleveland false imprisonments" obviously isn't great either. (And again, it's probably best to wait for official confirmation of the situation.) I don't think we're going to come up with a snappy title that encapsulates the whole kidnapped/missing women/held captive/later freed situation, thus just mentioning they disappeared and addressing the rest in the article. I agree, it's not that great...but consider it a placeholder until we have more detailed information. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We could also try a more encompassing title as well. Maybe "Ariel Castro kidnappings" or "Castro kidnappings" since all the victims were kidnapped and held by the same perpetrator(s)? Unless we wait for the official filing of charges and what not. Rickrollerz (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac makes an excellent point about how this is about more than the kidnapping/captivity. How about Disappearance and rescue of Cleveland women or Disappearance and rescue of Michele Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina DeJesus? - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I think we would have to wait for a conviction to consider that, not even just charges being filed. There's no way we can reasonably put the suspect's name in the title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 3:04 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I would support Disappearance and rescue of Michele Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina DeJesus, though it's a little wordy (I don't really care if it's alphabetized or in chronological order myself); just "Cleveland women" is a little too vague. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Try Google searching "Cleveland Kidnappings". No question that term is related to this case by RS. I suggest adding the word Multiple because, obviously, there are other kidnappings in the city, but very few if any multiple kidnappings. It also gets away from naming some but not all the victims problem. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

FBI (still) believe Summers abductor same man. ... Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move at this point until story has matured and name like "Cleveland Kidnappings" (or whatever) is settled on by the media over the next week or so. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  I considered making an argument of "wait for the media" myself. I didn't, because...we are the media! It's a fair bet that if Misplaced Pages settles early on a particular nomenclature, it will have a significant effect on coverage. -- stillnotelf is invisible 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Alternate suggestion since this isn't getting much traction. Just remove 2013 for now: "Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio", since they didn't disappear in 2013. It's still not great, but as a temporary name it's at least accurate, and a minimal change. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be a good temporary location. I'm happy for it to be moved there if there without prejudice to a final decision if there are no objections. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that "2013" is an unneeded qualifier, unless there was some other notable event in Cleveland's past where three abducted women suddenly re-appeared. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a move to "Disappearance and rescue of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight." That seems like a descriptive, if not snappy, title for the article. In time a snappier common name for the case may emerge from mainstream media coverage. Edison (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio" is so wrong on so many levels:

--2013 the events happened from 2002-2013 (not just 2013) in Cleveland, --we don't need to say Ohio as Cleveland is well known without the state --they are not missing, they are found. Also the child was never missing. --not a trio as there were at least 4 victims 3 woman+child(ren) preceeding comment by Legacypac

• I think there is consensus to remove the year from the current title, if nothing else, it was very silly to put it there.Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support a move to "Disappearance and rescue of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight" it is a bit cumbersome, but is descriptive and would work with the article. I suspect that other details will come up, however this title covers why this is notable, three young adults missing for a decade. Unless more victims are found alive, then there will be little reason to change this. It does not cover the name of Amanda's daughter, but that should be kept out of the article.Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Almost any change that gets the current title "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio" done gone. Sgerbic (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposed title or the (and rescue) variant. I don't care for either 2013 (ignores the decade of captivity between missing and yesterday) or trio (they weren't taken as a trio, and their numbers grew as they were impregnated and gave birth). Kilopi (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest either Cleveland kidnappings which already exists, or Seymour Avenue kidnappings. Mentioning some of the victims definitely violates WP:CRIME and WP:VICTIM. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and alternate suggestion. I like the proposed title, except for the word "Disappearances", which is too vague. Misplaced Pages strongly encourages specificity over generalizations. Therefore, I suggest Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight or Kidnappings of three Cleveland females. (If the location is used in the title, "Ohio" is unnecessary as Cleveland is a major metropolitan city. Also, "females" instead of "girls" or "women" is necessary because two of the three were teens when they were kidnapped and became adults while in captivity.) For the record, the one woman's name, per WP:COMMONNAME, is definitely Gina, not Georgina. Georgina is simply her birth name. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I honestly don't understand why there's such a big debate about the article title. The article about Elizabeth Smart is simply Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. And the one for Jaycee Lee Dugard is simply Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. So why not just title this article Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight? It's standard protocol and has clear precedence. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Section break and suggestion

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.

• WP:BOLDly closed, only one move discussion can be processed at a time for a single article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Berry – DeJesus – Knight confinements – There is another problem with the suggested title. "Disappearance", as suggested above, is defined as vanish; cease. But they are no longer "vanished" and haven't "ceased". "2013" is wrong as explained. "Missing" is wrong because they aren't. "Trio" is also wrong as explained above. I suggest "confinement" as the article's infobox uses this. The notability rests on their having been confined. They never really "disappeared" as such, they were still there somewhere but hidden, from their own perspectives they always existed. This is also more concise and gets the article subject's message across. 86.40.200.148 (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Confinements" sounds like it refers to the period when they were in labor during pregnancy. Lets avoid titter-inducing titles. Edison (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• 'Oppose agree with Edison on confinements. Cleveland Kidnappings it too generic (there must be other kidnappings. I now favor Cleveland Multiple Kidnapping since we have a serial/multiple kidnapper situation which is pretty unusual. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sources aren't prominently using the term "confinement" at all prominently so it fails WP:COMMONNAME - while we don't know yet what is it is not showing any indications of being "confinement". "2013" is certainly in error, but "trio" isn't necessarily - if we use "rescued" or something like that it would be, but it would be correct if "kidnappings" (or something similar) is the title. At the moment they are just alleged kidnappings as no charges have been brought (expected tomorrow according to at least one of the CNN referencesP, and it might not technically be kidnappings that the suspect is charged with (I have no idea what Ohio law says) so I'd hold of moving it to title like that until there is official word. Thryduulf (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Use of dashes is odd, and converting to commas wouldn't be much better; to be consistent with other titles we should have the full names, or no names. "Confinements" is kind of weird; if we're going to describe the captivity in a generic manner, "false imprisonment" is the most logical wording, yet also reads oddly. As for "Cleveland Multiple Kidnapping", there is no reason to use "multiple". If we are describing multiple kidnappings, we would simple pluralize it as such: "Cleveland kidnappings". But I'm still not convinced we should describe these as kidnappings just yet per reasoning given in the previous section; wait for official sources to be available. I think we have reasonable consensus that "2013" should go, so perhaps an admin could remove that bit for now since the page is move-protected. Agree "trio" is kind of weird and not great, but not technically incorrect (so it's acceptable for a temporary title, and we have no consensus on what to replace it with.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Wow, that's awful. Sorry. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Cleveland Kidnappings, while plural, does not suggest an event (or series of related events), rather it suggests a list of kidnappings in Cleveland generically to me. We need to differentiate - by date, names, or a word like "multiple" Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think something like "2000s Cleveland kidnappings" or "Cleveland kidnappings case/incident" makes more sense. "Cleveland multiple kidnappings" also does not suggest a series of related events to me. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's try again: "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight"

It has been proposed in this section that Ariel Castro kidnappings be renamed and moved to Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ariel Castro kidnappings. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ariel Castro kidnappings at the Reference desk.

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight – Per , the suspect has now been charged with four kidnappings. I think it's now reasonable to use kidnappings, since they are officially described as such; my objection before was that "kidnappings" was not yet a certainty. Articles like Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Kidnapping of Colleen Stan use this format to cover long-term captivity situations like this. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support principle but I think it should be "Gina DeJesus" and "Michelle Knight" per elsewhere on this talk page. If this title is chosen we should have redirects from the names in other orders. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, and I was one of the people who helped fix the spelling of "Michelle Knight" last night. "Gina DeJesus" appears to be used far more widely than "Georgina" as well, so since we have almost no other input yet, I'm retitling this section accordingly. (Edit: I originally proposed "Georgina DeJesus" and used the "Michele" misspelling if this is unclear to anyone reading it later.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This now has my full support. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of whomever closes this discussion, I support both this proposal and the alternative proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support - Let's get this done. ;) The article about Elizabeth Smart is simply Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. And the one for Jaycee Lee Dugard is simply Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. So the title of this article should be Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight. It's standard protocol and has clear precedence. Btw, Gina is without question her common name; Georgina is merely her birth name. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There are two separate articles about Smart: Elizabeth Smart article and the "kidnapping" article. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support for this is irrelevant. The title violates WP:BLP policy, in that it asserts as fact that a kidnapping took place. Unless and until someone is convicted of kidnapping, we cannot state that it did. This policy isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Kidnapping" is not necessarily being used to refer to the initial disappearances, but to the incident/captivity in general (and we should be mindful of that in the article.) One of the charges was for the six-year-old, who obviously wasn't abducted; so though the women were not necessarily all initially abducted (e.g., it's still unclear if one ran away initially), they were still "kidnapped" and reasonably described as such in the title. You cannot charge someone with kidnapping without having victims who were kidnapped, whether or not a conviction results. We're not stating that the suspect is anything more than just that, a suspect in the kidnappings that he has been charged with. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, as everyone one has explained to you in the thread below, it is an undisputed fact that the three females were kidnapped. The only part not legally determined is if Castro will be convicted. So, yes, it's a kidnapping. Yes, Castro is the suspect. And, no, Castro has not been convicted. By your logic, we should never title an article with the word "murder" until someone has been convicted of the murder. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The proposed title violates WP:BLP policy, which is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, as has been repeatedly explained, this does not violate BLP. The title simply states that kidnappings happened, which is what the reliable sources says happened. I shall request input at the BLP board. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have a view at the moment on the move. But as far as whether BLP is "open for negotiation," nobody asserted BLP was being negotiated. It is, however, being interpreted and applied. And BLP is always open for discussion and interpretation.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• At this stage anyone alleging that kidnapping was not involved is liable to be breaching BLP, and BLP is not open to negotiation. ϢereSpielChequers 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Andy is right. People have faked their disappearances and kidnappings in the past. I don't know if that's the case here. Nor does anybody else except those directly involved, and their stories need to be tested in court. Despite its behaviour, the media certainly doesn't know, nor do any editors here, and the police are still investigating. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 might be the only person in the world who does not know these three were kidnapped. I guess it's possible they walked away in three different years, found each other, tied themselves up, locked all the doors, experienced immaculate conception and paid rent to Castro so they could stay there... There may be a spot on the defense team if you can provide some evidence of that chain of events. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you completely misrepresent me. Why? Is what I write too complex for you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The police are not investigating whether this was a kidnapping incident; they know it was a kidnapping. Every reliable source says that. WereSpielChequers is an extremely experienced editor and admin. Please read what he said just above. The proposed title is perfect. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The RSs report that kidnappings took place. We report it. That is simply an element of saying that any one person committed a kidnapping -- it is not an assertion that they are guilty of kidnapping. Same as with the Boston Bombing -- the opposite way of thinking would suggest that we cannot call it a bombing until there is a conviction. Because maybe it will turn out to be a water main break, or some such. That's obviously absurd. We follow the RSs. If it does turn out to be a water main break, and is reported as such in the RSs, we will also reflect that at that point.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Andy is wrong on this. His interpretation of BLP does not trump everyone else's, unless he has been named by some appropriate authority as "The Decider of BLP." If reliable news services are calling it kidnapping, and if someone is charged with kidnapping, then we should call it kidnapping, and BLP is satisfied. We still use the terms like "the alleged kidnapper" or "the accused rapist" when there has been no conviction. Arrogance and bluster is not a substitute for (added 4 words)Let's all work toward consensus.. Edison (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Accusing others of arrogance and bluster is not the way we discuss things here. Resorting to that suggests that you don't think your case is otherwise strong enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but when one editor repeatedly implies that only his opinion matters, and only he is able to interpret a policy as it applies to an article, that is arrogance (added 1 word)undesirable. You or he can raise the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons of whether the name of a crime can be used in the article about the incident when there has not yet been a conviction. That is preferable to continued asserting here that one's opinion is correct when the consensus here is otherwise. Edison (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME the majority of sources are calling this a kidnapping and thus so we should follow suit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Much better than the current title. While we may not be able to draw a conclusion as to who kidnapped them per WP:BLP (at least until Castro is convicted), the fact that they were kidnapped is not contentious, and saying as much in the title raises no BLP concerns. Evanh2008  23:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Changed to oppose in favor of alternative proposal (see below). Evanh2008  13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support Using Andy's logic we need to be renaming to something else because until there is a bombing conviction there was no bombing and no Boston Marathon so maybe a blank title. Also, you don't need to take someone off the street to kidnap. Kidnapping is the taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. When the child was retrained in the house or taken away from the mother, kidnapping occurred. The only part of the proposed title 'Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight' I don't like is that it ignores the kidnapping of the child, but I can live with that. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy, your concern about the child not being alluded to in the title is understandable, considering the fact that the police said the charges will include four counts of kidnapping. However, Jaycee Lee Dugard's kidnapping is a comparable example; she gave birth twice while in captivity, yet the children of course are not included in the title, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. That's the consensus that was reached for that article. So if that's your only concern about the proposed title, I would encourage you to !vote your support for it because I don't see that you've registered any !vote yet. It's time to get rid of the current, awful title and replace it with a standard, logical one like the one being proposed. It will match the titles of other similar articles, like Dugard and Elizabeth Smart. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Followup: Yes I updated my post to reflect my strong support. The exclusion of the minor was an observation, not intended as a vote against this title that NEEDS to be fixed NOW. Legacypac (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Boston is rather disingenuous. There is a difference between factual evidence of a bombing, and a legal verdict that a disappearance was in fact a kidnapping. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? Boston could have been gas explosions (it was not). You can find lots of people claiming the government did it (they didn't). The mother says its not real (it is). None of these question marks exist around this story. A verdict against Castro of Kidnapping has not occurred-that is why we label him a suspect, but easily verified facts say that there was a kidnapping of these three women. To suggest anything else goes against the facts. Therefore Kidnappings of is an excellent title. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Per the above supports, and supporting comments, and my comments above. Better to fix sooner rather than later.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:BLP and obvious ethical conduct. These three women have been horrifically victimized for years, and the last thing we should be doing is using their names in the title so that the victimization can continue on via this encyclopedia. The women's names may be very well known and on everybody's lips now, but the specifics will get forgotten quickly and people will remember that there were kidnappings in Cleveland. It won't be the most used title for long. Maybe the women will write books and seek publicity for themselves, but until they do that or something similar including their names would be wrong. They may be like those in the Fritzl case who withdraw and never speak publicly about the matter. Please think about the people involved here who will have to go on for the rest of their lives. Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I can argue WP:NOTCENSORED here, the names are being floated about in reliable sources. The fact is too we don't know what will or will not happen, the sources may very well switch to using "kidnappings in Cleveland" but for now it is per WP:COMMONNAME - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and in particular WP:AVOIDVICTIM trumps WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COMMONNAME every single time. So does common decency. Please put yourselves in the shoes of these victims a few years from now. Slp1 (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The BLP issue is being discussed elsewhere here I was addressing the names being used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The name issue is the major BLP issue. Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, we cannot censor names in highly notable crimes like this. Did you express the same thoughts about Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? Smart was in captivity for nine months; these females were gone for a decade. Yes, they were both horrific crimes, but their signicant notability, which is not temporary, necessitates putting their names in the title. That's why the title of Smart's article isn't Utah girl kidnapping. This was discussed in great length when the Smart and Dugard articles were being developed. So, contrary to your request to "put yourselves in the shoes of these victims a few years from now", we must actually be careful as editors of an encylopedia not to do that. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use the "censor" argument: it is really overused and entirely inappropriate here. I would express the same thoughts about the Jaycee Lee and Elizabeth Smart pages, except that they have done exactly what I said would flip the issue for me- they have written books on the subject. Until we now what their reaction is going to be the closest and most BLP compliant article to consider is the Fritzl case case mentioned above.--Slp1 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use the censor argument? Why? Because you disagree with it? Haha. Regarding your Dugard and Smart argument... wow, are you serious? Uh, they did not write books until long after their articles were created here. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If I edited those articles before they wrote their books, I would have opposed the titles there too. But I didn't and now they have. The argument just doesn't hold. Slp1 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Slp, that's a bit of the issue now, isn't it. Your view, as others are pointing out, is at direct odds with consensus at the project on this point. We do, of course, give weight to the consensus opinion. More than to Slp's personal view. Though we are indeed happy to hear your view. The fact that your view is, as you yourself point out, at odds with the consensus view on wikipedia on this point is interesting. But I for one in choosing between wikipedia's consensus view ... vs. the non-consensus view of Slp ... lean somewhat to following consensus. Certainly, you can see in this string that your view is very much not one supported by consensus of the dozen editors in this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the other arguments supplied above, it is overwhelmingly our typical general consensus in dozens and dozens of articles on kidnapped children in the U.S. to reflect names in these circumstances, as well as many more articles of kidnapped people of all ages world-wide (and yes -- we can refer to other things that exist when it is not the sole reason given). That's how, by consensus at the project, we address this issue.Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

