Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 153.161.195.137 (talk) at 23:51, 14 May 2013 (→And now we have a Murder case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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. --Relisted (non-admin). George Ho (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC) – 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)

• Relisting comment – Closure was reverted, so I'm afraid that I must relist this discussion, although the length of this discussion is enormous. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't see how it's a BLP violation to call it a kidnapping. All of the reliable sources say it's a kidnapping. Yes, Mr Castro hasn't been convicted of the crime of "kidnapping," but it seems to me that under any ordinary understanding of the term "kidnapping" that these women were kidnapped. Maybe it will turn out that they actually were kidnapped by someone else, not Mr Castro, but the proposed title doesn't say that Mr Castro kidnapped them. WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't have anything to say about the title of an article, it's just about the focus of the article. As another editor said above, the current title makes it seem like there's a musical group who went missing in 2013. AgnosticAphid talk 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. If closer buys the "Misplaced Pages can't call it a kidnapping until the conviction" argument (which I disagree with), at least move it to "Disappearances of X, Y, and Z" instead. "Kidnappings" is much clearer and more accurate, but the current title is still bad for all the reasons given, and a Disappearances title is more accurate than "2013 missing trio" which implies some musical group went missing in 2013 and might still be missing. SnowFire (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Cleveland kidnappings case

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

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Cleveland missing trio rescue

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

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Cleveland Trio kidnapping

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)

I agree with 76 that proposals on this page should only be closed by otherwise non-involved editors. Non-involved admins are fine. As far as non-admins closing proposals, I would suggest that in any proposal discussion which is contentious on its face, the non-admin should only close the discussion early if: a) it meets the criteria wp:SNOW, and b) the close is in accord with the apparent consensus of editors (i.e., no "super-votes" by the closer, saying that while most of the editors read policy as x, my reading is better than theirs, and I think policy says y, so I'm closing it that way). I would also suggest not closing proposals on this page early unless at least half a dozen editors have !voted, at minimum.

That said -- it does look as though some of these proposals can be closed as SNOW. And closing them has the advantage of focusing editors on the proposals that are viable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Epeefleche. Btw, I finally found the policy about closing requested moves. ;) Rule #1 says, "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey." In particular, read the "Who can close requested moves" section, which clearly explains the conflict of interest issues I alluded to previously. The policy also talks about non-admin closures. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 4

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Ariel Castro case

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)

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)

Directly stated by USA Today: "A third call came from neighborhood women who lived in an apartment building. Those women told Lugo they called police because they saw three young girls crawling on all fours naked with dog leashes around their necks. Three men were controlling them in the backyard. The women told Lugo they waited two hours but police never responded to the calls." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/missing-women-cleveland-brothers-arrested/2140359/ But very credible reports, and if there were others involved (or paid for sex with the women, as early reports of "they were forced to have sex with other men" suggest) then worth monitoring News Alerts to confirm, and if confirmed or stronger evidence, then to add. Harel (talk) 19:53, 13 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)

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)

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)

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)

Like User:Legacypac, who has now been banned from editing BLP articles (look at the previous thread too), I simply see a lack of understanding on your part of both WP:BLP and Innocent until proven guilty. I personally have massive sympathy for the victims in this case, but no Misplaced Pages policy that I'm aware of addresses the issue of "compounding the trauma of victims". Nobody has been found guilty of anything here, and nobody has even been charged with murder. This is not an illusion of innocence. It is a fact of the legal process. My thoughts on the innocence or otherwise of the suspect are irrelevant, as are yours. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

References

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

HiLo48, Earlier, you said you thought that Misplaced Pages was not the place for speculation. You're doing more of that than everybody else here by insisting that there is the possibility that these three women faked their kidnapping and have concocted lies about being raped and impregnated and having forced miscarriages, et cetera. Your obsession with this case and fringe and, quite frankly, ridiculous assumptions are more than a little unsettling. The only "sources" that would reinforce your assumptions are blogs manned by UFO conspiracy theorist lunatics and misogynist sociopaths who hate women. Plain. Simple.

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)

Misplaced Pages considers wikipedia to be an unreliable source. One point of sourcing is so that people can go away and check the veracity of the information. A person in academia might read wikipedia, and then read the original research. The Daily Mail sensationalises stories to get readers to pay for its profits, and is thus unsuitable for people trying to write a neutral article.Martin451 (talk) 17:32, 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)

References

1. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/05/prosecutor_to_seek_aggravated.html
2. http://nation.time.com/2013/05/09/the-challenge-of-proving-fetal-homicide-in-the-cleveland-kidnapping-case/

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)

References

1. 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

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)

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Connie Schultz does not seem to agree that race, expressed in this thread as "Missing white woman syndrome", plays an especially large role in the attention this story has been receiving. In this news story Schultz states "I think we just have to be careful in drawing too many assumptions about that particular part of that story." Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title - where do we go from here?

The move requests above have been closed with the all the proposed names rejected. Given that almost everybody thinks the current title needs changing, where do we go from here?

