Jump to content

Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Include the home address?

This was brought up at my talk page after I removed the inclusion of the home address of Castro, and I think some wider input would be of use here. I'll just copy what I wrote on my talk page as a starting point:

First of all, a few words about policies and guidelines: "Show me which policy prohibits XYZ" is, in my opinion, an inherently wrong approach to collaborative editing. That XYZ is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by policy does not mean that it is therefore explicitly allowed (or even demanded) to do XYZ. Otherwise, I might as well ask you to show me the policy that dictates the mentioning of addresses, and argue that you cannot include the address unless a policy says so. I'm sure you see why this kind of argument would not lead us anywhere.

Similarly, the existence of reliable source mentioning the address only means that we can use that information, not that we are required to use it. We are an encyclopedia, and we do not just blindly repeat everything reliable sources say. We can decide not to include information. We do have editorial control over what will and what will not be mentioned in articles, and we make subjective decisions based on that every day. So my edits were not strictly based on policy (Though WP:BLP did play a role), they were editorial in nature. I think that including the address gives us no benefit at all, while at the same time yielding potential negative effects. What benefit do we get from mentioning the address? Or, more importantly, what benefit do our readers get from this information? The country, the state, the city, all that is obviously worthy of mentioning. But the exact address? How is it relevant?I fail to see who would gain anything from this information, and I fail to see who of our readers would declare the article incomplete without it. If that were the only consideration, though, I simply would not care much for the issue one way or another. However, there is also the element of causing potential harm by including the address. Someone will live at that address, most likely, and there surely are many reasons why that someone would not want to have this article as the first Google hit on his address. It is a very hypothetical risk, of course, but given that there are, in my opinion, absolutely no benefits in including the address in the first place, I strongly prefer to keep the address out of the article. As for the argument that other articles mention addresses, too, I could counter with Fritzl case, a similar case which explicitly does not mention the address. I happen to know that because the exact same discussion happened back then, see Talk:Fritzl_case/Archive_2. I'm sure there are many more articles that do mention addresses, and many more that do not.

I did oversee that the address was mentioned elsewhere in the article, and obviously my removal of the address is rather pointless as long as the address is still mentioned elsewhere. And I should not have reverted twice (per the WP:BRD principle), my apologies for that. As I said, this was an editorial decision on my part, as such, it is up to the community to agree or disagree with the edits. So I propose to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article to get some more opinions on the issue. --Conti 09:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So, is there any actual reason to include the address? --Conti|✉ 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

For full context, here is the original discussion on Conti's talk page. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Conti, well said. Just because we can/could doesn't mean we will/should. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The address has been widely publicized; I would guess that anybody in the Cleveland area knows where this (alleged) crime happened. (I'm very sure that the crime will always be the first result when searching for the address, whether it's on Wikipedia or not. It's very unlikely that someone else will ever live there, and if they do, Wikipedia will not be their biggest problem.) If you ignore policy concerns, and just look at whether it's reasonable to include the address as part of an article about the kidnapping and imprisonment, I think (as did many news sources) it's perfectly reasonable information to include. If we keep it out (and I would see it as "keeping it out", not "not putting it in"), it'll be another in the echelon of decisions that don't make sense to anyone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, and that are based on some supposedly noble principle rather than any real benefit. Which doesn't mean I think it would be wrong to keep it out; I do see the argument. If I had to vote, I'd lean toward keeping it in, but I don't feel strongly either way. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel that the inclusion of the full address is clearly appropriate and relevant. The confinement location is necessary and helpful, particularly in the case of a very highly notable event in which the victims were missing for an extremely long period of time. The address is included in very similar articles, such as Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, and should be included here, as well. The address has been reported globally many times by mainstream reliable sources and has therefore become associated with the the case. In the Greater Cleveland area, the address is planted in everyone's brains. Having an entire article about a highly notable crime but not saying specifically where it happened is, frankly, outrageous. Many readers will look at the article and rightfully ask themselves, "Where the hell did this happen?" And then they'll keep scouring the article to try and find it because they'll be sure they must've overlooked it somewhere. ;) In my opinion, the reasons for inclusion clearly outweigh those for exclusion. However, I think the full address should be mentioned two times only - once each in the infoxbox and body. Any other references should simply allude to "the home", "the house", or "Seymour Avenue", etc. By the way, there have been many articles regarding the issue of demolishing of the house, such as this one from NBC News. Be sure to note what is included in the first sentence. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely include. Addresses can become associated crimes, e.g. 25 Cromwell Street, and although this address isn't at that level in the UK it has been widely reported. The anon's comments about the awareness of the addresses in the local area are very believable, and so I see no reason to exclude it from the article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Including the address is essential to understanding where this event occurred and its position in space relative to the surrounding community and region. Countless wikipedia articles include addresses and precise coordinates of their subject's location, so precision is considered superior to vagueness, unsurprisingly. I often click on the coordinates link to open a new tab or google the address to get street or satellite views of the subject location. BLP protects persons, not properties, so if a person is not being unnecessarily associated with the address, BLP is not relevant.Fletcher (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with including the address. Cleveland is a reasonably large place, and more importantly, the address isn't being suppressed by sources. There's no reason not to report it; the only reason for such is to avoid any undue violation of privacy, but that's not possible when the address is inextricably linked by the media and official documents to the alleged crime. Not to mention (as Fletcher alluded to), we'd have to remove the coordinates entirely if the address isn't listed. There's no reasonable way to fuzz them yet keep them useful enough to be included. I definitely understand the event better myself being able to see the address on a map of the general area. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It appears there is now clear consensus to include the address. If there are no objections, I suggest that an uninvolved edtior close this discussion. I appreciate Conti's cooperative spirit in this matter. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My reading of the Fritzl case is that there were apparently uninvolved people living at that address. No one will be living at this address for a good while, and I doubt that anyone would want to. I doubt even Ariel Castro would want to live there if he is released. There seems to be no reason not to include so the question is should we include it.Martin451 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Include. Per the discussion here. Appreciate the time taken by others who have expressed their views above which, as has been pointed out, appears to suggest a strong consensus for inclusion.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we close this and call it a day? 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title, consideration