See below. These were not just kidnap victims, were they? Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also by far the bulk of these articles in that category were either murdered or never found or are now dead: not the same situations at all, and can't be used to claim a consensus either. Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked below. I find nothing convincing in what you said, do not read blp as you say you do, and -- as far as these articles are concerned -- clearly the overwhelming majority of them where the people were found alive or are considered alive have titles that reflect their name ... I see nothing in our practices to support your reading as to what is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Epeefleche, my past experience with you shows that it is your reading of policy that has often been found to be mistaken. . So you'll forgive me if I take your comments with a massive pinch of salt. And remember that consensus doesn't trump BLP either. Slp1 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, knock it off. Totally inappropriate. Comment about the proposal, not the editor. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for not engaging in ad hominem snipey discourse with you, despite your ad hominem attack ... that bore zero relation to the issue at hand, and I have trouble seeing as other than inappropriate biting uncivil behavior in contravention of both wp:civil and wp:admin (I will, however, warn you politely to not do it again). As you can see in the articles, your interpretation of BLP here is at odds with practice at the Project. If you don't like it, change the guideline, and then change all of those articles that I unearthed for you. But don't dismiss the evidence showing that your views are non-consensus interpretations here with unrelated ad hominem attacks on editors. Also, as always, please understand that the consensus interpretation of BLP is what determines the application of BLP ... not a non-consensus minority view. And, of course, on this page, on this subject, at this point in time, your view is not the consensus view of the interpretation of BLP as applied to this subject -- just as it is at odds with the titles of all of those articles to which I pointed you.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at all the articles in the US category: 32 are dead, 12 are still missing, 11 are redirects, 8 are victims who went public (books etc), 1 was a parental abduction, and in 1 the children's names are not mentioned anywhere in the article. In only one is a victim named who did not seek apparently publicity after the fact. So as I said previously, your evidence does nothing to support that there is any sort of consensus on the use of the names in the title in this situation. You might also want to check the meaning of ad hominem. Your erroneous interpretations of policy and guidelines and their effects of this encyclopedia are well-documented: if you avoid lecturing me on policy and giving me bogus warnings, then I will avoid pointing out the multiple situations where you did this before and turned out to be quite, quite wrong.Slp1 (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp, if you feel so strongly about the title, I would encourage you to create a thread with your proposed title and ask for comments there. I'm not dropping my support for the above proposal, but I would consider switching on the strength of your argument here if there were a formalised section for discussing your proposal. Evanh2008  12:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.good idea. See below Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp -- this is just an example of you, with consensus overwhelmingly against you in the discussion with regard to an understanding of the application of policy, striking out at an editor, seeking to change the subject to the editor rather than the issue at hand. In a bitey, uncivil, inappropriate manner. That fails to meet the requirements of wp:admin. And wp:civil. Please desist. Focus on the issue at hand. The editors on this page overwhelmingly disagree with you here. If you can convince us to change our minds, please do so. But please don't resort to attacking editors with regard to completely unrelated matters. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You say "our typical general consensus in dozens and dozens of articles on kidnapped children in the U.S. to reflect names in these circumstances" , I point out- with evidence - that your claim is entirely false, and your response is say that I am not talking about the subject at hand and issue more bogus warnings. That is the subject at hand, for God's sake. Incredible. Luckily, I think most editors are smart enough to see through the bluster and obfuscation. Just stop it. Slp1 (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, you are the one who needs to "just stop it". Your personal attack on Epeefleche above was outrageous. Linking to his block log? Seriously? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to the point. Here, and as has happened in the past, Epeefleche's claims have turned out to be false. As usual, his reaction is to attack the messenger. But people aren't fooled in the longterm. That's my last on this topic here. --Slp1 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, stop it already. Again I'm going to warn you not to make personal attacks against editors. If you have a problem with Epeefleche, take it to his talk page or your own. Or better yet, if you feel he's crossed some line, report it. But this is not the place for it. Comment on the move proposal, not other editors. Linking to his block log was extremely inappropriate. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Two of these names especially have been in national media regularly for a decade. We are not going to remove their names from Misplaced Pages, so how is using their names in the title going to victimize therm more? Frankly I hope they do write books and become multi-millionaires as they deserve anything they can get for their experience. I much prefer using the victim names as a way of honoring them over the suspect's name in the title. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The title will make it go even higher or a google search, and of course it will be copied and mirrored. You may be right that they may choose to go public after their release but until they do, it isn't up to us to decide. Remember that rape victims and child abuse victims are never named in the press (or on Misplaced Pages for that matter) for very obvious reasons. These women are both, with an added dose of kidnapping - the latter for some reason seems to mean that the media seems to disregard the guidelines they usually observe. But that doesn't mean we have to make it even worse. Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is different because in a kidnapping case the family often works hard to get the victim's name, image, and other details spread far and wide. Do you want to remove their names from the article too? If so-you must be joking, if not, the title is not going to hurt anyone. Beating a dead horse is not going to work here. I see wide consensus for the proposed article name. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup you are right. Families of kidnap victims do precisely that, for obvious reasons. It makes it very difficult to put the cat back in the bag for sure, but we can and are discreet at times, thank goodness. The actual bio article on Shawn Hornbeck, who had a very similar experience to these women and whose disappearace was also widely publicized, was deleted for BLP reasons by one of our current Arbitrators. But I am not suggesting that, nor am I suggesting removing the names from the article. There is just no good reason for this title and lots of good ethical and moral reasons why not to have the names in the title. Slp1 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to be a bit leery of including things like victims' names myself, particularly in things like titles...but as others have said, they were missing for a decade, and the names became widely publicized during that time. The whole thing is obviously horrid for the victims, but we need to be neutral and treat this in as an encyclopedic a fashion as possible. I don't think it's a matter of censorship as much as picking the best title that respects BLP...and since the names are basically in every single article on this topic, I do not think BLP is adequate grounds to not use their names. If it was, we wouldn't really be able to use the names in the article itself, and I can't see that being a reasonable argument. Would it be nice if we could excise their names from the Internet and media, and help them go on living their lives without being known primarily for these events? Yeah, it would, but that's not the job of an encyclopedia, nor is it feasible. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points, but actually I don't think it has anything to do with neutrality. It is a question of non-notable people who became notable for one horrid thing in their lives, which is clearly covered by BLP. I think it should be relatively easy to find a title that is BLP compliant and also descriptive. What about 2013 Cleveland kidnappings or Cleveland kidnappings (2013)? Cleveland is mentioned in pretty much every article too, and in fact is, as far as I can see, is the most common mention in headlines see . Relatively few of them are mentioning the women's names in the title.Slp1 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The kidnappings did not occur in 2013. Along those lines, the closest I can think of would be something like "2000s–2013 Cleveland kidnappings and false imprisonment" or "2002–2013 Cleveland captive women case", which just aren't good titles, being awkward and overly vague. Really, I haven't seen any good descriptive title proposed that doesn't mention the names; if such a title could be devised, I'd probably support it myself over using the victims' names. But there doesn't seem to be anything better than the victims' names, or possibly the perpetrator's name (but obviously only if he's convicted, so not applicable now.) As insensitive as it sounds, I suppose the women involved can also change their names, if they wish to disappear from the public eye: so we can think of the names as descriptors, particularly since they don't have any other notable history that's marred by the use of those names. News articles from Google hits are written in a news style, not an encyclopedic style, and suffer from recentism if just turned into titles here; we can't use a title like "Women kidnapped in Cleveland rescued" as the media might; it would have to be "Women kidnapped in the 2000s and rescued in Cleveland in 2013". – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1... Nothing personal, but your suggested title is as bad and confusing as the current one. We have a proposal on the table. The proposed title is excellent and aligns perfectly with Elizabeth Smart kidnapping and Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Those two article titles were discussed thoroughly. We fully understand your views about this proposal, so why don't we just wait and see how other editors !vote. The one who screams the loudest isn't going to win. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How about moving it to Cleveland kidnappings then? I agree that the current one is rubbish but we need to find the best title, not just have people support this one because they don't like the current one (see the vote below, for example). Suggesting other options may help us get consensus about a BLP compliant title. BTW, as I have pointed out, at this point the Dugard and Smart articles are not ones that this article should be aligned with. Slp1 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The current title is terrible, it's not formated right and may be difficult for people to actually find. I was surprised that this is the article that came up when I looked for this case.Fjf1085 (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Google/people has/have no trouble finding our articles no matter what we call them. Most people get to articles by clicking on links. Apteva (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many ways that people use to find Misplaced Pages articles, hence we use redirects. This discussion is about determining what the best title is for the article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support Again with adding of the year in front of some random notable event. I can't say just how dumb this is. Why do people who create these freaking articles always do this? And why do we have to continue telling people just how wrong this is? Good Grief!JOJ 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support: the clear and obvious title. The current title is pretty awful and I hope we're not stuck with it for weeks due to a few overruled objections. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support We (and by we I mean Misplaced Pages) have a tradition of naming this kind of events as $event of $subject_names. This is the right title as it has been used in most similar events. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Question for Supporters Does Misplaced Pages have other articles titled after living rape victims who are WP:BLP1Es? Some have mentioned Dugard and Smart but each has published material or sought media attention and are therefore not WP:LOWPROFILE; likewise with Natascha Kampusch. I was browsing categories and most or all articles naming victims refer to people now deceased, living people who have published works, or in one case (Kidnapping of Colleen Stan) the victim has since changed her name. Earlier in the thread the BLP issue seemed to be about protecting the accused. What about protecting the victims? (Note: I don't suggesting deleting their names from the article text, only that putting them in the title gives them perhaps unwanted prominence).Fletcher (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have other articles about living rape victims under WP:BLP1E (really WP:BLPNAME) where we even mention them by name in the body of the article, though? Take Steubenville High School rape case where we don't mention them at all (nor does the media, aside from occasional blunders.) But that is a rape incident, not a decade-long kidnapping/captivity/rape/rescue/widely publicized search/children being born/etc incident. I would say that if we're going to keep the names out of the title, then we cannot reasonably use them in the article at all. Yet, the names are prominently bolded in the lede and used repeatedly, without any BLP opposition that I've seen. The proposed title also only notes "kidnappings", nothing past that. I've already outlined my reasons above concerning the sensitivities towards these victims, but the decade-long media attention over various aspects of the incidents really skews the definition of "one event", so I question if WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPNAME even apply, due to the complexity and numerous aspects of the situation, and reflection of sources in this regard. – 2001:db8:: (rfc |&nbspdiff) 14:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

comparing this to some random high school rape case is apples and coconuts, with an emphasis on nuts. This is a widely reported long term kidnapping+rape+torture+assults+child born+worldwide news. ~Time to close this discussion and get the article title changed to one that nearly all involved editors support. Legacypac (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My comparison to the Steubenville case is only to note that, when we withhold victims' names due to a situation like a rape, we generally withhold them entirely, not just from the title. Yet I don't see anyone arguing that we shouldn't mention the names in the body as victims of rape. The two situations are of course completely different past a rape occurring, as you note (but that seems to be the rationale posed by User:Fletcher for withholding the names only from the title, which doesn't make sense to me.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fletcher, of course we have other articles with titles that include living rape victims. Jeez, we've talked about it many times. Do Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping ring a bell? And there are numerous others. Nothing personal, but your argument that Dugard and Smart don't count because "each has published material or sought media attention and are therefore not WP:LOWPROFILE" is total nonsense. That didn't happen until long after their articles were created. And for the record, WP:PROFILE is an essay, which means it's merely an opinion, not a policy or even a guideline. Further, that opinion is completely inapplicable to this move proposal. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 00:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you know that consensus can change and that WP's committment to BLP over the years has increased? Do you understand that if those articles had been created today, there would have been people (like me and others) who would have objected to including their names? Several people here have expressed concerns about including the names, in part for BLP reasons, in part because it makes the title very, very long, and in part because it doesn't seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Can you not work with others to find a compromise that we can all agree on?

Uh, why would those of us who think this proposed title is the best option want to find another one? We've heard about 10 ideas so far, including the four other proposals taking place right now, and have chosen to support this one. You need to understand that there will never be a title that "we can all agree on". That's why we have discussions and make proposals, and achieve resolution with consensus. And your comment about would would've happened with the Dugard and Smart article titles had they been created today is pure conjecture. In fact, article titles can be changed at any time through consensus, so it doesn't matter one bit when they were created. Obviously, if those titles violated BLP, they wouldn't exist. And they were chosen after thorough discussion. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, and move it sooner rather than later, there isn't some missing musical group in 2013 and the current name is terrible. The "it wasn't a kidnapping" argument verges on ludicrous - even if it turns out that something totally crazy happened in the intervening years (kidnapped by someone else? voluntary elopement? aliens?), very clearly at some point in the end they were imprisoned in the Castro household against their will, hence the pleas for help to a passerby, so. SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Do we have consensus? Or are we close to consensus? We really need to get a new title to replace the current lousy one. All of the other proposals are failing and this one appears to be heading towards approval. Let's get this title changed because the current one is making us look really bad. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The major concern seems to be whether or not including the victims' names in the title is a BLP issue or not. This was brought up on WP:BLP/N, but the only real arguments I see there against including the names are from User:Slp1 who had the same concerns here, and not including "kidnappings" at all from User:AndyTheGrump who raised that point here; this suggests that the wider community does not see a BLP issue. I would hope an uninvolved admin could indeed take a look and close this if there is indeed apparent consensus, which I personally think there is, given that the BLP concerns did not receive a wider response. (If uninvolved editors had chimed in at BLP/N, my view on this would be different.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, we now have five move proposals on the table. It appears that the other four will easily fail, while this one has a signifcant majority of reasoned support. While I appreciate the views of the few who oppose (even though I completely disagree with them), it seems we're on the verge of consensus. As 2001:db8 suggested, I hope an uninvolved admin will review what's going on with all of these proposals and guide us to a resolution. Almost everyone agrees that the current title is horrible, so please let's make a final decision. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Five proposals means that there are lots of people that don't like this first proposal. This isn't a vote and several comments simply make the argument that the current title is bad, which isn't really a reason for this title. As I said above, how about listening to the various concerns and coming up with an alternative that we can all agree on? I'm not married to Cleveland kidnappings case and would be happy to consider alternatives. That's what building consensus is all about. Slp1 (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Really, is that what it means? Sorry, but that's pure rubbish. It simply means that there are other ideas. But only one can be chosen. And as anyone can see, this proposal has clear support right now, while all the others appear to stand no chance. So you can try to spin it any way you'd like, but this is the only proposal that's close to a consensus of support. In fact, we may have consensus already. And those of us who support this proposal have listened to the various concerns and expressed our views clearly, so your implication that we haven't is offensive. And why the heck would we want to come up with an alternative when we like this proposal the best? And we're on the verge of consensus in support of it? That makes absolutely no sense. In case you forgot, there are alternatives; four of them. And you see how they're doing. Because we don't agree with you means we're not listening? Give me a break. If you honestly believe that the only reason people support this proposal is because "the current title is bad", then I suggest you read the support comments again. Did you forget about Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? How's that for one of the many reasons given? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What 76 said. And what 2001:db8, Thryduulf, Legacypac, Knowledgekid87, e.Fjf1085, JOJ, Theoldsparkle, Camilo Sánchez, and SnowFire said as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I see no signs that the little voting block you belong to has done anything other than systematically oppose any attempt to move forward with options that might supplant their preferred option. IP76, the fact that you for the umpteenth time refer me to the Dugard and Smart case when you know that I disagree with the comparison (and why) shows that you are not really listening to what I have said at all. The fact that you and your confreres would act this fashion, on this particular article, on this particular topic, shows an astounding lack of insight. It's likely a consequence of Misplaced Pages and its demographic problems.

But I'd be very happy to be proved wrong. Why don't one of you suggest a title that actually addresses the concerns expressed by other editors (such as Evanh2008, Jim Michael, agr, Fletcher, Xkcdreader, Beeblebrox and me) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Slp1 (talk)

Slp1... "The little voting block you belong to"? "you and your confreres"? Yet more condescension and uncivil behavior from you simply because you're unahppy things aren't going your way. Knock it off. Your insults and rudeness only hurt your cause. Again, why would someone who disagrees with your concerns, and feels that this title proposal is the best, want to look for yet another title, when we've already considered at least a half dozen others? That makes no sense at all. Obviously, you want us to back off our support of this title - what you falsely try to portray as a compromise - because you're worried you won't get what you want, and we will. This is simple... after reading everyone's comments and considering all the other title suggestions, we want this one. Period. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time understanding this. Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight is excellent, and it's aligned perfectly with Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. You can continue trying to hammer all of us over the head with illogical and rude comments, but I assure you that it's not going work. So why don't you just sit back and let this process finish its course. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sp1 -- I referred to those who !voted. I see a dozen support !votes. I see you !voting oppose, AndyTheGrump opining that support is not in his view relevant, and one other editor !voting oppose. While this is a !vote (and not a "vote"), do you see any other editors writing "oppose" that I missed? Or, isn't it the case that (though this is not a vote) the overwhelming consensus (80% or so?; a 4-1 margin or so?) among the !voters (despite your misleading comment) is of those who have !voted Support, with various rationales. Over those who have !voted Oppose (with various rationales). --Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Following up on a suggestion above I am proposing an alternative title Cleveland kidnappings case that was in fact suggested in a section above by User:2001. WP:CRITERIA states that the criteria for the best article titles

• Recognizability and Naturalness- In their headlines the media are typically using a combination of Cleveland (and sometimes Ohio) and kidnapping/kidnapped . This precise title is used frequently in the media (plus or minus the plural) Even when one searches for a woman's name, many of the headlines come up with Cleveland kidnappings come up on google searches. See this for example .
• Precision Per Legacypac's comment in the section above "Cleveland kidnappings" might refer in general kidnappings in Cleveland. Adding "case", as suggested by User:2001, helps clarity and specify this.
• Conciseness. Using the women's names in the title also makes it very long and ungainly. The current suggestion is much shorter and more concise. I would also argue that in time people will forget the women's names but remember the location.
• Consistency It has been argued above that the Smart and Dugard articles are parallels. However, those women have sought publicity for themselves by writing books about their experiences. Until we know whether these women do the same, or as in the case of the Fritzl case will withdraw and never speak publicly, we should not use these articles as parallels; per being conservative in BLP cases.

And in addition, and as I have argued above, per WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM we should do our best to avoid revictimizing living individuals: and including their names in the title, to be mirrored and copied and easily searched for, will contribute to this; this is particularly the case when at this point we do not yet know whether these women will maintain their silence about the their experiences or seek publicity as others have done. I agree that this article should be moved somewhere, and suggest that for multiple reasons, this suggestion of User:2001 is the best title suggestion.Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - No particular reason at this point to use the names in-title. Including all of them reads as a bit list-y and probably violates WP:COMMONNAME, since most sources seem to be using simply "Cleveland kidnappings," or a close variation thereof. It is possible in the future that the victims, collectively or individually, may become notable enough for articles in their own right, so in that case it wouldn't be possible or desirable to avoid using their names in the title, but for now it is not necessary. I also concur entirely with the BLP issues raised by Slp. Evanh2008  13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support this or the one above. Looking at Google News, this is one common way to refer to it ("Cleveland" is now much more common, even internationally, than "Ohio" which wasn't the case a couple of days ago), although there is no apparent consensus whether to use "kindapping" or "kidnappings" in the news media I think we should use the plural and have the singular as a redirect. Like it or not the women's names will always be searched for on Misplaced Pages and will therefore remain as links to this article (whatever it's title) as redirects or links on a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the article can only have one title, and in the original/current move proposal which recommends Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, last night you said "This now has my full support". And as I said below, some editors here may be unaware that there have been many prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland over the years. This is a perfect example of why having two move proposals happening at the same time should not be done. I would ask that you please choose one or the other to support; not both. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know it can only have one title, but I can support more than one proposal - i.e. I would be OK with it being at this title or the victims' names title. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate your well reasoned arguments, but there are several reasons I oppose this suggested title. 1. adding case does not differentiate this these kidnappings from any other Cleveland kidnappings cases. The word multiple or serial or even triple would be better as Cleveland Multiple Kidnappings is unlikely to be confused with other cases. 2. The idea we could shield these girls somehow via our title choice here assumes way to much power in WP. 3. Even the Fritzl case article includes the victim's family name in the title and the article names all the victims, including the children. While they retreated from public view, it seems to be due to the extreme abuse and being cut off from the world by their father. In no way am I diminishing the suffering in the present case, but there are no indications that these victims will need to be secreted away in a fortress house and guarded 24/7 nor was a family member responsible. They are all reuniting with family and friends and happy to be free. 4. Agree media is calling it Cleveland Kidnappings but that is current news, not what it will be called next year or during a trial on this case. For example, the media talks about the current Olympics without the year before, during and immediately after, but by the following year everyone says The Vancouver 2010 Olympics or 2010 Winter Olympics. We need a title with staying power that makes sense next year and ten years out.Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we can change the name next year if necessary: the question is what is the best name "now". In any case, I and others have argued, in the future, it is likely that the names will be less remembered than the locale. Per your point 1 and see below: What are these other Cleveland kidnapping cases? Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, as the nominator of this move, I hope you're not going to continue harassing every editor who opposes your suggested move. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignity that with a response, except to say that if you really think that this is harassment then you should go to WP:ANI and make a complaint there. I would urge you to do so in fact. --Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I think the word you're looking for is dignify, not dignity. And how funny that you say you're not going to dignify it with a response, yet that's precisely what you did... respond. Haha. Your petty harassment of editors who oppose you is certainly not worth the time of any of us. As you've been told previously, the one who shouts the loudest and hardest isn't going to win by doing that. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, this editor is simply defending his or her argument in a discussion. Per WP:CIVIL please stop needlessly making accusations of harassment. (Or maybe I am harassing you now?) Fletcher (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that I've crossed the line of civility, report it. I will continue to state my observations and express my opinions about this proposed move. And how ironic that someone who invokes WP:CIVIL ends their comments with "(Or maybe I am harassing you now?)". Perhaps you should read this article. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Frankly, I feel that Cleveland kidnappings case is a terrible title. The nominator perhaps is unaware that there have been many prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland over the years, so this proposed title is not only inappropriately vague, but also very confusing. The original move proposal currently being discussed above, which recommends Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, is clearly the best option in my opinion and has clear precedence. There's no difference between this kidnapping case and the ones involving Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart, whose articles are titled Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Keeping repeating that there is a similarity with the Dugard and Smart articles when I have shown, repeatedly and in this very proposal to boot, that they are not, is unhelpful and veering into WP:IDHT territory.