For reference, here are all the names the have been proposed so far along with a summary of why they were opposed. The proposals are listed alphabetically.

In addition the following titles have been suggested but didn't get sufficient discussion for there to be a consensus about them. I have not included titles with "kidnap" or "abduction" in the name as they suffer from the same BLP problems as the discussed titles with those words.

If I have missed any, please add them to the relevant table (but note below that you have done so). Please do not propose again any title that has been rejected without new arguments that counter the raised objections. Any repeat proposal that doesn't present new arguments will be a waste of time at best and disruption at worst, it is also liable to be speedily closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this Thryduulf. It is helpful. I have added another reason several of us opposed one title.Slp1 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, what is this nonsense table? Wow. We don't need, nor should we have, any editors giving their subjective interpretations of what the various move proposals are saying, and which points are valid or invalid. That's ridiculous. That will be for the closer to decide. Anyone can see that there are currently five move proposals and one of them (Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight) is near consensus of support, while the rest are either snow-failing or close to it. Interesting how the one that is on the verge of being approved is the one that is put at the very bottom of the table. If this wasn't so outrageous, I'd think it was hystercial. So give me a break. This desperate attempt to disrupt the process I feel that this table disrupts the process and is highly inappropriate. And of course it's no surprise to anyone me that Slp1 thinks this table is "helpful"; that's because he strongly opposes the one move proposal that's being clearly supported. We will allow the move proposal for Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight to run it's seven-day course and then an completely uninvolved, experienced editor will make the call. But no one is going to hijack this process. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You will do well to avoid the personal attacks and mocking tone. When I created this table all the proposals had been closed (none by me) as "not moved" - see the page history and comments below. The proposals are explicity noted as being in alphabetical order, it is entirely coincidental that the most popular choice is the alphabetically last. And why would I be trying to prematurely dismiss an option I support? Thryduulf (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I know your intentions were good. And if you feel any of my comments have crossed a line, then report it. All of my comments were about the disruptions of the move proposal process. This is simple... we have mulitple proposals taking place. Editors can !vote and express their views in any or all of the proposals. Each proposal will run its course and a decision will be made. There should be no attempts to disrupt that process. Subjective interpretations of the proposals such as those in this table are very inappropriate. Your table's summaries are simply opinions stated by participants in the proposals, yet they are presented as fact. And, worse, there is no reference to the counter-arguments by supporters. The closer - who in this case will need to be an admin or other very experienced editor - will provide those interpretations and make the final decision. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood, again. This was presented after the discussions were closed and all proposals were rejected. That they were subsequently re-opened does not alter this. The table is a summary of all the titles that have been proposed and at that point had been rejected. The table is designed to summarise why each failed proposal had been rejected, including the ones I support. It was an attempt simply to prevent any wasting of time (deliberate or otherwise) by proposing again a title that had failed to gain consensus. It does not list the reasons any titles were supported because that is irrelevant - it is only important why they were rejected so that new proposals did not duplicate them. If you actually read the explanatory comments you will clearly see this is not attempting to influence any closures because when it was written there were no open proposals. I'll ask you once again to please acquaint yourself with the facts before commenting. Thryduulf (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I have struck some of my comments above. I think you meant well. However, my overall points stand. And it is only your opinion that I've misunderstood this table. The table is only what you see as a "summary of all the titles that have been proposed". And your claim that the support reasons are irrelevant is simply wrong. Of course they're relevant because they counter-balance the oppose reasons and therefore bring the matter into context. Keep in mind that your facts as you see them are not necessarily the facts that others see. For the record, I fully understand that the proposals were closed at the time, but that doesn't alter anything I said with regard to the way the table misrepresents the discussions and invokes a subjective, out-of-context presentation. Editors don't need to be told what the various proposals say; they can read it for themselves and make their own determinations. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, a significant mistake in your reasoning is when you said, "It was an attempt simply to prevent any wasting of time (deliberate or otherwise) by proposing again a title that had failed to gain consensus. It does not list the reasons any titles were supported because that is irrelevant - it is only important why they were rejected so that new proposals did not duplicate them." First, the original proposal obviously was not failing to gain consensus; in fact, it was (and still is) at the point of consensus. Second, just because a few editors "rejected" some support arguments does in no way mean that any new proposals should not duplicate those support reasons. Edtiors can allege any improprieties that they want, but it doesn't mean they're legitimate or in line with policies and guidelines. So, choosing to list your interpretations of the oppose summaries only, but leaving out the support summaries, clearly invalidates the entire table. But, again, the table was inappropriate to begin with because we leave it to editors to to develop their own summaries and determinations. But I do commend your good intentions. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. At the time the table was written all the proposals were closed and determined rejected. All of them. Even the one that has most support. Yes, all of them. That they have been reopened does not alter the fact that they were closed when I produced the table, see . Sorry if this seems uncivil to keep repeating it but it is the central reason for the table's existence and you have failed to understand it several times now. All the proposals were closed as rejected when I created the table. It is irrelevant why any were supported, consensus had been determined to be to reject all of them for the reasons listed in the table. It doesn't matter how many people want something, if it is against policy it doesn't happen (it's not a vote). The details of the opposes are intended as a quick summary - so that people can see what was proposed and the reasons people opposed them. The links to the discussions are there so people can make a full determination of the arguments for and against. The oppose summaries aren't my interpretation, they are a distillation of all the reasons given to oppose each proposal - you can verify it yourself. The idea of the table is to move forward so people can see at a glance what the proposals were and what the arguments were against them because at the point I wrote the table every proposal had been rejected, including the Kidnappings of... title. I'm starting to wonder at what has not been clear in my explanations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 May 2013‎ (UTC)