We have way too many move proposals and title suggestions. Please comment on one (or more) of the move proposals instead, or propose this in the appropriate section; a variant of the proposed title was previously discussed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:59, 18 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.

I noticed that there is a discussion regarding the title of this article. Some people do not want to call the article Kidnapping since it implies a conviction. Other titles have been proposed. Given the nature of the current situation it is in my opinion that this article should be titled:

Disappearance of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight

I hope this will resolve any ongoing conflict regarding this article's title.

Sincerely yours: --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal says "Disappearance of...", when the story was obviously triggered by and is largely about their discovery. This isn't an easy task, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 18 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.

@HiLo48 This is an example of the systemic bias we find here in Wikipedia and how media-triggered many of these articles come into existence. See, when we have a bunch of unemployed and kids sitting in front of their computers along with their televisions turned on and when they run into an spectacularly popular news event, then everyone flocks to write and comment articles like this one.

The fact that their disappearance was not documented here in Wikipedia, is simply because none of us gave a shit about it, but now that most news have reported it then we all have the need to worry and work on this article because let's face it, most of us in here are media whores that develop a sense of importance by restricting and telling other users what and how things should be executed by displaying our knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines.

The reality is that their disappearance was an important event and was covered but their notability here in Wikipedia was probably questioned because either no one cared to worry about something that wasn't being widely covered or because people were too busy fixing Lady Gaga's article.

Regardless, the above restriction to my opinion and how some Wikipedians are quick to jump me by pointing out the logical name for this article shows the hypocrisy that we have to deal with when sometimes there is a more straight forward solution to an article that if it wasn't because of its popularity by the media frenzy it would make it so unnoticeable to the editors at large that at the end a discussion about the title would be something no one would care for. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to restrict your opinion; I closed the discussion since we have many other discussions on the same topic, and fragmenting it further only creates confusion. (And the suggested name had already been discussed, as linked, so the bottom of that closed section or the current move discussion would be the logical place to continue discussion.) If you think the close was unjustified, you are welcome to undo it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:59, 18 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 [1], 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)


Yes, we need something, because apparently Ramsey is lying about his entire involvement in the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFXLB1eyOlA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnbarbee (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It does appear the story is more contentious than we're currently reflecting. For one, I can't find a source for Cordero and and Ramsey together kicking a hole in (other than a few non-RSes that obviously sourced Wikipedia); it seems both men claim to have done so, and that claiming they did it "together" appears to be WP:SYNTH. I think we need to take a closer look at the sources here, and likely summarize the inconsistency on claimed arrival times and who did what. (Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sort of official account at this point, and there probably won't be anytime soon.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I addressed this in the text and removed the tag, hopefully well enough to reflect the sources and conflicting claims. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Three women "controlled" by three men, continued

In the earlier stages of this case I put some links to these allegations, news reports and video interviews, in the section [[2]] above. As stated there, I was not calling to add to the article, yet, but suggesting we monitor developments. I'm still nto sure if there is enough evidence to put the "(four elderly women see) three women, on leashes, controlled by three men" in the main article, but there is now information beginning to make those allegations stronger - or at least, direct media reports of insider sources that the house itself had leashes for all three women.