As above, what are these other prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland? This would be a good point, but please provide the links to the articles about these cases to prove your point. Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually believe you'll convince a consensus of editors that there is no similarity to the Dugard and Smart kidnappings? Seriously? Uh, they are all prominent long-time kidnappings of young females, who were horrifically abused - both mentally and sexually - and then ultimately freed. Dugard, Berry, and Knight were all impregnated by their kidnapper. So there's no similarity? Really? Your denial of the obvious is very disruptive. And Cleveland is over 200 years old and has had many kidnappings of young females in its history. Do you actually believe this is the only major kidnapping in the history of Cleveland, Ohio? Do your own research; I'm certainly not going to do it for you. Nor does it even matter. Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping are proof that Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight is a perfectly appropriate article title. There were very thorough discussions about those article titles by many experienced editors. Are you going to harass every editor who opposes this move request? 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are being evasive here. Slp1 asked you about other prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland that the proposed title might be confused with. Your reply that, as a 200 year old city, Cleveland has had many kidnappings is not apposite to his question. What prominent Cleveland kidnappings, with articles on Misplaced Pages, do you have in mind? If you know of some, your point stands; if not, it doesn't. Fletcher (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As I clearly stated: (1) All of the other kidnappings in Cleveland's history are completely irrelevant to the title of this article. The Dugard and Smart articles make that abundantly clear. (2) I am certainly not going to waste my time doing research for someone else. Do it yourself. It will clearly make my point. Cleveland has a long history of prominent kidnappings. But even if there were no other prominent kidnappings in the city, it still wouldn't change the fact that this article should be titled exactly like the Dugard and Smart articles. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The proposed title was Cleveland kidnappings case (singular), not Kidnappings in Cleveland, so it won't be confused with a general summary of kidnappings in Cleveland. If there are other prominent kidnapping cases that title will be confused with, you can list them; the fact that you haven't after being challenged suggests you don't know of any, undermining your point. I'd be interested in those notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles.Fletcher (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't carefully read my above response. And "Kidnappings in Cleveland" is extremely confusing from a contextual point of view. Cleveland's over 200 years old, so which Cleveland kidnappings? When? Who? Sorry, but it's an awful title. That's precisely why many experienced editors decided on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. The only ones being undermined are those ignoring the Dugard and Smart titles, which are part of precedent for crimes like this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I will rephrase: I wasn't actually suggesting "Kidnappings in Cleveland" but saying that title was not what the proposed title implies. The proposed title has a singular 'case' so it cannot be confused with a list of kidnappings or a general history of kidnappings in Cleveland. It has a plural 'kidnappings' indicating there were more than one as part of the subject case. You continue to evade answering the question about prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland that might cause confusion. As far as "precedent", that is a complex issue; Misplaced Pages has no system of binding precedent (that I know of???) but I agree it's logical to consider what has been done in the past. Scanning categories (e.g. Category:Rapes in the United States, Category:Sexual assaults in the United States) we have many articles named for single homicides and suicides, and many articles named for the famous incident or for the perpetrator, but I don't see articles named for living victims who would not pass WP:BLP1E. The victims in this case may be WP:LOWPROFILE, unlike Dugard and Smart who have published works making them high profile figures. While I don't think we need to suppress their names altogether, putting their names in the article title goes against the spirit of BLP1E. Also, there are very few articles with double victim names listed in the title and I don't see any with three, so there may be an effort to focus on the case name rather than victim names when there are multiple victims.Fletcher (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the reasons above, I do not see why we editors on Misplaced Pages should shield ourselves from the names of the victims that have been in the media for the past 10 years. Same thing below - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

But nobody is suggesting that we "shield ourselves from the names of the victim". We are trying to shield the victims from this becoming the number 1 google search result when somebody is considering giving them a job, or dating them.... Slp1 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Legacy and IP76 (and to an extent Knowledge), above. I've watched this conversation before opining, but find their reasoning the more convincing, as well as the last comment of Knowledge.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per same editors referred to by Epeefleche. The long-term media coverage and widespread use of their names, as well as the complexity of this case, make protecting the victims unfortunately something Misplaced Pages cannot do. (And as far as me "suggesting" this title, it was intended as a counterargument to an even-worse title to give a better example along similar lines, not as a suggestion I thought made sense for this article or supported.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2

Another suggestion I would like to suggest Cleveland missing trio rescue. "Missing trio rescue" is more specific than "kidnappings" and the rescue is the immediate story here. It also avoids the BLP concerns about the word kidnapping. This is a very complex story with multiple criminal allegations likely besides kidnapping and it is not possible to capture them all in a single title. Focusing the title on how the current story broke and then discussing other aspects in the body of the article seems like a straightforward way to go.--agr (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but there are several huge problems with that title. Suffice it to say that it's confusing, inaccurate, out-of-context, and contrary to precedent with regard to titles about similar crimes. The primary subject is the kidnapping. Everything that happened during the captivity, including all the emotional, physical and sexual abuse, and their being freed, are simply part of the overall kidnapping event. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the reasons above, I do not see why we editors on Misplaced Pages should shield ourselves from the names of the victims that have been in the media for the past 10 years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support tentatively. Maybe Cleveland Triple Kidnapping if it might be confused with other Cleveland kidnappings. I feel like with three victims their identities are more diffuse, encompassed by the larger case of which they were a part. In a case with many victims there would be no question about naming the article by the general incident rather than the victims. This case is more borderline, but naming the three feels too wordy. Fletcher (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's a quadruple kidnapping. Castro has been charged with four counts of kidnapping (which includes the little girl). However, the title should indeed allude only to Berry, DeJesus, and Knight, as suggested in the other/original move proposal. Not that it matters.. but for the record, it would be "Cleveland triple kidnapping", not "Cleveland Triple Kidnapping" per MoS. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically we don't know if it is quadruple kidnapping. Allegedly he was the child's father. Maybe he can claim to have exercised parental rights. These are questions for courts to sort out, not the press or Misplaced Pages editors. We do know that there were three women who were missing and who are now released. Those are not premature legal judgements, so building the title on those facts avoids lots of problems.--agr (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but denying that this poor girl, born of a rape and held with her mother in captivity might not be the victim of a is very offensive and dead wrong. FACT is she was kidnapped the day she was born in captivity. The court only needs to decide IF Castro is guilty of the crime, not IF she was kidnapped. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a title similar to the one above; Oppose any title, such as the one above that, which includes the names of all of the victims. Many millions of people have heard about, and are interested in informing themselves about, this case. The large majority of them do not know all the victims' names - hence they would not type in the names of the victims when searching for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Although I oppose, why is the word "case" in the title (Cleveland kidnappings case)?? Why isn't it simply Cleveland kidnappings? What's the point of having the word "case" in it? It's very odd. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? My comment just above was for the above alternate proposal (for Cleveland kidnappings case), not this one. Someone turned this into a new section/proposal after I posted that, which is improper. You cannot create a new thread and include comments that were entered for a different thread. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's covered somewhere above. "Cleveland kidnappings" sounds more general, like a list of all notable kidnappings that have occurred in Cleveland. "Case" narrows it down to a particular instance of kidnapping/s. If disambiguation is still a problem, I would also support 2013 Cleveland kidnapping case, but 2013 Cleveland kidnappings sounds as if the kidnappings took place in 2013, which I don't think they did (though maybe kidnapping is legally an ongoing situation, not a one-time event?). Evanh2008  20:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment & Oppose Obviously there are many other kidnappings in Cleveland history. I randomly picked 2011 as a date range for my Google search: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/anthony-sowell-rape-kidnapping_n_959692.html#s314099 a serial killer who kidnapped 13? women and killed 11 or another http://www.wkyc.com/news/investigative/article/186134/230/Cleveland-Four-charged-in-kidnapping-for-ransom - young man taken and http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/cleveland_couple_indicted_for.html - a 15-yr-old girl held for a year and raped or you can read http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/suspect_sought_in_cleveland_ki.html where a 17-year-old girl is kidnapped. Those are just the first four that popped up in one recent randomly selected year. Therefore the suggested title here or any variation of it is far to vague to be meaningful at all. Even though I actually suggested a somewhat similar title before, this is clearly a bad title. We should SNOW CLOSE this discussion. Go with the Kidnapping of vics names. Obviously there was a kidnapping. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Good comments. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not recall the snow-close suggestion by Legacypac being there when I originally replied with, "Good comments". I believe it was added later and Legacypac did not time stamp it again, as he should have. In fact, if I'm correct that it was added later, the comment should have been placed at the bottom of this thread, not added to a comment that was already replied to because makes it look like I supported the snow-close part of Legacy's comment. While I don't like this proposal at all, it cannot currently be snow-closed. There are 3 supports (including the nom) and 5 opposes right now. That is not even close to snow. More importantly, at the time of his original post (May 9 20:20), there were 3 supports and 1 oppose, so obviously a snow-close recommendation would've been ludicrous. I don't like this proposal either, but we need to be fair and do things properly. Sorry. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Legacy and IP76. I've watched this conversation before opining, but find their reasoning the more convincing, as well as the last comment of Knowledge.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The victims names are VERY highly used in media reports. They are now household names for many people. The media is also using Cleveland Kidnappings as a title but that is too broad for the long term as discussed. The most reliable source on this story is Plain Dealer. All their many many stories share the same tag http://topics.cleveland.com/tag/dejesus-berry-knight/posts.html Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Nothing personal, but it's terrible on so many levels. Suffice it to say that it's confusing, out-of-context, and very awkward. And the major subject keyword is "kidnapping". Creating this third concurrent proposal, which stands no chance of being approved by consensus, is disruptive in my opinion. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons of vagueness noted for other proposals; "trio" is not very good wording (since they were not abducted as a trio), and the case goes very far beyond just a "rescue". The title does not cover the situation very well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 3

IDEA:: Given this source, how about "Cleveland Trio kidnapping" Xkcdreader (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - see my comments just above - same reasons.Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my above comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Per my above comments. And citing one soure (from the UK no less) as the basis for this proposal is very weak. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for similar reasons again. They were not kidnapped as a trio, and it is vague in general. Can we please stop having slightly modified proposals of things that already have significant opposition? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you oppose this without reading the article. The Cleveland Trio are the three people being questioned about the kidnapping. It's the same as saying "Jack the Ripper Murders" Xkcdreader (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, what? If you check the revision history, you'll see I contributed to the article fairly significantly, and thus have read it (and many sources) extensively. There are not three people being questioned, there is no "trio" that kidnapped these women. There were three people initially arrested, two of whom were quickly released, and only one suspect at this time. It is you who needs to read the article in this case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per above and WP:COMMONNAME - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:SNOW, I suggest a speedy close of this proposal. It's only an added disruption to the other, current discussions about the title. Hopefully, an uninvolved admin or other very experienced editor can review this and make the call. Thanks. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 06:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment A few edtiors who have either !voted or participated in the various move proposals attempted to snow-close this particular thread (alt proposal 3) and a couple others. I totally agree that this proposal warrants being snow-closed, but it must only been done by a completely neutral admin or other experienced editor - someone materially uninvolved in any of these proposals. Obviously, those of us who have been active participants in the various discussions have a blatant conflict of interest. Keep in mind that if a particular proposal truly appears to deserve a snow-close, then don't worry... it will fail whether it's closed early or not. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 4

Because I move-protected the page to prevent any more undiscussed moves a user commented to me there that they thought the page should be moved to Ariel Castro case. I think that is better than any of the other ideas currently under discussion here. While our sympathies are of course with the victims, the "locus" of the whole affair is Mr. Castro and the events in his house over the past ten years. Other articles on similar crimes such as the Fritzl case have used names like this so it is also internally consistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: That is why I suggested 'Cleveland Trio kidnapping'. "US investigators are to interview the three brothers suspected of keeping three young women captive in Cleveland, Ohio for 10 years." Then again, wikipedia is just gridlock. Somebody will always oppose other peoples ideas, and the current title wont change because it is way easier to cause obstruction than contribute. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, your news is several days out of date. There is only one suspect. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader, have you been in hibernation the past few days?  :) I think you need to catch up on the news. In any case, I think the nominator should shut down this proposal. It stands no chance. Sorry. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose As I said in a section above: "As odd as it seems, BLP protects the alleged perpetrator even more than the victims here. We cannot mention his name without mentioning that he is only a suspect, which doesn't fit into a title (it'd have to be "Case of kidnappings allegedly perpetrated by Ariel Castro" or something, which doesn't really work and would probably still be a BLP violation.) That might be a good title if he is convicted." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic at all. You don't get the FBI labs to rush through a DNA test in less than a day for just any old crime. Whether he is convicted or not, there is clearly a "case". While I am usually a strong supporter of being very careful about BLP issues, in this case I think we may not be seeing the forest through the trees in this instance. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is an investigation, with Castro as the suspect. But "case" can be read as "situation" or "event", not just "criminal case", such as your use of "in this case" in the preceding comment to mean exactly that. This strongly implies it was an event committed by Ariel Castro, without required presumption of innocence. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP protects the suspect for various reasons. Sometimes the wrong people are named, on the Boston bombings article there were pushes for the wrong people to be named in the article, this greatly effects wrongly accused as well as victims. Also people have a right to a fair trial, if wikipedia finds a person guilty, and that person has their conviction overturned because of that coverage then we would be letting an bad person free. It may sound silly but it has happened in the UK with certain press coverage. Martin451 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago that may have seemed ridiculous, but I could actually envision some lawyer claiming "Misplaced Pages named the article on the crime after my client and tainted the jury pool." It happens over here in the US all the time too with general media coverage: Casey Anthony's lawyer apparently claimed that . And an encyclopedia is supposed to be more factual than the media (the average person seems to take Misplaced Pages as fact more than they should), so it's potentially an even stronger claim than media coverage. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Innocent until proven guilty. The suspect's name should not be used unless their is a conviction.Martin451 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Per my comments above. And "case" is euphemistic. The primary subject is the kidnapping of three women, as with Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

keep title for now wait until there is media consensus then use that. Stop changing title for now Bamler2 (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is not going to be a media consensus. It is unreasonable to expect one. The event is too complex for the media to use any sort of simple description, thus there are tons of different descriptions floating around. The closest are things like "Cleveland kidnappings", which are simply far too vague for encyclopedic use; they only work for news articles for various reasons given many times above. Why would we not want to change the title when the current one is simply horrid, and incorrect on top of that? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait for "media consensus"? Uh, no! Nothing personal Bamler, but that's ridiculous. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What the others said, and given that the above consensus is strongly against the current title and strongly in favor of the first proposal above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The media will have forgotten this story long before they agree on one name for the story. Anyway, rarely does the media all use one name for something - they are busy trying to write DIFFERENT headlines. We need to change the title to the widely supported suggested Kidnappings of A, G, MLegacypac (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed name is too narrow and implies it is just about the case which it is not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. While is clearly not going to be a media consensus, it's equally clear that none of them are using this title and that naming an article about a crime after a suspect prior to conviction is a gross violation of BLP. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the above opposes, including that it is too narrow. Though I do appreciate the good intentions of nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I do not see any other support for this I would recommend a Snow closure for this one as well per consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The only "support" !vote above is that of the nom himself, and half a dozen other editors have !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal stands no chance, but let's make sure that only a completely neutral editor closes it - one who has not !voted or participated in any of the move proposals. And even if it doesn't get closed early, don't worry... it's obviously going to fail. And I think we're nearing a resolution on the title. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Daughter slashed granddaughter's neck

How do we want to handle this chilling connected story? "Several media outlets also report that a younger daughter, Emily Castro, is in an Indiana prison for slashing the throat of her then-11-month-old daughter in 2008. Indiana prison records confirm Emily Castro is currently serving 25 years for attempted murder."

Shouldn't be included; not directly related, unless there's some suggestion her father was involved in that crime. Robofish (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

the link does not seem conclusive, and there is not reason at the moment to include it.Martin451 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the sequence (which is spread over the article right now):

• 2002 Girl #1 disappears
• 2003 Girl #2 disappears
• 2004 Girl #3 disappears
• 2005 beats up and threatens to kill ex wife, and to quote her lawyer, Castro "frequently abducts (his) daughters and keeps them from mother"
• 2007 Ashley Summers disappears (thought by FBI to be same suspect)
• 2008 one of Castro's daughters attempts to murder her child

Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including every crime committed by any relative. (Is Fidel a distant cousin?) Edison (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

   Castro is an extremely common name, probably dating back before Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan became separate, and probably reflected the bearer or their father working inside the castle walls -- so the question is probably like asking if two people named "Brown", or "Smith", are related.
--Jerzy•t 07:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not our job to speculate on stuff like this. Let the media play their games. They have deadlines. They have space and airtime to fill. We don't. We report the more significant things that multiple parts of the more reliable sector of the media say, preferably well after the dust has settled. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually believe we should consider adding the crimes of a suspect's relative that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article? Seriously? Absolutely not! Your description that the daughter's crime is "connected" to this article is complete nonsense. Sorry. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually think that the status of the suspects own 5 children and grandchildren is not relevant to the bio of someone who nearly killed his wife, kidnapped his own children, while also kidnapping at least 3 young ladies and having children with them? Seriously? Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what I know, not think. This has nothing to do with my opinion, but about policy. "The status of the suspects own 5 children and grandchildren"? Wow, are you even being serious? If so, then you are exhibiting a complete failure to understand the policies regarding content notability and relevance, and BLPs. And apparently, you don't even understand what the subject of this article is. Please educate yourself. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin move request: remove "2013" from title

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.