That was just an unnecessary repeat of everything you already stated. As I said previously, "I fully understand that the proposals were closed at the time". I stand by my comments. Relax, I told you that I believe you had good intentions. Btw, please remember to sign all your comments. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue. The closing admin's talk page is the correct first step if you disagree with a closure. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

• Undo close. The close of the first suggested should be undone. It was closed by a no doubt well-intentioned non-sysop. With 1/10th of the edits/experience of some of the !voters. The closer exercised a super-!vote. Clearly, the consensus do not construe the indicated guidelines as requiring the close. And I, as one of them, disagree with his super-!vote conclusion, overturning a dozen editors who disagree as to what blp requires in this case. If the closer feels that way, he should just register his !vote with the 20% minority that does not like the name. Not close this thread.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Clearly, the consensus do not construe the indicated guidelines as requiring the close. " Uh, whatnow? I can't make any sense out of that statement.Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeble. Let me try reverting to English. What I meant to say was: "Clearly the consensus of the responsible Wikipedian !voters was not one that construed the indicated guidelines as requiring the "don't move" close that the closer effected."

I would note, furthermore, that the closer is tasked with determining if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. Consensus is not determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy. He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue. Just to judge the result of the debate. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to his view, he is expected to decide according to the consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with any closure, the first thing you should do is contact the admin who closed it on their talk page (user talk:Nathan Johnson in this case) explaining why you disagree and asking them to reconsider. I note that you have not done this. If that discussion does not lead to the satisfaction of all parties, then it should be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard - Misplaced Pages:Move review in this case). Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Close of discussion, re close of move discussion of 15 editors against consensus (by non-sysop, with 11,000 edits) -- Thryduulf: Why do you refer to the non-Admin closer as an Admin? In explaining your rationale for closing discussion here? If that is part of the basis for your closing off any discussion of this non-admin's close, as it appears to be, perhaps it may bear reconsideration. At the very least (even if your conclusion is the same), reflection by you in an edit to your closure of the fact that your assertion was inadvertently not accurate. Furthermore, I would add -- the non-admin closer closed this discussion, against the !votes and rationale and reading of BLP of 80% of the editors discussing it, on the 5th day of consideration. Early. We don't close !votes early unless it is a SNOW. We summarily revert such closes. Without having to resort to move review. And clearly the only way this is a SNOW is with the 80% consensus, not the 20% non-consensus. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)This is not a discussion on the closed requested moves discussion, this is a discussion on how we move forward. It is not a vote or even !vote. There is no proposal on which we could vote even if we wanted to. If you disagree with the closure of a discussion, your first step is to talk to the closer on their talk page, as I pointed out above this is the wrong venue to dispute the closure of the requested move. You will also note that the main proposal was not closed per SNOW. You sill also note that I was one of the people arguing for the failed move. I closed the above simply because it is the wrong venue, nothing more, nothing less. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The person who closed the move undid their edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• The article has six "see also" links where the victim(s) are possibly still alive. Of those four name the victim, the fifth the surname of the victim and perp., and the sixth just the kidnapper. To close the discussion against concensus just on BLP issues when there is a precedent for names in high profile cases seems wrong. The closer should have !voted instead.Martin451 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with the above this is just crazy, why is wikipedia censoring what the media is reporting? Sadly I think the title will have to be status quo until the person who did it is convicted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Kudos to closer, for reverting his close. Kudos to the closer, who had closed the move discussion while inadvertently not realizing he was closing the discussion early, and has now reverted his close. Some editors do not display that ability to reconsider their acts, and I give him credit for doing so.Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• I also commend Nathan for his self-revert of the inappropriate closure. Also, I finally found the policy about closing requested moves that I was looking for. ;) Rule #1, which was violated by a few editors, says, "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey." In particular, read the "Who can close requested moves" section, which clearly explains the conflict of interest issues I alluded to in another thread. While I believe some of the proposals absolutely warrant a snow-close, they must never be done by an editor who has either !voted or particpated in the various discussions. With regard to Nathan's involvement, the policy also talks about non-admin closures. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Three Missing Women Rescued in Cleveland, Ohio seems like the best title to me. Anyone else like this if so can we vote on it? Theworm777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitals. Three missing women rescued in Cleveland, Ohio This is not a !vote for or against the title, just a comment on it. Also found instead of rescued might be more neutral.Martin451 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• 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