  • Chains, duct tape, leashes restrained girls like POWs Quote: "The basement where the women were held had chains coming from the wall and dog leashes attached to the ceiling, the sources said. The women were restrained with them and duct tape in “stress positions” for long periods that left them with bed sores and other injuries, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation who asked not to be identified."

I move that we add this information (in the above link) to the article about "dog leashes attached to the ceiling" for all three victims.

Meanwhile, we can continue the Google (and other) News Alerts to monitor for further information to confirm or deny the different but similar allegation that four women from the retirement home (apparently named Scranton Castle - also keyword worthy of news alert) had reported to police that they saw three men controlling three naked women outside the house (in, or near, the yard), a remarkable allegation, even if the two other men might be someone other than (i.e. not) his brothers - and, noteworthy, the four women are said to have called police (police, one would think, would not have seen this as "maybe just one couple playing a sex game" since it was 6 individuals reported seen, and less likely to think it "a prank" given if was no fewer than four older women calling police and eporting it - see Israel Lugo video interview, in above section)

So 1. worth monitoring (though possibly not yet adding) that for possible addition later, about 3 women on leashes in yard; but meanwhile, 2. I think, it's at least worth adding to the article, the link above and the different but still similar reported information that at least inside the house, there were used yes, three dog leashes. (Short comment: This story gets uglier, stranger, over time, both inside the house, and, very possibly, society's inaction outside the house) Harel (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you have an ongoing interest in this article, monitor developments in this area, just as I hope you will monitor developments in every other area related to the case. We are not here to just report the salacious bits. Whether any particular development is worth adding will be decided by consensus at the time it becomes well sourced, judging on how important it is to the overall article, and not just that it's more ugly and strange. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
HiLo - my goodness, it seems that you may have read too much into my one sentence, parenthetical, commentary at the very end end. This is not about "salacious" - it's about factual information - and not only that but, I think one would ahve to admit, that, well - what could be more critically central, in factual termsy, than whether other men besides Ariel was involved, after all? That's about as factually relevant as it gets
Factually for an article to inform readers, there is little, if any, that would be more important. It would be (on the factual level) a huge deal - namely if confirmed, it would mean that (at least) two others were invovled in the abuse. There is nothing salacious and everything for victim protection if one
  • (i) keeps readers updated on potential co-conspirators and
  • (ii) keeps readers updated on huge "red flags" ignored. (It's one thing to ignore a report about one woman and one man in the backyard as potentially one couple's "play" but to ignore a report by four (4) women of seeing three women and three men "controlling" them, would be gross negligence (at best) if the call was indeed made, and ignored)
Now, I've tried to be clear since the outset, but to minimize misunderstandings, wish to emphasize again here, that the "3 women, 3 men, in backyard" (outside the house) is not yet confirmed, and I'm not calling for it's inclusion, just mentioned to fellow editors ast worth monitoring. So far so good. As for the other part, the report of what's inside the house, I certainly agree with you about discussing it, and I've done exactly what you suggest - put one solid report for co-editors to decide by consensus - namely that closely familiar with the investigation, state that these multiple "leash" type restraints were in the house" or something to that effect. Seems well worth including, at this point (unless, of course, one wants to argue that wikipedia should never mention any newspaper report however solid of any "insider source" statements, at all - not tenable to exclude even mention of any and all assertions
But let me try to allay remaining concerns you may have by looking for at least one additional RS to corroborate