• See Talk:2013_Cleveland,_Ohio,_missing_trio#Let.27s_try_again:_.22Kidnappings_of_Amanda_Berry.2C_Gina_DeJesus.2C_and_Michelle_Knight.22 to continue renaming discussion in a less-fragmented format. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} I think we have reasonable consensus to get rid of "2013", since that part doesn't logically fit and makes the title incorrect. There's obviously no consensus on further edits yet, but they aren't problematic in the same fashion. It may be some time before we get to a real consensus on a new title, so it makes sense to make this minor fix to make the title a bit less horrid for now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to that change? (Do not attempt a cut-and-paste move; this calls for a true rename.)
--Jerzy•t 05:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire title needs changed, but removing the 2013 from the current title would make it even worse. As the title stands, the article falsely implies to any reader who isn't aware of the story that the three people are currently missing; it gives no indication that they are no longer missing. A better title would be something like 2013 rescue of three kidnapped Cleveland females. ("Ohio" is unneeded in the title since Cleveland is a major metropolitan city; if it were Miami, we wouldn't say "Miami, Florida" in the title.) I wouldn't object if the "2013" wasn't included in my suggested title because it's highly unlikely that this exact situation will ever happen again (three kidnapped Cleveland females being rescued). :p But my suggested title includes the four key points: rescue, kidnap, Cleveland, and three females. ;) For the record, I use "females" instead of girls or women because two of them were teens when they were taken but are now adults. I just noticed the above thread about moving the article. And I want to rethink the best title. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 06:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the previous sections to discuss changing the title entirely... As far as the current title goes, the problem with "2013" is that it implies that they're a trio that went missing in 2013. Of course the title is still problematic with that gone, but less so; I don't see how it makes it worse. (Can you explain why that's the case?) If anything, it makes it more generic, and the reader gets to look at the article to figure out the ambiguity, instead of incorrectly reading about a supposed missing trio of women from 2013. I think there's reasonable consensus to remove "2013" in the previous section (you're the first direct objection I've seen to that change, and keep in mind it's just to make the temporary title a bit better), though that's up to an admin to sort out due to the move protection... (As for your other points, see discussion above.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio would be worse because, again, it's totally misleading (they're not missing) and it gives no time context with regard to the (misleading) title. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

They're also not missing now in 2013, though...and the time context it gives is incorrect, which seems worse to me than being vague. (The lead gives the specifics.) Giving no date just says they were a trio that was missing at some point in time; since we write in encyclopedic tone, that doesn't imply being currently missing. "2013" seems worse in that respect, since it both implies it being more current, and that the event happened in 2013, which is wrong. I agree the thing is ugly either way...but unfortunately we don't have consensus to do much more at this point. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point in going back and forth on this. We just disagree (like the great song lol). In any case, I think the more important point is that it would just be disruptive to mess around with the title while there is an active discussion about a permanent move taking place. It'll just create one battle on top of another. Therefore, I would let the move discussion above play out and see what results from that. I would suggest that you remove the edit request template and just let this thread remain as a regular discussion. I think you have almost no chance of getting someone to make this change anyway. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only reason I made the request is that there was consensus to do so, since several people above had voiced agreement on dropping the "2013"; I'll let an admin sort out whether or not reasonable consensus does exist given the reasoning here and above. (Normally I'd agree that it's disruptive to the renaming process, and a waste of time, but in this case the title is simply wrong with that bit included.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The title would be awful with or without the 2013, so I think a new awful title would be worse than a current awful title. Haha. As I said in the move thread above, I think the title should simply be Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight or Kidnappings of three Cleveland females. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that part we agree on; it's horrid either way. :) I proposed the minor change since the move discussion looks like it will be protracted, with no clear support for much of anything but dropping 2013 (before your objection) and for dropping Ohio (but that's not important since it's just redundant, not incorrect.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just play this video. Or this version. It will make you feel better. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be called 2013 Rescue of Abducted Cleveland, Ohio Women? Or something like thatFjf1085 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not perfect as the rescue itself is not the main focus of the article rather the length of time between abduction and rescue and anything that happened during that time is what is notable; and I'm still wary of calling it an abduction in advance of formal charges. The capitalisation is incorrect as well, but that's trivial. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fjf1085... first, we use the word kidnap, not abduction. But beyond that, the title does not need to allude to the "rescue" because the rescue is simply a part of the overall kidnapping incident. For example, the article about Elizabeth Smart is simply Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, not Elizabeth Smart rescue and abduction. And it's Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, not Kidnapping and rescue of Jaycee Lee Dugard. See what I'm saying? :) That is why my suggested titles are Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight or Kidnappings of three Cleveland females. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, I'm sure as soon as something else happens this will die down. Honestly normally I would have just ignored the mistake but over the last year or so I've been making minor edits and getting more comfortable making them so I figured I'd give it a try... also sorry to 2001:db8 for apparently blanking out the comment you posted in reply to this to me... I'm not sure what exactly happend. I think you replied so quickly I some how messed it...again new to making anything more than a few minor edits, so I'm sorry.Fjf1085 (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm unilaterally closing this discussion since it's redundant to the current renaming discussion. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - "Other family members" section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wow, did anyone see the "Other family members" section? That needs to be removed immediately. Talk about a gigantic BLP violation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The entire section is clearly inappropriate, but the second third paragraph is outrageously inappropriate (about one of the suspects' daughters committing a completely unrelated crime, being in prison, and trying to commit suicide). Are you kidding me? Please, get that entire paragraph of nonsense and BLP violations out of this article. This is an encylopedia article about a specific subject; not a newspaper covering everything and anything even if it has nothing directly to do with the subject. An "Other family members" section?!? I cannot believe it's in there and no one's removed it yet. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the whole section. I certainly agree about the third (not second) paragraph about the daughter in prison. It's gone. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot HiLo. Much appreciated. But again, I contend that the entire section should be removed since content about non-notable family members - e.g. private citizens - of an alleged perpetrator is still highly inappropriate, particularly when the content has absolutely nothing to do with the crime that the article is about. Btw, nice catch... I meant to say "third" paragraph, not second. I struck and corrected it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section as a clear BLPVIO. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger! 76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

These removals are innapropriate unless you can cite something more precise than the broad brush statements above. 1. There is zero BLP problem with describing the crimes and actions of a CONVICTED felon. 2. Someone removed basic info - the fact the suspect has kids of his own. 3. The article by the son is reverent as it shows connections between suspect and victim families and the son has same name. Legacypac (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do think that it would be good to understand better the basis of the claim by the IP and others suggesting deletion, preferably by quoting specific support in a guideline.Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion of the son's article is clearly relevant and should be included (to the extent supported by sources obviously). That a relative of a suspect (who hasn't been charged with anything at this point) committed an unrelated crime really isn't relevant here and should not be included unless there is a reliable, official source discussing its relevance to this crime. Including it otherwise gives the impression of guilt by association - a BLP violation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The issue with the daughter who is in prison is whether it is relevant, and I don't think it is, and does not need to be included. The son who interview the mother of DeJesus, and the daughter who was with DeJesus just before DeJesus vanished are relevant. The third daughter does not need to be mentioned by name, although it would not violate BLP to say she exists.Martin451 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Impression of guilt by association on who? Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
        • By including the details of the unrelated crime by the relative it feels to me like we are saying that because they are in prison for violent crime it means he must be guilty of something similar. Giving people that impression is as much a BLP violation than if we explicitly said it. Castro has not even been charged yet, let alone stood trial. Unless and until he is convicted we must be careful not to imply guilt. If you don't understand why we need to be careufl, read up about what happened to Christopher Jeffreys (related article Murder of Joanna Yeates, but for the whole story you'll need to read articles elsewhere, is a good resource). Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac, I suggest you fully educate yourself on WP:BLP. We do not add content about someone to an article simply because they are a convicted felon. First, the content needs to be notable. And second, and most importantly, it needs to be relevant to the subject. What does the daughter's crime have to do with this crime?? Answer: nothing! Are we going to add content about every crime that every relative of the suspects ever committed? Saying "There is zero BLP problem with describing the crimes and actions of a CONVICTED felon" is one of the most outrageous, out-of-context comments I've seen in a long time. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I also suggest you read the entire BLP policy section titled "Presumption in favor of privacy". 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• The daughter is a separate person, and BLP applies to her. Just because she is convicted does not mean BLP no longer applies. There is no reason to include this, we are no a tabloid paper.Martin451 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the crimes of the daughter are not relevant to this subject. I'm sure I could do my own WP:OR speculation about Nature versus nurture and how it applies here, but until a reliable source goes there there is no reason for us to include this (sensationalist) content. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am well versed in BLP policy. Referencing "privacy" is incorrect as nothing in that section applies here that I can see. NOT BLPCRIME (she was convicted). BLP on the convicted daughter does not stop us from adding it here. There are specific allegations of abuse against this daughter and her siblings by a man accused of kidnapping/rape etc. Daughter went on to slit the throat of her own daughter while her father held captives in him house. That is notable and connected to the subject of this article. This is why major news orgs are reporting the information together as connected. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Beeblerox and Martin, thank you! Please, get rid of that third paragraph about the daughter's conviction and past suicide attempt immediately. It's outrageously inappropriate. And I think any editors who add crap content like that should be blocked. As far as the rest of the content in that family members section, we can discuss that further. But the third paragraph needs to go now. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacyac, you are completely out of touch with BLP policy. The fact that the daughter was convicted of a crime is absolutely meaningless to this article. You seriously don't understand this? You really are on the verge of needing to be blocked if you add any content like that. Your comments are unbelievably irresponsible. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed that outrageously inappropriate third paragraph with this edit. Good! No one should add it back without clear consensus, which I highly doubt you would ever achieve. The remainder of the content in the family members section can still be discussed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac, do you even understand what the subject of this article is? Apparently not. It's about the kidnapping of three females, which includes the arrests of three suspects. We do not start looking down the family tree of a suspect for any past crimes by a relative of the suspect that have absolutely nothing to do with this crime. And while major news organziations are of course reporting on all aspects of the story, whether they are directly related to the crime or not, we are not a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines about notability, relevance, and living people, etc. Now please, stop all this nonsense. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not threaten me and try to be civil. This discussion needs to be about how to best craft the article. This poorly named article is about the kidnapping and includes biographies of the suspects (as these articles usually do). The question is - does the conviction for attempted murder by the biography subject's daughter, (the same daughter he is alleged to have abused, kidnapped and threatened to kill) represent a relevant detail in the subject's biography? Is there a wikipolicy that prevents the inclusion of this information. If you want to have a debate, please stick to how to improve the article.Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac, please provide diffs which support your claim that I "threatened" you. And your allegation of incivility is simply a distraction from the important issues being discussed here. Once again, you have shown your failure to understand what the subject of this article is. It's also quite telling that you refuse to answer why the past crimes (and suicide attempt) of a suspect's daughter is relevant to this crime. Please, educate yourself about content notability and relevance, and BLP policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The policy is WP:RELEVANT. It is relevant to this article to note that it has been alleged Castro abused, kidnapped and threatened to kill his daughter, because he is one of the subjects of this article and that is biographical information about him. It is not relevant to include his daughter's crimes because that is biographical information about her and she is not a subject of this article. If a reliable source significantly links his daughter's crimes to her father's alleged kidnapping of these three women then it might become relevant to the reporting of possible motives (or however it is linked). As far as I am aware no reliable source has done this. If his daughter were notable then it would be appropriate to mention that they are related and what she is notable for with a link to her article where mention of her crimes would be relevant, however she is not notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155 please tone down your language, this is not a battleground and editors are required to remain civil and comment on the content not the contributor. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you feel I have said something that crosses the line of civility, please provide the diffs or quotes to support that allegation. Or report it at AN/I. If you think anything I've said was beyond civil, perhaps I should introduce you to AndyTheGrump. Right, Andy? Haha. In any case, thanks for supporting my views about the content relating to the daughter. It's honestly shocking that that content was ever in the article. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear there is nothing I think you have said that crosses the line. The tone of your comments regarding Legacypac's "failure to understand" though was getting very close to it. Further discussion of this (if you desire any) should probably move to one of our talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, thanks for clarifying. But "Failure to understand"? That's it? Haha. I'm sorry, but that was simply an observation based on his comments with regard to policy. I really do need to introduce you to Andy. By comparison, I'm as tame as they come. On the incivility scale, I'd put my comments at a 2 (out of 10). Maybe a 3. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your concerns repeatedly, yet you accuse me of failing to answer and say ""You really are on the verge of needing to be blocked if you add any content like that". I'll let your own words speak for you-everyone can read them. Yes, I am offended at your comments directed my way. Please stay off my talk page and do not engage in discussion with me ever again. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Stay off your talk page? Uh, I've never been on your talk page. Haha. If you believe otherwise, please show us a diff of me being on your talk page. And you never answered the question. But that's fine; the matter is resolved. Consensus was solidly against your view. Btw, I liked your comment in the above thread regarding the proposed move. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Daughter's name

According to the BBC Amanda Berry's daughter has been named by police, so it is no longer accurate to describe her as "unnamed" (infobox) or "not publicly named" (Discovery and aftermath section). If we choose to continue not using her name here (and there are arguments both ways) we need to come up with an alternative phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is not reason to include the name of the daughter, it is best left out.Martin451 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hence why I didn't just add it, but she has been named so to continue to say otherwise is inaccurate. Meaning we need some other way of phrasing it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just removed all references to her being unnamed or her name not being known, just leaving her name unstated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit inserting the name. I believe WP:BLPNAME covers not including the daughter's name; unlike the three women, she obviously hasn't been in the news for a decade. (There also may be arguments to be made for not including her name due to being a minor, but I don't it's even necessary to consider those to exclude it.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tweeking the Categories.

Following the setup on other entries in Category:Kidnapped American children, I believe that both the Category:Kidnapped American children and Category:Children kept in captivity should be removed from this article and added to the Amanda Barry and Gina DeJesus redirect pages. I thought that I should propose this here to see if it gets any comments. If it doesn't, will do so tomorrow (5/9).Naraht (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that meets the common sense test. It will just require them to hit another button with a another click to get into this page of text, as the redirect page has none. And as far as outward movement from readers who want to see who else is in that category ... the vast majority of readers would not see the cat if it is on the redirect page.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm *not* talking about removing the entries in the "See Also" that actually have the first colon in them, but rather then entry that puts 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio in the Category. This entry shouldn't be in the category, the two named children should be.Naraht (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Content categories are for content pages, not redirects. This is where they are discussed, this is where relevant categories should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at Category:Kidnapped American children, the number of entries in there which are redirects.Naraht (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

just because others have made an error does not mean we have to repeat it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category; I believe this guideline indicates categorizing these redirects is perfectly acceptable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

References/facts

Many of the facts and refrences on this page are not accurate. For example, reference 38 claims that the girls were severely dehyrated among other things when they got to the medical center, however, when one actually reads the source, the people at the medical center refused to comment on their condition. I will be modifying that section to reflect the correct information. Also source 40 which states the women had multiple miscarriages is speculation and unsubstantiated claims by an unnamed police source. So, I will be modifying that section to reflect it's unconfirmed nature. I encourage everyone else to check the references of the facts in this article because if the random two that I checked are any indication there are numerous problems with this article.Fjf1085 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything I added was accurately sourced when I added it. If something seemed like it might change I have been careful to couch the statement by citing the source in words. There are several problems happening though. Some editors like to pare down the text so "a police source reported xyz" becomes "xyz" like it is a hard fact when it was actually an unconfirmed report. Than the news sources update or change their pages on us. So watch what the text says and please re-source anything that seems correct but is not reflected in the news source that may have changed its url since used here. Legacypac (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I could see how that would happen, people trying to make the text more streamlined but then losing critical details in the process. It's unfortunate more people don't have a better grasp of language. I will also continue to monitor news sources in case the information changes. It may very well be that they were dehydrated but until that is confirmed somewhere it's not right to include that. I appreciate the tips and feedback! Fjf1085 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I imagine when a week or so has passed it will be considerably easier to make the article orderly and accurate, the first couple days of something like this are always a mess and misinformation always seems to creep in one way or another. When the next "big news" story breaks things should calm down here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, I'm sure as soon as something else happens this will die down. Honestly normally I would have just ignored the mistake but over the last year or so I've been making minor edits and getting more comfortable making them so I figured I'd give it a try.Fjf1085 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do fix anything you see rather than ignoring it, and don't worry about doing anything wrong (someone will probably revert you if so :). One major thing is that breaking-news sources change (even from the same URL); I had to re-source a few things while copyediting this earlier, because even though Google showed the articles with the required information, the original URLs had changed! So it's not just editor sloppiness (though that definitely occurs), but sources changing and moving... It is pretty impossible to keep this type of article properly sourced and updated initially; really, I'd personally be happier if we waited on them, but I edit them because I know they will exist in any case, so may as well try to keep them accurate and such. So be bold and fix things that are broken! No need to seek guidance if something is obviously wrong. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: two of the brothers not charged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Edit request has been answered. Whether the events should be described as "kidnappings" is being discussed at #Let's try again: "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight". I'm closing this section to keep the discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's a live news conference right now and the Cleveland police just announced that Pedro and Onil Castro will not be charged, that there's no evidence they had any involvement in the kidnappings, and they will be released from police custody soon. Ariel Casto is the only one who will be charged. Pedro and Onil are currently being held on issues that are totally unrelated to the kidnappings. Their names need to be removed from the article. At the news conference, the police said the only reason they arrested Pedro and Onil is because they happened to be with Ariel when he was found; so they took them in based on "probable cause". See this article just posted by The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's major newspaper. It says, "City Prosecutor Victor Perez said there was no reason to believe the brothers (Pedro and Onil) were involved." This is a perfect example of why BLP policy with regard to suspects in custody but not convicted (or even charged) must be followed! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like User:Martin451 quickly took care of this. Since Ariel Castro has now been charged with kidnappings per that ref, I think it's reasonable to actually use "kidnappings" in the title (I'll amend the proposal above with...yet another section.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Until someone is convicted of kidnappings, we cannot refer to them as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, 2001. The article about Elizabeth Smart is simply Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. And the one for Jaycee Lee Dugard is simply Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. So the title this article should be Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michele Knight. It's standard protocol and has clear precedence. And Andy, you're comparing apples to oranges. No one's saying to call Ariel Castro a kidnapper because, of course, he hasn't been convicted. However, the article title must surely have the word kidnapping because that is factually what it is, a kidnapping. This is a fact not in dispute. The three females were kidnapped. The only thing legally undetermined is: who kidnapped them. The legal system will decide that. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're stealing my exact thoughts and edit conflicting me with them. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, discuss in the move proposal above. Of course, we cannot directly state that this suspect kidnapped the women in question...but we can refer to the fact that they were kidnapped, since that is now the official description of what happened to them. If the suspect is not convicted, the victims are still women who were kidnapped; it has no bearing on his conviction status. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) again. We do not need a conviction to call them kidnappings but we would need a conviction to name a kidnapper.Martin451 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2001 (and Martin)... Haha, great minds think alike. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. There is no such thing as an "official description of what happened". Until someone is convicted of the crime of kidnapping, we cannot state as fact that a kidnapping took place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I too agree that we should call the events kidnappings but not call the suspect a kidnapper. A suspect has been charged with kidnapping, therefore the authorities have officially stated that a kidnapping took place. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, by your logic we should should not title an article with murder until someone is convicted of the murder. Haha. As we're all telling you, it is a fact that they were kidnapped; that's not in dispute. The only part not legally determined is if Castro will be convicted. So, yes, it's a kidnapping. Yes, Castro is the suspect. And, no, Castro has not been convicted. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What anyone 'supports', or 'agrees with' is completely irrelevant. Any assertion as fact that a kidnapping took place is a violation of WP:BLP policy unless and until someone is convicted of kidnapping. WP:BLP policy is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, are you partying right now? Be honest. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Be civil. Andy is bringing up what he believes to be a valid BLP issue, as I hope anyone who has a BLP concern would do. We err on the side of caution with BLP, even if the BLP issue seems incorrect to some of us. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy knows I'm just joking with him in a friendly manner, thus the ":p" at the end of my comment. You are obviously unaware that Andy has acknowledged in the past of editing while, er, having fun. So chill out, 2001. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We should mention that three people were arrested

Although obviously we should not go into detail about them, we should mention that three people were arrested and that two people were released without charges related to the kidnapping. Their names will be associated with this case and it is a good thing to explicitly note this and their innocence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to mentioning the fact that Ariel's two brothers were initially taken into to custody (and never charged), but their names should absolutely not be included in the article. Yes, their names are obviously associated with the case right now, but their names will fade from memory pretty quickly. They're private citizens who, per the police, were taken into custody solely because they happened to be with Ariel when he was found. The police said at the news conference today that the women never even mentioned the brothers; only Ariel. Therefore, the names of the two brothers must not be re-added to the article. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. They are inextricably linked with this and associating their names with an explicit statement of innocence is responsible journalism, rather than pretending we never named them in the first place. Obviously though I'll not add the names without consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should explicitly name them. I think it would suffice to note that two of Castro's brothers were initially arrested, then released; that should provide enough context without using their names. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thryduult... Wow, "inextricably linked"? Let's not go overboard. :p Yes, right now they're obviously known because their names and photos were prematurely plastered all over the media, but they won't be remembered for long. But that's not what's most important here as we consider BLP policy. They are private citizens who the police have now confirmed had nothing to do with the crime. Therefore, it is our duty per policy to make sure that we do not "inextricably link" them to this crime by including their names in the article. It's fine to say that two of Ariel Castro's brothers were intially taken into custody, but to actually state their names would be wrong. As this investigation and legal process moves forward, the two brothers will fade away quickly from the story, as it should be. I do give you credit for thinking about this, though. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to follow mainstream media, who are saying that the two other brothers were arrested, but that the prosecutor said they had no role in the crimes. They don't have to be explicitly named at this point. If they are not mentioned at all, their possible guilt is left up in the air, after everyone in the world who follows sensational news, or who reads about breaking news in Misplaced Pages, read yesterday that the other two were likely culprits. Just pretending now that they do not exist and were not arrested ay not be the best interpretation of BLP, since it does not unring the bell. Not mentioning them does not provide balanced coverage, and fails to give due weight to the amnount of coverage they are still receiving in reliable news sources and official statements from law enforcement. Edison (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Their possible guilt is left up in the air"? Not at all. Obviously, there would be nothing left up in the air if the article says something like, "Castro's two brothers were also initially taken into custody the day the women were freed, but they were released a few days later after police announced that they had no involvement in the kidnappings." ;) Clean, simple, and factual. And without unnecessarily tying them forever to this horrible crime by including their name in an encylopedia article about it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think anyone is proposing not to include them; rather, whether to use their names or not. So we can probably go ahead and include them, just mentioning that two of Castro's brothers were also arrested, while discussion over using their full names proceeds. If they stay in the media then perhaps, but it seems unlikely. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I used 76.189.109.155's wording, modifying it a bit so the timeline isn't confusing. But it's unclear when the other brothers were released (May 7 or May 8?) Also, there appear to be conflicting refs for when they were all arrested in the first place; was it May 6 as stated, or May 7? (Google for "castro arrest may 6" and "may 7"...there are a bunch of refs for both! I don't have time to sort through the refs right now to try to figure out which is right, so I left it as May 6.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2001, nice job. All three were arrested the day the girls were freed. The precise date the two brothers were released is unnecessary; "a few days later" is acceptable context. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - section title needs to be singular

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Now that there is only one suspect, the section heading "Suspects backgrounds" needs to be changed to "Suspect's background". Better yet, the heading should just simply be "Suspect". Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix

The article states: "One of the suspects is believed by police to have fathered Berry's 6-year-old girl." This was added in, when there were three suspects. Now, there is only one suspect. However, is Ariel Castro himself suspected of fathering the baby? Or did one of the other two brothers father the child? This needs to be clarified. And, either way, the sentence needs to be reworded, since there is only one suspect. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Found a ref stating that Ariel Castro is suspected, not just one of the initial three. And I took out his name and the grandmother's name from that part, since it seemed to be a possible BLP issue to name the alleged grandmother in particular. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good cath Joseph. The police have made it abundantly clear that the two brothers had absolutely nothing to do with the kidnappings, so of course they did not father the child. Yes, it is being reported that Ariel is the suspected father of the child. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A reader might wonder who the other two guys were, now that Misplaced Pages editors have determined that the two arrested and freed brothers are absolutely innocent of any role in the abductions and abuse. The article presently says: "Women who lived in a neighborhood apartment building said they called police because they saw three young girls crawling on all fours naked with dog leashes around their necks in the backyard, as three men controlled them. " The one brother who has been arrested had the ability to look like three, or are there two unknown subjects, or is the neighbor a liar? Edison (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. But it's vital that we only go by what we know for sure via reliable sources. And what we now know for sure is that the police said the two brothers were not involved in the kidnappings and therefore will not be charged. Keep in mind, those women in the neighborhood gave no names. We need to be very careful and not get ahead of ourselves. And we certainly must not play police detectives. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "three men" part. It doesn't really make sense unless they were either the other brothers, or other suspects that haven't been named...the rest of the statement seems fine without it. (Then again, we're linking to a ref that does name the other brothers; but we're linking to a lot of refs like that currently. More evidence that we need to note the other two initial suspects, but of course not by name.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a bunch of reports from individuals about naked women, kids in windows, multiple kids, screaming etc and calling the police. Since police deny getting these calls, and had police got a call about naked women on a chain in the yard they surely would have checked the house, these reports may be just people getting exciting and making sh!t up to get on TV. I just don't know, but giving these stories much wait seems wrong to me. ~(gotta love the alleged grandmother phrase above made me laugh )Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, some of that stuff seems pretty whacky; it's sourced, but it definitely needs cleanup. I just ce'd my way through the article, but that was the one bit that didn't seem worthwhile to go to the hassle of sorting out, since it's such a weird mess. (And hey, allegations of someone being a grandmother are serious business! :) Though I assume you get the point, not to single the grandmother out for being the mother of the suspect.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This article, based on an unpublished police report of interviews of the victims makes it clear that some of the neighbors reports are absolute BS. Key points include: Women were chained in bsmt at first, but let upstairs after a while. Only left house 2x, in disguise, to go to garage. They never met brothers. So naked women chained in backyard controlled by three men is complete BS - someone trying to get on TV. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If I were to conjecture, I would agree with you. But if I were to conjecture, I could also imagine not reporting the worst that happened to me if I were a hostage. If I were to not conjecture ... I would be a wp editor, just reflecting RSs ... ;) .--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/fbi_agents_at_seymour_avenue_h.html
2. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/ariel_castro_charged_with_4_co.html

Bears monitoring: "Three women on all-fours" and similar reports

I've avoided jumping into the needlessly polarized debate in the "Daughter slashed granddaughter's neck" section above, where a sensible compromise is to set up a "news alert" (via google or other services) to monitor developments. Clearly a connection might be established later, and if one is established, then one can add on that angle, either to this article or the one about Ariel Castro himself.

Similarly it would be helpful if we could avoid a drawn out debate about inclusion of reports about three women on "all fours" in the back yard - so I will not (at this time) propose adding it. However I will make the analogous suggestion: I encourage others to join me in setting up a News Alert for future developments, corroborations, etc. Because if true, it would be extremely newsworthy and noteworthy if police received but either ignored or did not fully investigate, reports about three simultaneous naked women on leashes. Report of one woman on a leash, one might imagine the police thinking it might be a sex game by a couple, one cannot, however, excuse the police of the same reasoning if it's a report of three women at the same time naked on leashes led by three men. That can't be "a couple having a sex game," sorry, and is worth at least police interviewing them - again, if the claims that people saw this, and reported to police, are true, So: let's monitor this for future developments

(Aside: agreed that the number of cases where early reports turn out to not be true, is large. It's equally true, however, that the number of cases where tips to police, or other government officials, were ignored or mishandled, are also, sadly, very large) Meanwhile, some links to existing reports while monitoring future corroboration or refutation:

Is it possible all these neighbors or the media, are misreported about the calls about multiple nude women outside on leashes? It's possible, yes, it is. It's also possible that the reports are true despite initial (though as noted, shifting) denials by authorities, in which case police inaction will raise numerous questions. Hopefully the half dozen links above are a starting place; I've just created a google news alert to monitor, may create a second with different keywords, and encourage others to monitor for eventual full weight of the evidence whether this happened Harel (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I belive I read somewhere that the women themselves said they were never in the backyard, they never got any further than garage, and even then were "in disguise". And it was all over the news today that the other two brothers were released and the authorities do not consider them directly involved int he kidnappings/captivity/etc. The cops and the lawyers can't be that desperate to cover up that they received a tip like that. The spotlight is a very tempting place to those unfamiliar with it, who may be repeating half-truths or even just lying for attention. Or the entire Cleveland police force, the local prosecutor, and even the FBI are either totally inept idiots or involved in a really poorly constructed conspiracy.

All that being said, as usual it comes down to only repeating what we can find in reliable sources, and this is clearly a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice user name, fellow Douglas Adams fan? Ok, now back to grim details of this story..Do you have a source that the "women themselves" said they were never in the yard? To repeat, I am not calling for adding this info to the article at this point, but was and am calling for on-going monitoring of these claims. I just unearthed a video of the interview in which Israel Lugo said that several women saw "three naked women" in leashes etc.

But just to clarify, neither I, nor (most) of the sources made any assertion that the persons holding the leashes, were Castro's brothers. Not at all. If true, other men could have held the leashes (which would make sense if other reports, that the women were forced to have sex, are true; he could have gotten other men to pay for sex etc, while not telling his brothers, for example, is one possibility. In any case, neither I nor most of the stories about women on all fours with leashes, stated anything about the identity of the men holding the leashes) Note Lugo said that the four elderly ladies saw the three naked women "back there" - not sure if "back there" is identical to what sources have terms "backyard" or some where else. Video of interview with Lugo:

• Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SOLZkj1D0eU

"Castro Neighbors Called Police after seeing women chained naked on Leashes; Police never showed" uploaded by Wayne Dupree

We reflected these reports but a) the police denied any calls received like reported and b) a police report reflected the girls said they were only were out of the house 2x, to the garage, wearing wigs and head down. All of these details were cut out by other editors. I firmly believe that some neighbors were making up crazy stories to get on TV and/or slam the police. See please. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Legacypac. One thing I did notice, however, is that the link says that the police representative merely stated the women were allowed to go to the garage and only that the women "never left the property." Not "never left the house" but never left the property..The reports in question don't contradict that since they have the women on premises(though where exactly between the house, back yard, and the mentioned garage, is less clear) Anyway I'm here because more info: the name of one of the women who say they saw a woman in the yard. This is Nina Samoylicz.Worth keeping google news alert for Nina Samoylicz perhaps. So far, this is being taken more seriously than ever, with CNN and Wall Street Journal reporting:

* May 9: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473461557226392.html

"Neighbor Nina Samoylicz said she clearly recalled seeing a "really pale, really skinny" naked woman in Mr. Castro's yard in the summer of 2010. She said the experience was confusing, and that she thought it might have been Mr. Castro's girlfriend. She said she told her mother about the incident, but they never called police. "We just laughed it off," she said." Also May 9, http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/ohio-unanswered-questions/ on Nina and her sister and mother, two of three stating no call made

Note: this is not the "four women" who saw "3 women" but rather a young woman who says she saw one,but still naked, and still, on-property but outside the house; and unlike Nina, the four older women were said to have called police and waited two hours (see youtube video in preceding post)

Which is what really bears following is the report of the four women at the "retirement home" mentioned by Israel Lugo at the YT link I put here last night http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=SOLZkj1D0eU with the report starting around about 1:02 about the "four ladies from the old folks..that seen three girls back there naked on four legs..the four ladies were waitign around the corner waiting for the cops and the cops never showed up" when challenged where the ladies come from, it sounded like "retirement home on Scranton Castle" (another copy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm831Wcun28) A google finds e.g. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/scranton_castle_high-rise_resi.html "Scranton Castle high-rise residents win library access with bookmobile" and just found NBC, "About half a block away on Castle Ave, the residents of an old-persons home called Scranton Castle were just as surprised — including some who knew the suspects." (http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/youre-afraid-to-talk-to-your-neighbors-suspects-street-was-perfect-hiding-spot )Aside: NBC story has another angle of interest, why neighborhood was "perfect"for this with people "afraid to talk to one another" and boarded up houses next to Ariel's so no one could hear,etc Many more details in this CNN 3 min video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE4nZ-TBVF0 but still not inteview of Scranton Castle retirement home/highrise; just more details from Nina.

Good reporters should do some interviews at Scranton Castle about the "four saw three naked girls" reference. At WP we are not reporters but we can (and I will) create another google news alert with that keyword, so if/when reporters document or contradict that remarkable reference by Lugo, we can followup. For now wanted to clear up difference between Nina/friends seeing one, and elderly ladies seeing 3 naked women,and share Scranton Castle keyword. Thanks to all editors. Harel (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox has a "beginning date" of August 22, 2002. This implies that all of the victims were abducted on the same day (which they were not). This needs to be fixed or clarified. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that at all. To me, it simply says when the subject began. I believe it's correct as-is. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly my point. The subject/title – at least, currently – is "missing trio". So, the infobox implies that this missing trio went missing on August 22, 2002. What do others think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×2 I agree with 76.189, it implies only that the kidnappings began on that date not that they all happened on that date. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Thryduulf, you said it much better than me. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The word 'trio' is ambiguous. Someone not familiar with the subject might think the three were a trio who went missing at the same time, as opposed to separate kidnapees becoming a trio over the course of years. I'm hoping whatever future title is chosen won't have this word. Fletcher (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Brothers

Some of this information should be worked into the other relatives section, with reference to the fact that they were declared to not be involved (or however it was said) ... appropriate to indicate that they were exonerated, and they were certainly heavily covered by RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see all that much useful in there that isn't bordering on BLP-unfriendly material, past Pedro Castro mentioning that a police search was a waste of money; that bit is certainly notable and should be added back in. Alcohol problems, job histories, etc, aren't really relevant, since they have no reported bearing on the crime. We already mention that Castro's brothers were initially arrested then released, so that part is in there. We could definitely add a bit about how heavy the media coverage of the exonerated brothers was, if there's a source that notes that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the first sentence, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's relevant that they lived half a mile away from the suspect's home; it's kind of a coatrack into suggesting they were involved by virtue of living very close, given that they're no longer suspects... Consider if we'd include it if the material was that they lived 10 miles away. We probably wouldn't, so without any sort of source connecting their proximity to the incident, I don't think it's relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We routinely reflect such things. Even in this article -- as with the uncle's store. It also makes clear they were not living with him, though they were in the neighborhood. Been appropriately reflected in RSs. Plus -- I'm not seeing any mention of the brothers at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

2013_Cleveland,_Ohio,_missing_trio#Investigation_developments: "Two brothers of Castro's were also initially taken into custody, but they were released a few days later after police announced that they had no involvement in the kidnappings." (The "few days" comes from uncertainty at the moment on when they were released.) The thing with the store doesn't imply guilt on the uncle's part; my concern is that stating the brothers lived very close might do so. If you think it's reasonable to include irrespective of the distance, then go for it...but if the distance is a factor in the decision to include the material, I think we need a source to link them to avoid OR and any BLP issues. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Will consider. May do tomorrow. For some reason that didn't come up in my prior search ... but despite there being refs in what was deleted, the language you point to is sadly completely unreferenced.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I added a ref (not the best, but of course most sources don't care about past suspects) for the other brothers being cleared and released. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The present phrasing, "Two brothers of Castro's were also initially taken into custody..." reads very awkwardly (at least to me). If he has only two brothers I think we should say "Castro's two brothers .." or if he has more then "Two of Castro's brothers..." would be the best. I don't recall the media mentioning any other brothers of his so I presume there are none (based on the mentions of seemingly every family member) but I'm not certain enough to directly make the change. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that awkwardness exactly because of that: we don't know if he has additional brothers. There are some sources that refer to "Castro's two brothers" (but just referencing the ones who were cleared), but none that I can readily find that just generally discuss his family or whatnot. So it remains unclear; I imagine there will be articles more focused on biographical detail of the suspect soon enough. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Castro is one of 9 children per the Plain Dealer. He has at least 2 brothers and at least 2 sisters (more than 1 sister) but that is the best I have found so far other than general statements he has a big extended family (with 8 siblings, born to a mom in her late 70s you would think so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.88.133 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian

Numerous reports indicate that he was a Christian.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/on-facebook-cleveland-kidnapping-suspect-hid-secret-under-lol/ He “liked” a photo that read: “It’s really nice to wake up in the morning, realizing that God has given me another day to live. Like if you agree!” Another message read, “Like if you need Jesus’ help.”

Please add him to the category "Christians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by50.131.41.41 (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not categorize people by religion (or lack thereof) based on vague assertions...particularly things like Facebook posts. See WP:FACEBOOK for one. "Liking" something does not make someone a member of a religion. (There's some other policy bit on people needing to explicitly declare their religions to be listed as such, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.)– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CAT/R is what I was thinking of. Unless he specifically said "I am a Christian" (and keeping WP:FACEBOOK in mind, if it was there), then we can't categorize as such. Liking his god and Jesus only suggests at a broad spectrum of religious beliefs. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I also do not see how it is relevant...at least at this point.Fjf1085 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlike say the Boston Marathon bombings suspects, there is not even a hint that these acts were faith motivated. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

50.131.41.41 should tell us the denomination of Meyer Lansky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Charles Ramsey (the hero) is a Christian too, he even said so during his interview. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Angel Cordero started the rescue and seems to speak Spanish mostly. Cordero's denomination is not mentioned by 50.131.41.41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

These things are not relevant to the article. There are no sources stating religion played a notable role in either the kidnappings or the rescue. There are no reports of a language barrier that was overcome by the rescuer speaking Spanish. Meaningless trivia, in other words. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Broad hints go over the head of User:2001:db8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

typo

"initial" should be "initially" 75.164.254.152 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done That entire section is a mess currently, as noted above... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne says Amanda Berry is dead

I know it is crazy here on this page. And I have been at work and not able to follow all the edits here, but I would like to know what reason my edit about psychic Sylvia Browne telling Amanada Berry's mother that she was dead, was removed from this. This angle is being covered all over the media, it is major news and completely connected to the event. Sgerbic (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I removed it per WP:FRINGE. Please do not conflate a "psychic" with a self-described psychic-type person. Do you have a reliable source that this individual has reasonably provided information as to the status of individuals, in a reliable fashion? "All over the media" doesn't necessarily cover "human interest" stories about WP:FRINGE-ish characters– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

2001:db8 Do you have a reliable source that any "psychic" has reasonably provided information as to the status of individuals in a reliable fashion? What exactly do you contend is being conflated? Sylvia Browne is a notable person who claims to be a psychic. She was featured on a notable, national talk show (Montel Willams) weekly for an extended period of time. It was on this show that her statements regarding Amanda Berry were made. The issue of this particular and of "psychics" in general has been reported not as "human interest" but as serious journalism by noted journalists on a notable national news show (Anderson Cooper 360 and others) over the last few years. This aspect of the story of Amanda Berry is being covered by the national news networks and channels. Amanda Berry's mother was told on national TV on a that her daughter was dead, she died without her daughter being found, all the while her daughter was being held less than 5 miles away. Please provide some explanation of how a major media discussion of a notable figure is giving undue weight to a fringe theory rather than providing appropriate discussion. Perhaps your idea of conflating a "self-described psychic type person" with a "psychic" is part of the cause of the confusion. Note that Sylvia Browne was described as a psychic on a national TV show that featured her weekly. In terms of relevance again Amanda's mother appeared on national TV to ask Sylvia Brown about her daughter. In terms of notability of the prediction and it's proving false this is being covered by all the major news networks as part of the story, also that the subject of psychics making predictions about missing persons has been the subject of multiple national news programs, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. This information is considered important enough to be be reported by secondary WP:RS as such it qualifies for inclusion. Please restore or provide a suggestion for how this aspect can be appropriately include in this article. (MrBill3)65.82.23.180 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe all so called psychics are 1000% blood sucking lowlifes that feed on distressed people - but this woman has an extensive WP article and is a public figure of some note. This should be covered, at least by a line, in this article. Legacypac (talk)

According to WP:FRINGE, "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." That is not what was happening with the Sylvia Browne reference. This is why I am restoring the statement, and adding further material to indicate that Browne has received significant media criticism for her "false and potentially damaging" according to ABC and the HuffPo, and the pseudoscience/fringe claim is significant to the media coverage in this case.Nmillerche (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Browne receiving criticism does not seem relevant to this article, but is relevant to Browne's own article. Would we cover it if the 50/50 guess had gone the other way, "validating" the psychic rather than debunking her? I doubt it, because we'd say "that was a WP:FRINGE prediction, it wasn't based on any actual science!"; so why does WP:FRINGE also not apply the other half of the time, when a psychic is wrong? It may be relevant that Miller apparently died believing her daughter was dead based on that information, but I still do not see the relevance of a psychic being wrong, however famous said psychic is. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP disaster again

We've just had the following added to the article...

"Berry accepted a ride home from Castro after her shift a Burger King, who said he had a son who worked there as well. She called her family to say she was getting a ride home. Instead she was taken to Castro's house and imprisoned."

No "reported". No "alleged". Just a statement of apparent fact. This is appalling. Surely you guys know now that such content cannot be added to an article without legal proof. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Go read the source first HiLo48 and stop jumping to conclusions. This is directly from the Plain Dealer who got it from the responding officer report. This is what the victim said happened, plus info the family reported just after the (alleged?) abduction. If you want to couch it a little, fine, but lay off the dramatic language and attacks on other editors. We do not need "legal proof" (whatever that is for a victim account) to reflect what responsible RS report. What part of these sentences do you doubt or have ANY evidence is incorrect? Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fact #1 - Berry was a BK just before she disappeared. Fact #2 She was found at Castro's house 10 years later. Fact #3 she got from BK to Castro's house by car (or maybe she walked, flew, or was teleported, tied herself up, and the whole kidnapping was faked). Fact #4 she was imprisoned in that house. Never said Castro was guilty BTW, only reflecting what sources say happened. Again, which part of the quoted text can you provide ANY evidence is incorrect? Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Never said Castro was guilty, eh? Try reading this carefully.... "Berry accepted a ride home from Castro...Instead she was taken to Castro's house and imprisoned." HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement should be reworded and reinstated to the article. It should say that the police and/or Berry said this. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are still just pushing a WP:FRINGE view that there was no kidnapping until proven in a court. Now you are edit warring. I asked you "What part of these sentences do you doubt or have ANY evidence is incorrect?" but instead of answering you deleted the paragraph twice. I'll reinsert it with something about the police report said. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way around. I don't need any evidence about the alleged kidnapping to show that we can't include text like that in the article. Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It's not a WP:FRINGE view. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac - I just saw what you said about me in your Edit summary. It's completely untrue and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that. It's a very reportable offence. You're just lucky that I don't report people here, because the judgement process here is an appalling one. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Look above in the discussion over the article name - you said they could have faked the kidnappings. That is FRINGE and a possible BLP violation against the victims for suggesting they perpetrated a 10 year fraud. I stand by my position that some of your activity here is to advocate against the fact the kidnappings happened and not to improve the article. Next time you don't like some phrasing, just improve it like most editors do, not delete well sourced facts and post on Talk about what you perceive is BLP disaster. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I give up. Every time you tell the world what I said, you get it wrong. No point in further discussing this with you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I do assume good faith editing, but can I gently suggest reading WP:ASF. If you feel the need to dispute facts presented (like Berry was kidnapped and driven to the house they escaped from), bring forward a source that says otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, HiLo is correct. In the US court system, everybody is innocent until proven guilty. While I think all of us here think he's guilty, it's still a BLP issue if we allow the article to state something that is unproven (regardless of if the Plain Dealer published it) as fact until he is convicted. There's still a chance he can be acquitted and because that possibility is still out there, we can't say that such and such happened without prefacing it with either "Amanda Berry said..." or "Castro is alleged to have...". Just my 2 cents on this issue.--Giants27(T|C) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with couching the statements a little - actually went and did that myself. The issue is inappropriate wholesale deleting of properly sourced information rather than improving the article. No guilt is asserted by citing basic facts. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Giants27 -- in the U.S. legal system, he could of course have imprisoned her, and still be innocent.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you simply don't understand what a fact is in cases like this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That, or he disagrees with you. "In agreement with HiLo" and "wrong" are not the only two possible options. Evanh2008  21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in this case, they are. I'm not American, but it stuns me that so many Americans don't understand their own justice and legal system. See Giants27's post at 20:04, 9 May 2013 above. He is one American who does. I wish there were more like him active on this article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, of course, is not a part of the American legal system, nor is this American Misplaced Pages, as has been pointed out a few times. Evanh2008  02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Except, Misplaced Pages is constrained by the American legal system, being hosted in the U.S. Policies like BLP are not only intended to protect innocent parties, but also to protect Misplaced Pages (and editors) from being sued for libel...which certainly can be done under U.S. law, when things like allegations of wrongdoing are incorrectly presented as fact. There have indeed been various libel suits filed against the project in the past. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sensitive to the libel suit issue. We trigger such suits not, you will be interested no doubt to find out, where there is the absence of the word "alleged" in a case like this (i.e., editors fighting over whether the three women were allegedly in Castro's house). Rather, we attract libel suits when there are blatant lies. If we are worried about libel suits, our efforts should go to blocking immediately those who make libelous statements -- and I've spoken at length with a sysop who refuses to do so. But this stuff, though it is what editors argue about, is not what fuels the few suits we've had in the U.S. and elsewhere (where we've faired rather well, though it is a drain on resources).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't imagine simple BLP phrasing violations from re-reported material generally would...but think it's a good idea for other editors to realize that such wording can expose the WMF (and the editors themselves) to legal action by aggrieved parties. I think many editors do not realize BLP partly exists to protect them, not just to make it harder to edit. (Of course, having blatantly incorrect material is indeed much worse than leaving out an "alleged", as you say. But that's not to say someone won't decide to sue over the latter at some point.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the disagreement here? We all seem to agree that accounts of victims and police are to be presented as allegations. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read my first post in this thread. Clearly not everyone agreed initially. If there really is agreement now it's pretty begrudging from some parties. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what I see is people talking past each other. It would be better to just tweak the article text -- in ways that no one here apparently disagrees with -- to make sure it's clear statements are just allegations.Fletcher (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, You're straddling the line between simply invoking rhetoric like "innocent until proven guilty," to try to advance your present non-argument, and downright apologism... sure, the justice system doesn't consider somebody guilty of a crime until found guilty in a court of law, but a perpetrator is a perpetrator, whether or not they are caught, least of all convicted. The rhetorical nonsense that is "innocent until proven guilty" rests on the delusion that every murderer, rapist, and paedophile is a swell guy until a jury tells us otherwise. Although it's neither fair to accuse somebody of something they didn't do, nor is it remotely conscionable to assert the illusion that an alleged perpetrator be treated with respect, which in turn shows none for their victims. It both undermines and compounds their ordeals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More of this keeps popping up in the article. I fixed several earlier, and I see User:HiLo48 just fixed additional issues as well. Please be more careful when including statements that imply guilt; if you are unsure, use alleged, reported, according to, etc. Someone else can always remove such terms if they are added erroneously, whereas NOT including such terms when required is an instant BLP violation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we must remain vigilant on such matters. Thanks for your efforts. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Legacypac has just reverted some of my work in this area. I won't fight him. An edit war won't help. I know he's wrong, and time will let us make this article better. Although it's still possible for Misplaced Pages to be sued on the basis of content in the article for even a short period. And it's morally wrong too, but the excited editors don't seem to care. I cannot see the problem with following normal legal practice here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help the FACT that I know you are wrong. (And your grammar is becoming worse.) I dare you to show some courage to back up your poorly veiled threats and take me to some Administrator's Noticeboard accusing me of vandalism. You would be laughed at. You simply do not seem to understand the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. What? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to write up your background here or put it on your user page and point us there, if you believe it is relevant to this discussion and the application of BLP to this article. I ::I note that User:Legacypac has just reverted some of my work in this area. I won't fight him. An edit war won't help. I know he's wrong, and time will let us make this article better. Although it's still possible for Misplaced Pages to be sued on the basis of content in the article for even a short period. And it's morally wrong too, but the excited editors don't seem to care. I cannot see the problem with following normal legal practice here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You failed to say I am ALLEGED to have reverted your work - could you please update your post? Otherwise someone might sue you for a false accusation. In my opinion, some of your edits are bordering very close to vandalism and make the article read poorly. I have just made some good faith adjustments to improve the article quality and will continue to do so whenever I feel like. FYI-Crimes are alleged, but all the facts in the article to be alleged. Statements by people to the media are not alleged, they are just reported. Locations last seen are not alleged. Lay off the wikilawyering please, Is Castro going to sue WP because we said a girl was last seen near X location?Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help the FACT that I know you are wrong. (And your grammar is becoming worse.) I dare you to show some courage to back up your poorly veiled threats and take me to some Administrator's Noticeboard accusing me of vandalism. You would be laughed at. You simply do not seem to understand the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no threat - just a point. I understand perfectly what the problem here is; you state as fact pure unsubstantiated allegations, yet you edit the article so that well substantiated facts become alleged. If you knew my background you would never make such stupid inappropriate allegation against me. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. What? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to write up your background here or put it on your user page and point us there, if you believe it is relevant to this discussion and the application of BLP to this article. I am curious to see how that might be the case in order to better understand your point of view. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

With this edit I am removing all my comments from this section. There is no point arguing with this editor and this thread is just making this page too long. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Which editor? 2001:db8? What about me? I disagree with your approach too. That makes two vs one. Doesn't that bother you even a little bit? But I do agree with your Edit summary that arguing with you on this seems pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Per TP guidelines, I have restored all of Legacypac's comments that s/he removed with this edit. They should've been struck, not removed, because it throws the entire thread completely out-of-context. I believe s/he meant well, but generally speaking, you cannot remove your own comments once they've been replied to. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This section started with HiLo48 jumping on an edit seconds after it was made and before the point was fleshed out completely. I'm disgusted with the personal attacks and sensationalism about BLP advanced by HiLo48 especially here and elsewhere. I am requesting this behavior stop. If it continues I will seek an Administrative solution. This is the last warning I am giving, so I strongly suggest that HiLo48 steer clear of my edits and engaging me in discussion. That includes replying to this message with anything other than an apology. Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You really cannot reasonably make a request that another user "steer clear" of your edits and any discussions; how do you expect the editing process to function if that is the case? If you have a problem working with User:HiLo48, you either need to resolve it, or not edit the same articles. Warning a user for alleged personal attacks is of course fine, but telling that user to stay away from your edits is in itself disruptive. So is continuing to discuss it on this talk page; take it to your user talk pages, or take it to WP:AN/I if you feel that is necessary, rather than giving warnings here. There is really nothing "sensational" about making sure we are not violating BLP guidelines. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy, 2001's comments are excellent and I hope you'll listen to him. I'm not taking sides, but HiLo has no obligation whatsover to apologize to you, nor can you expect him not to participate in discussions in which you're involved. If you don't want to deal with HiLo again, then it is you who needs to stay away from him. Good luck. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

See also is sexist

Why do we omit the boys kidnapped,like the two boys found in California USA 1980's. sexism or lack of knowledge. If the latter, then wikipedia is written by a bunch of idiots. Since I don't claim we are dumb, that means wikipedia is sexist. 10:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs)

You will probably enjoy reading Missing white woman syndrome. It clearly describes the reality of stories like this getting so much attention. And although there's always some element of it, this one has the blatantly salacious aspects - rape, sex, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2013‎

Steven Stayner and Timmy White's disappearances did not receive much publicity until they escaped from Kenneth Parnell and Ervin Murphy. The media don't carry much coverage of missing boys. The case is similar to this one, apart from the gender of the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Added that one to see also. Fletcher (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more than a little insensitive and senseless claiming sexism given the inherent sexism and _misogyny_ of the perpetrator of the crime at hand. "Since I don't claim we are dumb, that means wikipedia is sexist" - well, actually, your erroneous conclusion and complete misunderstanding of what does or does not constitute sexism suggests otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Google News

I just most recently noticed that google news in prominently posting wikipedia articles about news subjects, including this one.

Which makes sense, because this is the best source of compiled news on this subject and other breaking news events.

So glad the community ignores and/or does not expand the restrictive guidelines of WP:NOTNEWS. Igottheconch (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm at the home page for Google News and can't see what you're referring to. Do you have a link to back up the claim? Evanh2008  15:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Google News uses one top story in a given section that you'll notice has an expanded layout, with several links to different news sources on the top, and sometimes it includes the relevant Misplaced Pages article in the list. The stories below the top story are then just a single link and an abstract of the text, and do not have a WP link. If you visit at a time when the Cleveland kidnapping story is the top article, you'll see the WP link. Fletcher (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see that now. How is this our problem, again? Evanh2008  21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not. As to the OP's comment, he doesn't understand what NOTNEWS means. We do cover current events if they are considered encyclopedic.Fletcher (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - suspect's high school

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ariel Castro is a 1979 graduate of Cleveland's Lincoln-West High School. Here is verification from two reliable sources, the New York Daily News and The Globe and Mail: This should be added to the end of the first paragraph of the "Suspect" section. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it really notable what school he attended? --JetBlast (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's notable. The Suspect section is his biography, and schools attended are standard biographical content. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DONE placed at end of second paragraph chronologically right after the part about where he grew up and before meeting his wife.Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- we typically reflect such information is such articles. As do RSs ... which are the sources of such information.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And now we have a Murder case

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty this afternoon accused kidnapping and rape suspect Ariel Castro of forcing women to terminate their pregnancies while holding them captive for a decade in his Cleveland home. McGinty said he will pursue charges of aggravated murder, attempted murder and assault against Castro, as well as charge him for each day the women were held captive and for each instance in which they say they were raped Don't think this changes the Kidnapping of A,G, and M title, but we are going to need a charges section as that is a whole bunch of charges. Kidnapping alone 3 ppl x avg 10 years x 365 days plus 6+ years x 365 days = over 13,000 charges. We also have some number of additional (maybe unborn, maybe live birth) victims. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we? Are you absolutely sure? I recommend that as soon as you're going to make a speculative post with the word "maybe" in it, you stop right there. Speculation is never our job. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you always such a difficult person? Watch the news conference. There were no maybes. The only thing unclear, as noted, is exactly the born/unborn status and count of children the state alleges were murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.89.187 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you always so rude? The one certainty is that nobody yet has been found guilty of anything. On the murder front there haven't even been any charges laid. The police can say what they like. it doesn't automatically make it fit for publication here. Misplaced Pages can be sued for libel. At this stage absolutely every allegation about the story has to be qualified with "X said..." or similar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the problem HiLo48, there are some facts in the case that do not require speculation preface. For example, Amanda Berry has been missing for ten years. You wouldn't say her family alleged that Amanda Berry has been missing. We can't possibly verify if her family is lying, but we all assume they are telling the truth and that her having been missing is a FACT. The DA has affirmed they will be charging him for the death of the unborn fetuses. The only citation needed is to where the DA said this and WP does not need to preface the sentence with "The attorney will allegedly be pursuing..." Justinlwilson (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would we need to list all the charges (assuming they are brought, or does "pursue" mean "filed" in this context?)? Surely we would just say he was charged with X counts of kidnapping, y counts of rape, etc. I am rather confused by the reporting though, surely kidnapping someone and holding them for say 300 days is one kidnap rather than 300 kidnaps? Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/prosecutor_to_seek_aggravated.html#incart_river

I would think x counts of kidnapping for victim 1, x counts of rape for victim 1, y counts of murder for victims 5-7 or whatever. A small table would work well as we have 3 women, 1 child, ? Infants, and 5 different crimes committed a different number of times (from zero to thousands) for each victim. Pending is an accurate description as this kind of criminal complaint will take more than a few days to prepare. There is no doubt the charges are coming though-the prosecutor was VERY clear about that.

We can watch to see if the prosecutor actually files 13,000 counts of kidnapping. When I was on a jury, we had to deliberate each count of the indictment, and sign a form for guilty or not guilty for each count. Then each verdict had to be read in court, and the defendant could ask for each juror to be polled as to his agreement with the verdict. Even at one minute per count, that would take 5.4 weeks at 40 hours per week, just to report the verdicts in court, and some time in the jury room to deliberate each count, and multiples of that if the defendant wanted the jury polled. Then each sentence could be appealed, clogging the appeals courts. Commentators have said the proposal does not make much sense in terms of putting a defendant behind bars for as long as possible. Edison (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, Justinlwilson's cogent point about our faith in what Berry's family, or indeed anyone else, says, perfectly demonstrates the gaping hole in your incessant ranting about maybes. Encyclopaedias are replete with statements that arise from nothing more than testimony. Were you insisting on the same level of scrutiny on every page on Misplaced Pages people might take you more seriously. At present, you just look like an apologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Name calling will never help your case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, The only "name-calling" in my comment is "apologist"... given the degree with which you assert the illusion of innocence it's a pretty fair observation. You even talk about the ethics of implied guilt but fail to address the issue of the ethics of compounding the trauma of victims with your rhetoric and fantastical assumptions of innocence. Thus you're in no position to rant and rave about ethics. Simply dismissing and insulting others (you have questioned the intelligence of people more than a few times simply because they don't share your sentiment) and failing to engage with critiques of your attitude and edits won't help your case either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs editing

This sentence is incomplete and neither of the two references mention DNA: The suspect is believed by police to have fathered Berry's 6-year-old daughter, and the suspect's DNA has been obtained to compare against the girl's DNA and it is

Several things happened. A warrant for DNA was obtained, citing need to compare to child DNA and article reflected that. Than DNA was taken and the Gov decided to speed up processing from 3-4 weeks to 2-3 days and run against unidentified DNA looking for anything Castro might be connected too. Something got mixed up in the editing (hard to read with all the refs mixed in. The DNA is well referenced. Someone has fixed it already. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

Please be kind to change this to Kidnapping of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please feel free to record your sentiments, above, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Castro divorced?

The Suspect section mentions his wife, then describes her as his ex-wife, without any mention of divorce. Jim Michael (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I was struggling with that too, but saw an interview ~with a close relation that said they were common law married, so no specific divorce occured. Legacypac (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That section needs more sources. Did Castro marry her? If so, did they divorce? Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No marriage, no divorce, they lived common law and had 4 kids together. Search Castro common law wife and there are now lots of hits. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits

Several edits just cut out significant details about the victims.

. IE: lack of Amber alert on Gina, basic bio info about Amanda. No explanation given. Here common-law is deleted as not in source, yet this can be sourced easy .

Please stop deleting good information and can others please restore the deleted info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Changes like are removing large amounts of information. While some of the cleanup is appropriate, removal of that much content on a sensitive and contentious article without consensus does not seem reasonable. If material is unsourced, irrelevant, a BLP concern, or whatever, it should be removed in separate edits with appropriate edit summaries...not in one giant edit marked simply as "cleanup". I don't think it'd be unreasonable to revert those two giant edits entirely, or to the version before them. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Info I removed in my cleanup edits was either a) not present in the sources cited or b) irrelevant. How about this -- I'll go back through now and isolate the info that I removed, and post it here for discussion. Does that sound okay? I think that would be much more productive than reverting completely back to a much, much messier version of the article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do that, that would be great. Thanks. You did make a lot of good edits (thus not quickly reverting it, since it'd wipe those out); my concern was that it was quite difficult to compare the edits and determine the rationale for various removals due to being done in bulk. (I agree that a lot of the pruning made sense, but I'm not sure on some of them.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment and for not mass-reverting. I understand your concerns. I've been delayed by an IE crash but will post the list of removed info hopefully within a few minutes. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed information

I believe the below represents all information I removed from the article in the course of my edits (note that I have not yet looked at any edits since my own, so I don't know if any of this may have been restored or revised in the interim). In a nutshell, if anyone wants to re-add the unsourced stuff with a proper source, or the stuff I thought was irrelevant with a reason why it's relevant, go ahead (and if I still disagree I can bring it up here). Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• " disappeared near West 116th Street and Lorain Avenue"
  • Provided source () says West 106th Street and Lorain Avenue; since the source also said all three disappearances were from the same block, I thought it easier to just remove the address rather than try to untangle the confusion. No objection to re-adding sourced address.

• "shopping plaza on West 117th Street" (became "shopping plaza in Cleveland")
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

All the girls disappearing from same small area is important. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• " was believed to have made it home from her job at a Burger King at West 110th Street and Lorain Avenue, and she changed from her uniform at her family's apartment, but no one witnessed her there. She left money and all her clothes at home. She was known to have had plans to celebrate her birthday the next day."
  • Cited to a source () that preceded her rescue, and which seemed to contradict every other source

• Berry's mother's name
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

She devoted her life to the search and died of a broken heart. Suppressing her is inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Browne's prediction being "false and potentially damaging"
  • Cannot find any news report where this quote originated; they all quote ABC News, but ABC News didn't include it

Did you look? I've seen plenty. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I did look; I found several pages restating what's here on Misplaced Pages, or restating what's on the Huffington Post, but I did not find a news source that indicated who originally spoke or wrote the words "false and potentially damaging". I did not see the phrase in the ABC News report that Huffington Post linked to. 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Before her disappearance, Berry had been in a gifted program at John Marshall High School, but had switched to an online home school program in which she was on track for early graduation."
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

Basic bio info on victim. Fact she was student (and a bright one at that) is important for context. She was not some druggie loser or runaway. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "No AMBER Alert was issued the day DeJesus disappeared, because no one had witnessed her being abducted. The lack of an AMBER Alert angered her father, Felix DeJesus, who said in 2006 that he believed the public would listen even if the alerts become routine.
  • Source () says nothing about AMBER Alert

Then you have the wrong source because I inserted that with a good RS. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the NECN source was the only citation for that paragraph when I edited the article. If there was a source, it had previously been removed. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some details about the Hispanic guy sought after DeJesus' disappearance
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

The sketch and description are very close to Castro. Major detail in investigation prior to discovery. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should wait for a reliable source to discuss any similarity between the sketch and Castro before including it here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some content about pregnancies and miscarriages
  • All seemed to be superceded by the more specific report that Knight had five miscarriages and DeJesus was never pregnant

• Search of Castro's property, mention of cadaver dog
  • Citation for cadaver dog () didn't mention it; the fact that they searched the property and hadn't found human remains seems irrelevant detail, given the article doesn't mention accusations of human remains

Dog was sourced well. Of course there are accusations or suspicions of human remains. Remember there are other missing girls, possible fetuses/babies etcLegacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either of the citations present when I edited the article discussed the dog. (Just to be clear, when I say something wasn't sourced or needs to be sourced, I'm talking about the citations next to that information in the Misplaced Pages article. I'm not talking about whether there are news sources anywhere with that information that could be cited by the Misplaced Pages article.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Castro's uncle's grocery store
  • Not in sources ( and ) and not relevant

Widely reported. Close relative with business nearby, community leader. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Common-law marriage dispute
  • I have no idea what the dispute here is about, because the source next to "future" () didn't say anything about his wife whatsoever, and the source that DID discuss his wife () called her his wife, with no suggestion that it was common-law only

Google Common-law wive Castro and there are many RS. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Price of Castro's home
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

Why?? Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Castro "spent three days in jail before being released on bond"
  • Not in source () and not relevant

• "He was also arrested in December 1993 for disorderly conduct, to which he plead guilty."
  • Not sourced

Yes it was. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1996, Ariel Castro was accused of pulling a fence post from a neighbor's property. The neighbor's 6-year-old daughter stepped in the resulting hole and fell, hurting herself. Court documents detailed significant hostility between the neighbors, and Castro said he spoke with police "on a number of occasions” about the neighbor. Castro was ordered to pay $241 in damages."
  • Source () said nothing remotely about this (and it would probably be irrelevant anyway)

Another legal brush, indicates temper. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Photos of Castro in 2001, provided by his family, show a padlocked basement door inside the house"
  • Irrelevant detail, especially when his son TALKS about all the locks

No point is the locks in place the year before Knight kidnapped. There is a suggestion out there there was a captive before Knight. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Figueroa twice suffered a broken nose, and suffered broken ribs, a knocked-out tooth, a blood clot on her brain, and two dislocated shoulders."
  • Unnecessary detail

Really? Castro beat his common law wife badly over a number of years? Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Castro was stopped six times by Cleveland Police between 1995 and 2008 for traffic violations."
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

Very common to include other police contact in a suspect biography. CNN has video of a traffic stop where Castro was close to arrest for riding a motorbike without a proper license. Had they arrested him, things Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "According to his former sister-in-law, Castro had dinner with his daughter Angie in his house just hours before the captives escaped the house. “She thought he was the perfect dad,” said her aunt."
  • Apparently irrelevant detail

to you maybe - point is the Castro would have people in his house while the captives were there - pretty bold. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Local police and the FBI maintained active investigations after the disappearances, following many leads. The investigations into the disappearance of DeJesus and Berry were widely covered by media regionally over 10 years, and on both national and international TV shows."
  • Unsourced and already covered under sections about DeJesus' and Berry's disappearances

no need to source this summary statement. Nothing wrong with it.Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wolford's convictions
  • Unsourced

It was sourced, and is important. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, your edits removed substantial information that provides context to the story. While I do not own the article, I can say I spent over 3 hours carefully searching out details and inserting them, especially looking for sources that pre-dated their discovery (because I believe that these sources would be more accurate than the rushed articles after the escape). Everything I added was well sourced, so either someone removed the sources or you failed to check them carefully. The old sources are not likely to get rewritten in place 5 or 10 years later. Nothing here is random unsourced garbage. I'd respectfully ask that that most of this info be restored. The person who unilaterally decided to gut the article of details should do the work to put it all back. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to this edit too |Castro asked his son about one of the girls he was holding captive. Again, well sourced quote removed. Please restore these disruptive deletions. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That was after my initial edits. The quote that you referred to was sourced to a Daily Mail article. User:John apparently feels the Daily Mail is an unreliable source and, for reasons I don't understand (I've actually just been trying to discuss this with him at User talk:John), he felt the best thing to do was to take out the Daily Mail citations, while leaving intact the information that came from those citations. I cleaned up his mistake by taking out the material that was no longer sourced since the citations were removed. I have no objection to you or anyone else re-adding the quote, as long as it's accompanied by a source that includes that quote. (I don't even care if the source is the Daily Mail or not.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct thing to do is restore the source, not delete the info. Daily Mail may not be the best source for general facts, but direct quotes from an interview are ok IMO. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No. --John (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Because I had time and I don't want to spend all weekend waiting for you to restore the unsourced information so I can revert it again, I found sources and re-added the information. Hopefully this resolves your concerns. (And now comes the part where John removes the new citations, presumably.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with you Theoldsparkle to craft the best article possible. Some of your edits are quite good,there just seems to be some variance in what we feel is important. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that and I hope we can work together too. I'm sorry if I sounded terse in my earlier comment. I know that my initial edits did probably look like I was removing a lot of stuff for no apparent reason, and in the future when I make edits like that to other articles I'll keep this experience in mind and try to explain myself better. Right now my main concern is just trying to keep the article well-sourced as it changes and expands. As I said at the top of my list of changes above, I mostly would not object to the stuff that I removed being added back in, as long as it's accompanied by a source that specifically supports that information. (Also, in case you missed this, the quote about Castro asking his son about Berry is in the article now, with a source; it's in the last paragraph under "Suspect." When the info about the neighbors got added back in, I thought it made more sense to rearrange the content in those two paragraphs a little bit. And the information about Robert Wolford is in the "Amanda Berry" section.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had missed your earlier comments where you had gone through my list of removed content until now. I've responded to some of them. I think we may have an essential misunderstanding: for the most part, when I made my edits, I looked at what citations were provided for that information in the Misplaced Pages article. If those citations did not support the information, I removed the information. I did not do research on whether any sources exist for that information. If the sources exist to adequately cite that information, then the information can be re-added with the proper citations. It is not my obligation, when I see unsupported information, to leave that information in place while I go search for sources. It is the obligation of the person adding the information to provide proper citations, and I encourage you to do so if you wish to include this information. (And now, I'm about to sign off, and I'm not sure how much I'll be online in the next few days because I don't make Misplaced Pages a priority over the weekend. I can only hope the article will keep improving in my absence.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Great :) I've done some pretty big rewrites too - including the who Castro bio section recently. Generally I'm adding and reordering stuff chronologically. I'll work on putting some stuff back. The bio section has been cut by about 50% since my major revision of it, need to look into that. Admin John reverted the son's quotes and threatened to ban me without any warning - which is wrong but not worth fighting over.

I do think information that shows Castro took various people into the home while the vics where there needs to be included. I read that he would tie them in the attic and tape their mouths, plus play load music when people came over. What an awful way to treat these women.

I also believe we should consider splitting of a Castro bio article now. This way the more biographical stuff (including some family details) can go there and editors will be less tempted to take out info to shorten the Kidnapping article. This is pretty standard practice in notable crime articles. Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit to "Abductions - Amanda Berry"

In the article about the missing trio, under the "Abductions - Amanda Berry" her mother's full name is "Louwana Miller." Conventional usage would be to state the person's full name initially; later references are usually just the surname. In this case, just using the surname is confusing, more so because Ms. Berry has a different last name than her mother's.

Instead of: "Police initially considered Berry a runaway, until a week after her disappearance, when a man used Berry's cell phone to call her mother. The man claimed that he and Berry were married and that Berry would return home in a few days. Miller searched for her daughter for three years, but died in 2006 of heart failure."

I propose: "Police initially considered Berry a runaway, until a week after her disappearance, when a man used Berry's cell phone to call her mother. The man claimed that he and Berry were married and that Berry would return home in a few days. Amanda Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, searched for her daughter for three years, but died in 2006 of heart failure."

The mother's full name is cited in references 25 & 27

I tried to edit and found beeblebrox preemptively semi-protected the page. Thanks, Vic Nunez Librarian Lakeland, Florida

VSNunez (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record I added move protection to the semi-protection that was already on the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No tabloids please

WP:BLPSOURCES prohibits material sourced only to tabloids like the Daily Mail on articles like this one. Please do not add such material to it or it will be removed. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You remove the link the source of direct quotes from an interview. While DM might not be the ideal source for general info, an interview they publish seems pretty reliable. I consider your edit inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly ok for you to disagree with me. However, as I have removed it as an admin action, I would strongly counsel you against restoring any tabloid sources to the article. --John (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you did not say it was an Admin action. Than you should know better than to remove the source info while leaving the quotes. The info is widely reported, though it seems to have originated at the noted source. And now you threaten to block me on my talk page? Nice. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you can't source from the Daily Mail, I advise you to check The Huffington Post. The two sites roughly mirror each other in terms of content, the difference being that the Huffington Post has better fact checking and sourcing, and as such is considered a reliable source.--Auric talk 20:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is absolutely awful, and should never be used to reference articles like this.Martin451 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is quite useful for soccer scores. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Or at least alleged soccer scores... and are they a reliable source for those scores? Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, The quality, or lack of rather, of the Daily Mail is a moot point. It is POV to dismiss it as a source making your position more than a little ironic and hypocritical too. You do realise that in academia Misplaced Pages itself is widely considered an unreliable resource? And yet here you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Daughter's age and Unborn Victims

I have removed the age from the infobox. Do we really need the daughters DOB in the article, personal details of the daughter should be kept to a minimum.Martin451 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the date of birth should be kept, as it helps explain the timeline of events. The daughter's name, definitely not, per previous discussions: that part adds nothing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Very good point, 2001. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Age is widely published and we need that here. Date of birth is ok as it helps timeline. Name not ok.

Martin451 also removed unborn children from the victim list with a note "I think this is stretching it" His opinion means zero on this issue. The unborn children are victims according to the DA, and subject of pending Aggravated Murder charges. In Ohio, Aggravated Murder is the only charge in this case that carries a potential death penalty. So, I'm reinserting this because most people consider the death penalty a big deal. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Per that ref, the charges are for "aggravated murder committed by terminating pregnancies", not "killing unborn children." Ohio does appear to have a fetal homicide law...but the event is based on what is done to the mother, and the result, rather than directly "killing an unborn child"; and the correct description is fetus, with unborn child being a colloquial description (unless a state has passed a personhood law perhaps, which none have.) So I have to agree it's a stretch to include "unborn children" in the victim list, even though it can be colloquially described that he killed unborn children (but I don't think that's an encyclopedic statement, per the above.) We describe the murder charges being for terminating the pregnancies right in the lead, where they can be properly described without confusion or ambiguity. (I realize this may be touchy for some, but we need to use proper encyclopedic terms.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a very good discussion of the issue at Time. If the ref provided does not say "unborn child(ren)", this one does multiple times to refer to victims, some of which were ruled murders. (and uses "unborn fetuses" too). Also there is a federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Anything not encyclopedic about reflecting a term used by Time in a quasi-legal analysis of this specific case? Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The media may refer to such, but that does not make the term encyclopedic, since it is not the correct scientific term. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act does use "unborn child", but keep in mind that that refers to federal crimes, which this is not; nor can you legislate away scientific terminology for encyclopedic purposes. The Ohio prosecutor has referred to "terminating pregnancies." If Ohio specifically brings charges that include "unborn children" as listed victims, then I would say it may be reasonable to include. The relevant Ohio statute states "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy", so I don't think Ohio can bring such charges due to that. The prosecutor's statement mirrored what the law actually says, indeed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok well if a federal law name and Time Mag does not convince you, is there some other agenda because refusing to use a commonly used term in Misplaced Pages is a weird argument. Better go make these pages comply with your opinion ASAP. http://en.wikipedia.org/Feticide http://en.wikipedia.org/Unborn_child_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act I don't care if we call the victims fetuses or unborn children, or something else but under Ohio law (and 35 other states and federally) they are victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

The Ohio law and prosecutor's statement (this is not a federal case) makes me think it is unreasonable to list "unborn children" under victims, as well as generally accepted scientific nomenclature for an unborn child. Feticide says it is "an act that causes the death of a fetus", and the only reference to "unborn child" in that article is in quotes. Unborn_child_(disambiguation) calls it "A vernacular or political term ..." All references to "unborn child" in Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act are in quotes (or in the quoted text from the actual law.) Those articles do not support your point, but rather the opposite, as they put "unborn child" in quotation marks since it is not a correct encyclopedic term for a fetus; it is not a "commonly used term in Misplaced Pages". (And Unborn child itself just redirects to Prenatal development.) And again, see the link I pasted to the actual Ohio murder statute , which refers to "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy", not "unborn child"; no specific victim is named. The crime is against the mother, not directly against the unborn child (note my vernacular usage there.) The information is in the lead, as it correctly should be; I'm certainly not suggesting that we suppress details of a horrific crime. Simply that we use the correct terminology, both scientific and legal. And that does not appear to support listing these unborn children in the victim list, since Ohio does not recognize them individually as such, whatever your views on the issue. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

I can live with your reversion as long as the complete list of crimes alleged is included in the infobox unless and until different info comes from the DA, especially Murder because that puts it in death penalty territory. This is an unusual case-there are very few murder charges ever filed for death of a fetus/unborn child, and even fewer were the mother lived through the attack.

It will be interesting to watch. My educated guess is that since the evidence is so overwhelming for the kidnapping and rapes that the murder charges and death penalty will be used as bargaining chips to get a guilty plea that avoids the death penalty and avoids a costly trial. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Guess what? Misplaced Pages cares nought about your educated guess. Stop speculating! But we do care about you stating without qualification that the suspect kept the girls captive for a long time. That is a blatant breach of WP:BLP. You really need to stop now, step back, read everything at that link thoroughly, and reform your ways. Trying to somehow prove that WP:BLP doesn't apply because this is some sort of special crime won't get you anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 - please be CIVIL. Until you present even one source that contradicts the fact that these girls were held captive for many years, please refrain from posting such fringe comments. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Hilo48 is saying that these women weren't held captive for many years. Instead, he or she is saying that it's a WP:BLP problem to say suspect X held the women captive for many years (without using "alleged" or similar qualifiers, etc). That said, let's all strive to be WP:CIVIL. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. I have a very different view of WP:BLP from that apparently held by Legacypac. Mine isn't going to change any time soon. I believe Legacypac's view on WP:BLP is very wrong and very dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 kindly stop with the personal attacks. Stick to talking about improving the article. If you persist with personal attacks I intend to take action against you. This is your last warning. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. No personal attack there. Just truth. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The prosecution are talking about the murder of an unborn child. Remember this is the same people who are talking about 13,000 kidnapping charges. This is probably the biggest case of their careers, and they want to look good, so this is basically bluster. Also unknown number, they should say exactly what the charge will be, and how many before this is included again.Martin451 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The speculation of a wp editor to the effect that "this is probably the biggest case in careers" and "they want to look good, so this is basically bluster" is -- even if it happens to be true -- completely unacceptable OR which should not influence editing in the slightest. Reflecting what authorities say, which the RSs report -- good practice. Having an opinion as to whether the authorities have told (and the RSs have reported) something that is bluster on the part of the authorities - great for a blog, but has zero place here, and should not at all impact editing of this or any other wp article. It really doesn't even belong on this page, per NOTAFORUM. Let's focus on what the RSs say, and reflect it. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree we have to follow RS. The murder charges will be the most difficult to prosecute.Martin451 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Ashley Summers

I am not sure this section belongs in the article at all. Investigators have stated that they thought it was connected, but have found no evidence of such. The abductions were covered on TV together, but that seems even weaker. From , the ref that best supports keeping this as related: "Ashley's physical appearance and the proximity of her home to the other disappearances meant investigators had to suspect the cases were linked, FBI agent and spokeswoman Vicki Anderson said Tuesday." But again, no actual evidence has been presented (and I'm sure we'll hear about it if something turned up in the search of the house), just vague assertions. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Ashley Summers

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The entire Ashley Summers section needs to be removed immediately. What nonense. There is absolutely zero evidence that her disappearance has anything to do with this case, and investigators have said so. There has simply been speculation because, of course, when you have other young females who have gone missing in the same city, or even the same neighborhood, as the three rescued females - and Summers is not the only one, by the way - of course police or anyone would wonder if they're connected. But that doesn't mean we just stick content about it into an article where there's no proven connection (per reliable sources). So everyone's wondering if they're connected; that's all. This is an example of an editing violation that really hurts Misplaced Pages's reputation. Please remove the section. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the section. When investigating any crime police look for links with others. This one might stand out because of Missing white woman syndrome, but there is 1) no evidence that it's the only one police are considering and 2) no formal evidence of any connection between the crimes at all. Purely speculation by media. (And our editors?) HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the FBI and the Cleveland Police Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) No. (Or should I say Yes.) And I do wish you would learn to place your comments correctly on a Talk page. Me burying yours well inside mine demonstrates why we have firm guidelines on this. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I refactored (hopefully not improperly) to merge this with the section above, since there was just one other section separating the two... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo. It's very frustrating when editors put crap like that into an article, especially one as sensitive as this one. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail?

I may be missing something. The article currently includes the following statement, in the "Discovery" section: "Berry was wearing a jumpsuit, white tank top, rings, and mascara". Is this really necessary? Is this somehow relevant? At first glance, it seems like unnecessary detail, but I may be missing some point here. Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not seem very relevant to me. What would be relevant is her physical condition; e.g., if she was disheveled, or if the clothes and makeup indicated she appeared to be in good condition instead. Might want to look for sources that expand on her appearance as relating to her actual condition. A simple description of clothes doesn't seem like it belongs, without further context. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat relevant. Of interest -- and notable to the RS media as well as to the fellow who found her ... part of why he found it all surprising that she was captive. And we have lots about conditions of captivity, which it bears on.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the source again, it does have detail on Ramsey saying she apparently didn't look like a kidnap victim. It definitely seems relevant if that context is included, so I'll readd it as such. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Now I see why those details were present in the article. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How Long is a City Block?

You may have noticed the sources differ on how far apart the locations of the abductions were. Some sources say they were in the same block while others say within 5 blocks. The sources are all using the same raw data. So who is right? The answer is everyone because it all depends on what that "fuzzy" distance of a "block" means. Everyone would agree that generally one block is the distance between intersections. We can also agree that a block is the distance between, say, 105th and 106th street. However, these can be, and in this case are, different distances.

All 3 girls disappeared along Lorain between 105th Street and 110th Street. That looks like "5 blocks" on paper BUT in this area there are no streets between 106th and 110th on the North side (due to mall being there) and on the south side you find only Joan Ave (which meets Lorain just one building from 110th and is an east-west, not north-south street so would be fair to ignore in determining the length of the block). So if we are standing on Lorain at the mall we could logically conclude that from 105 to 110 is just one block. If you look at all the named streets to the south, from 105th to 110th is exactly one "block".

This Google Map shows the distance between the two furthest points of the three disappearances. The total distance is calculated as a 4 min walk, 36 sec drive (if that long) and 0.2 miles. Some might even say these locations are all the same general location "in front of a specific mall"

Of course it is not known exactly where they were kidnapped, just where last seen, and the locations are given as intersections, not GPS fixes, so everything is a little fuzzy here. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

How about saying "between 105th Street and 110th Street?" And if the RSs support it, you can make it "the block that runs from 105th Street to 110th Street"?Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper resource

From The Plain Dealer: http://www.cleveland.com/decade-of-captivity/ Candidate for external link? Mapsax (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing to The Charley Project

We have various things that are sourced to The Charley Project ( ), which says it "does not actively investigate cases; it is merely a publicity vehicle for missing people who are often neglected by the press". This seems inherently POV, with a high likelihood that they will use improperly sourced information. Those pages list "source information", but don't actually link to any references...just the websites of the claimed sources. References to that site should probably be replaced with appropriate reliable sources or removed; much of it is indeed accurate information, but much of it is outdated or otherwise incorrect. Not an adequate source for a BLP article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Naturally in disappearance cases there will be some speculation and some stuff may turn out to be incorrect. However I am sure that with some digging all info posted here sourced from that site can be verified elsewhere. Remember though, that these were cold cases so we are searching for reports from 10 years ago. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just replaced all of those with proper refs, and despite some effort, could not find several details (including the man claiming to be married to Berry, and some info on the suspect in the sketch.) Some of the details were incorrect as well; when a source is questionable, you can't simply assume the material can be found elsewhere... You're welcome to look for appropriate RSes that contain the removed info, of course. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a direct quote sourced to a specific FBI agent about the phone call and added that. I also found a couple tabloid sources for the getting married part, including one that said there was a second call from the man but have not added them. I don't think the getting married detail is critical. Also found a source directly comparing Castro's stats to the sketched suspect stats. Thanks for improving the sources, the article is better for it. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dispute over Amanda Berry rescue story"

Does anyone think we actually need 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio#Dispute over Amanda Berry rescue story? A feud over how the rescue happened isn't particularly relevant to the kidnappings. Moreover, the "Discovery" section already says exactly what is claimed in that section: that Cordero arrived first, and that Ramsey joined him, so I find it rather WP:UNDUE to include such excessive trivia. Quoting the two men's arguments, apparent negative racial comments, etc, is just way off topic. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need it. As soon as I saw it I thought it was irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Independently wondered the same thing (though it is never a question of "need" ... we never need anything ... just whether we think it appropriate to reflect it, for the reasons pointed out). At most, a sentence. Plus ... I've heard Ramsay's 911 call, for what its worth.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I just removed it again, because the original text is a pure cut-and-paste WP:COPYVIO of , even matching the headline, and still a copyvio even after User:Epeefleche's copyedit. It could certainly be rewritten and condensed, but I don't believe it's relevant enough to do so; perhaps the person who inserted it can discuss why it's any more relevant to the kidnappings than other trivia that has been removed per other talk page discussions. (I'll leave a note on that user's page, as the editor appears to be fairly new.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Conform

I don't have a strong view how it is done, but think it would be helpful if someone were to conform the first sentence or two of each woman's section. So they present the same information, in the same order. As in (just an example) "On day x person y, age z, went missing at ..."--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Pregnancy

The article states: DeJesus told police she did not believe she had ever become pregnant, despite allegedly being raped by Castro. I don't understand that. Wouldn't someone know if they were pregnant or not? Am I missing something? Or is this just poorly worded? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If the rest of what the girls tell us is true, it's likely that they had no access to normal pregnancy testing or quality health care during possible pregnancies. Miscarriages occur. DeJesus' Statement is one of the more sensible and qualified ones here. She simply may not have known. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am looking here, but this info was published in many places. It tells:

Knight may have saved both their lives at that point. The woman told police that Castro got her pregnant "at least" five times. Each time Castro forced an end to the pregnancy with his own cruel version of an abortion, the police report said. "She stated that he'd starve her for at least two weeks, then he'd repeatedly punch her in the stomach until she miscarried," the police report says.

Horrible. That must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Before I saw this section, I took out the word "allegedly" so it now reads DeJesus told police she did not believe she had ever become pregnant, despite being raped by Castro Rational: The sentence starts with DeJesus told police so the reader clearly can see this is a victim statement. It is unreasonable to write that DeJesus said she was allegedly raped. No one says they were allegedly raped. We just report what she told police without clouding the statement. As to the reasonableness of her statement, HiLo48's point is spot on.Legacypac (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect. The "told police" attribution can easily be read as only applying to "did not believe she had ever become pregnant", with "despite being raped by Castro" being read as fact. Simply read it the other way around: "Despite being raped by Castro, DeJesus told police ..." (I forget the proper linguistic term for this construction.) Of course DeJesus did not say she was "allegedly raped". She alleged that Castro had raped her, which is what we must report. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry too because now the article reads more like she said she was allegedly raped. I'm changing it to "DeJesus told police she was raped but does not believe she ever became pregnant." Hopefully that will be clear to everyone. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still missing something here. How do you "not know" if you are pregnant? In other words, how can someone be unsure either one way or the other? I just don't get that. Can someone explain? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As for how a woman could not be sure whether she was pregnant, stress or malnutrition can cause irregular periods My significant other says she went several months while a freshman in college without having a period, and she was still a virgin at that point. Also female athletes often stop menstruating due to stress and low body weight. The article states as a fact that there were multiple pregnancies, but press coverage only quotes one woman as saying she was pregnant 5 times, then the captor starved and punched her until she miscarried. It should say reportedly, or allegedly, or according to an anonymous police source quoting the woman. There is no information at this point stating that the captor or the other victims agree that she was pregnant multiple times, or that the other captives saw her with a baby bump, or saw her deliver the products of conception after a miscarriage. It should not be stated as a fact that one was pregnant 5 or multiple times. I inserted allegedly but it was reverted. Rather than edit war, I seek a consensus here as to whether the multiple pregnancies should be stated as an absolute fact as it now is. Thoughts? Edison (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issue about irregular – or even absent – menstrual periods (e.g., due to stress, malnutrition, and other factors). But, that still does not answer the question of how a female would be "unsure" if she was ever pregnant. If you are indeed pregnant, you would either (A) deliver a baby; or (B) miscarry. If event "A" happened, you would be aware of that. Likewise, if event "B" happened, you would also be aware of that ... no? When a woman miscarries, there is still some form of "delivery" or expulsion (I would imagine). Or am I still misunderstanding something here? Or is there some other possibility – an event "C" – that I am overlooking? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm. Or is it possible that a woman might confuse event "B" above (delivering a miscarriage) with just a run-of-the-mill ordinary menstrual period? Is that a possibility? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct; the woman becomes pregnant, stays pregnant for only one to two months, miscarries, and in a later expulsion of material, she does not notice enough differences to distinguish the event from a menstrual period. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that makes sense now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Factory" film

• The Factory, 2011 film about man who abducts a number of young American women, keeps them captive in his basement for years, and has children with them, until they escape.

This keeps getting added and removed from "See also" by various editors. Perhaps we should discuss whether it should be included, so we can either permanently remove it or stick a comment on it to see the talk page before removal? Personally, I have absolutely no opinion either way at this time; except that I'm irritated by seeing it added and removed repeatedly. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Until it's shown that the film had any connection with these kidnappings, I don't think it belongs. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• No - have no need to link to any movie that is not about this case - let alone one of just many movies that have this underlining theme.Moxy (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Er. I agree with HiLo. It doesn't belong in the article at all. (Up next: Flying pigs!) Evanh2008  05:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support retention, per guideline. I think it should remain in. Meets wp:see also. As suggested, provides "a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". As suggested as well: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." The movie in question (which I have seen) is in many ways a mirror of the facts in this article. Man (in Buffalo, in that case) abducts a number of young American women. Keeps them captive in his basement for years. Has children with them. Until they escape. The assertion that a see also has to have a connection to these kidnappings is not grounded in what, as indicated above, see also is used for -- that argument is clearly not a guideline-based reason for deletion. The same with the assertion that we only include in a see also an entry as to which there is a "need" -- there is no "need" to include any entry whatsoever in an article, and indeed there is no "need" to have the article at all. It is, however, completely appropriate, per the guideline itself, and the strong fact similarity, and the see also section as the guidelines states is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• No. Far too tangential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• No. Links in the see also section need to have relevance to the article (otherwise they end up like the sprawling "in popular culture" sections) and a film with a coincidentally similar plot is not relevant. If they make a film based on this story, then that would be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• No. There have been other films with similar content, e.g. Kiss the Girls (film), I suspect there are others.Martin451 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

News coverage

Since the kidnapped victims have gained their freedom, the story of their captivity has received considerable news coverage. I find for instance: "How the macabre enslavement of two girls and a woman began has deeply disturbed a nation, if not the world." One of the two sources in our lead references the considerable news coverage this story is receiving, and our lead reads "The case received front-page news coverage worldwide." Shouldn't the considerable extent of news coverage—both national and international—be noted somewhere in the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bus. I thought about this issue. Personally -- I'm not certain whether the extent of news coverage the matter received even deserves mention. We aren't consistent on this across the project. We mention it at times. But if you look at our articles on major world events, I'm not sure we necessarily mention the press coverage they received in the article itself, absent controversy. And if they do mention it, whether they reflect it in the shorter lede, reserved for the most significant facts. That said (and I'll for the moment not opine on whether is should be in the lede, as I'm uncertain) -- if we do retain it in the lede, I agree completely that it should be reflected in the body. I believe that a rule of thumb -- for the lede is only a summary of what is in the body. Or should be.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

hi Epeefleche. This is an interesting article. I'm not sure what we should be saying about the quality or quantity of disseminated "news" concerning this story. I will wait and see if see if something seems substantial enough for inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The saturation media coverage was due to Missing white woman syndrome combined with the titillating sexual aspect of the case. It really doesn't reflect the true importance of the story. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This story receives big coverage after these women are released, but I think the phrase "Missing white woman syndrome" refers primarily to as yet unsolved cases involving Caucasian women. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This video, which is called "Covering Cleveland's kidnappings", lends a degree of support to HiLo48's reference to "Missing white woman syndrome". It is on the topic of news coverage of this incident, and I think it is interesting in general. (Perhaps Misplaced Pages needs an article on "Black and Missing".) Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If RS covered, I'm inclined to cover it -- at least in the body. It is not our position to say "oh ... the reason it was covered is x." That's speculative OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We constantly make judgements about what is reported in our sources. We ignore a lot of it. And I'm more and more convinced that the competitive nature, deadlines, and column inches to fill in media these days leads to lots of stuff being reported in detail when it's really just trivia. And we know it.

I find that editors who try to keep out material that is widely reported in RSs appear to be substituting their own OR over the judgment of the RSs. That's not helpful. We defer to RSs as a matter of course -- it is in the DNA of the project, and the basis of policies such as those that determine whether we even have an article at all (GNG), let alone what is in it. We don't delete articles because editor x says "Oh sure it was covered in depth by RSs, but I editor x will tell you that the only reason the RSs covered the matter was competitive nature, deadlines, and column inches."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your first two sentences, but you must realise that much what you see in media every day is sensationalised trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever my personal view, as a wp editor I follow (or seek to follow) the RSs. I will !vote Keep at AfD on anything that meets GNG -- without speculative weighing on my part as to whether the RSs covered the matter for reasons that I would agree with. That, I find, keeps us all out of trouble, and away from OR, and on the truly sensitive issues keeps the POV editors in check.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/05/10/castro-beat-ex-wife-say-relatives.html
2. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/prosecutor_to_seek_aggravated.html
3. http://nation.time.com/2013/05/09/the-challenge-of-proving-fetal-homicide-in-the-cleveland-kidnapping-case/
4. https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=lorain+and+110th,+cleveland&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8830ee1dda313555:0xc61ccac7698481ed,Lorain+Ave+%26+W+110th+St,+Cleveland,+OH+44111,+USA&gl=ca&ei=jOuNUZmIHMG4igKhj4HwBQ&ved=0CDEQ8gEwAA

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Cleveland articles
• Mid-importance Cleveland articles
• WikiProject Cleveland articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Requested moves