Chains, duct tape, leashes restrained girls like POWs Quote: "The basement where the women were held had chains coming from the wall and dog leashes attached to the ceiling, the sources said. The women were restrained with them and duct tape in “stress positions” for long periods that left them with bed sores and other injuries, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation who asked not to be identified."
I would then suggest we do find consensus to at least mention briefly in the article, that these were present in the house (which of course does not prove, but strengthens the credibility of the "4 elderly women saw and calle dpolice about seeing 3men/3women in yard" which I'll cont. to monitor and am *not* calling for inclusion unless/until later confirmed) Let me do that and return later. I hope this is clearer and hope we can agree on that Harel (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Multiple "leash" restrains indoors, additoinal sources confirming:
  • Denver Post: [3] ( two sources with direct knowledge said..women were held had chains coming from the wall and dog leashes attached to the ceiling, the sources said. The women were restrained with them and duct tape in "stress positions" for long periods..)
  • MamasLatinas: ". There were also dog leashes attached to the ceiling and Knight and DeJesus spent most of the time locked up in the basement." [4]
  • HollywoodLife: "basement was equipped with chains coming from the walls and dog leashes hanging from the ceiling." [5] and also [6]
Add this to the earlier link [7] to the Dispatch. So four sources, among which two - the Columbus Dispatch, and the Denver Post are very solid (and 200,000-400,000 circulation see wikipedia links) and not "tabloid" at all. There may be others but this was just a quick search.
Bottom line, "to monitor" versus "to include". Please let's not confuse the two. As for "monitor" I would give a better than 50% change there were other conspirators - the early reports (now forgotten?) that women were forced to have sex with other men, and the report of 4 elderly women seeing 3 men holding 3 women on leashes outside - I am not 100% sure but better than 50% chance I'd say (just today on NPR about 90 year old rich Saudi and Kuwaiti men paying for "purchase a bride" very young women refugees from Syria civil war - this stuff happens) but am not calling for inclusion yet - facts will come out. As for multiple solid sources, to include? The above four including two major daily newspapers, on the inside POW type chains and leash systems.
I don't even own or watch TV, that's how much I avoid "sensation" and "salacious" for the sake of attention. But missing parts of stories? That's important. I still remember MJ death story. Nothing was said on wikipedia about the long, long delay calling 911...until some of us spoke up about it. We were not doing original research, since it was already in the papers. But the wikipedia story neglected mentioning that long delay, how long it was, even though it was reported in credible sources. So some of us worked to include that. And then the wikipedia entry was much better (and you know how that story played out - the doctor was convicted - I'm not at all sure it was fair to pin the blame on him 100% but that's a separate issue - the issue was the wp article was missing key details until that was remedied) True story, as I imagine, it's recorded in the edit history of that other story..
And let's be clear: newspapers should do research and should be vigilant to find the facts, not we editors. However our responsibility as wikipedia editors is, in turn, to vigilantly monitor what credible news sources report - and to include that here. Fair enough? I hope we can agree on that :-) Harel (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(Miscarriage claims)

The claiming about miscarriages of all of three women is now outdated. It is sure now, that only Michelle Knight had five miscarriages. Amanda Berry had one living birth (Jocelyn) but there is nothing known about other pregnancies of her. Gina DeJesus, although raped, was never impregnated. At least, there are no evidences about miscarriages of Berry and DeJesus, just speculations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.255.56 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2013‎

There have been statements that Knight had several miscarriages, but whether she actually did is a fact to be determined in court. No article has provided any details as to what evidence there is for her having been impregnated while a prisoner. Edison (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight. I have concerns about the real-life implications of this title, particularly those raised by Slp1, but there is no clear violation of WP:BLP (at least not technically), and consensus indicates that the community would prefer to see this moved to the new title. As such, I'm going to remove the protection and relocate the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion: I share the concerns voiced by Yunshui, and would have liked it relisted, to get some more eyes on this. Alas, the consensus seems to be quite clear, but one does not have to be happy about it. Closure is sustained. Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio → Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight – Per [8], 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)
"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)
Actually, Andy is definitely not right because his argument is substantially flawed. He said we can't call it a kidnapping until someone is convicted of kidnapping. By that logic, we would never name a an article using the crime term until someone has been tried and convicted of the crime. But let's ask ourselves this vital question: Is there a mainstream reliable source anywhere in the world that says this wasn't a kidnapping? Of course not. Why not? Because the crime itself is not the issue. The only issue is: Who committed the crime? More to the point, we base our editing decisions on what reliable sources tell us. And if every mainstream reliable source verifies that this was a kidnapping, then it was a kidnapping. If that ever changes, fine. If, as HiLo alluded to, it turns out the these women "faked their disappearances and kidnappings", then we will certainly change the title. ;) If Andy's logic were correct, then Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping would never have been created right after those females were rescued. So, no, editors did not wait until after the suspects were convicted of the crime to put the word "kidnapping" in the titles of those articles. One other question: What if a suspect in a crime is found not guilty? Does that mean the crime didn't happen? Of course not. It simply means that no one's been convicted of the crime. Finally, it is a given that we must use common sense when we're making important editing decisions. To say this wasn't a kidnapping would defy common sense (in addition to massively violating our policies with regard to WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:19, 16 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 Wikipedia 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 (talk|contribs) 23:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to oppose in favor of alternative proposal (see below). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Using Andy's logic we need to be renaming [Boston Marathon bombings] 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)
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. [9] [10]. 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 (talk|contribs) 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.[11] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 [12]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Hutton 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)
Question for Supporters Does Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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)
  • Very strong support this sort of quibble is ridiculous. The thesis that they might not have been kidnapped is the sort of extraordinarily unlikely assertion that needs extraordinarily strong evidence. BLP is based on fairness and common sense, not on wildly unlikely possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Lets move it already. The current name is really bad and I see no problem with describing the incident as kidnappings or using the victims names. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's time to move this. I believe that any unbiased evaluation of this discussion will determine that there is now clear consensus, per WP:CON, in support of this move. This proposal was opened 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC). It was improperly closed for a very brief period - after only five days of discussion - by an edtior who admitted his error. The editor quickly reverted himself. As a result of the error, it was then relisted. An experienced closer should review this for consensus any time after 21:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC), less than 10 hours from now. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to present my thoughts, based on where we currently stand. Beyond the premature non-admin close, the edtior's reasoning for the close was completely flawed. It said:

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED.. The only proposal of those offered that gained substantial traction was the original. However, as pointed out by the opposes, moving the article to Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight cannot be done because of our WP:BLP policy, in particular WP:BLPCRIME. BLP protects the accused as well as the victims. Kidnapping is a crime, and until/if someone is convicted of that crime, it is a violation of BLP to say that such a crime took place.

With all due respect, the edtior clearly misread or misunderstood what WP:BLPCRIME says. It of course begins with, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law". Surely no editor disputes the legitimacy of that statement, and of course nothing in the article says that the suspect is guilty. So let's move on. Then it says, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I believe the closer failed to consider or focus on the extremely key first six words of that statement: "For people who are relatively unknown". Obviously, the suspect in this case is extremely well known as this case has received massive coverage by reliable sources in the U.S. and globally. Therefore, he is clearly not "relatively unknown". In terms of the closer's statment that "it is a violation of BLP to say that such a crime took place", that is, with all due respect, total nonsense. First, the policy does not say that; what it says is that you don't include content that a particular person(s) committed the crime. Second, it is abundantly clear, by any measurement of common sense and the reliable sources, that the crime indeed took place. The only undetermined matter is who committed the crime. In terms of WP:BLPNAME, relating to the privacy of names, it alludes to caution "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". Obviously, the names of the suspect and females have been massively dissemniated around the world ever since this story broke in early May. Further, something that failed to be mentioned is the fact that these policies apply to article content, not article titles, which is addressed by WP:TITLE and in no way prohibits the use of the names of those kidnapped, as proven by the titles of Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, and others. Those crimes and articles, like this one, were of course both highly notable and heavily edited, with the eyes of many very experienced editors on them at all times during their development. So here's the bottom line: Consensus for this proposal is overwhelming and the arguments in support of it not only have precedence, but in no way violate any BLP or other policies or guidelines. And the opinions stated by the well-intentioned edtior who prematurely closed this discussion for a few minutes used verifiably flawed arguments, as I have shown. Therefore, I urge the moving of this article as supported by the unquestionable consensus. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree. It's fairly clear. Time to close it, and let all the editors discussing this get back to productive work. Nothing more to be gained here. Has clearly received sufficient attention, and clear-consensus input.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It is very disconcerting that so many editors reject the title "Ariel Castro case" on BLP grounds whereas they support the naming and continued public association of the victims with the crimes committed against them. The support votes per WP:COMMONNAME strike me as particularly odd. Any other title, e.g. "Ariel Castro case" [13] or "Rape of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" [14] is more common than "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" [15]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not about an article's title, contrary to what some editors may tell you. Read it again. It was created solely to address the importance of not including too many details in the article itself; paring back any content that simply is unnecessary and doesn't need to be there. I think editors have done an excellent job in adhering to this subsection and the overall BLP policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the original proposal; this thread is so long that I've not had time to check other people's ideas. If "the suspect has now been charged with four kidnappings", why would we want to include just three people's names in the article title? Putting everyone's names in the article title makes it too long, anyway. Let's wait until this gets coverage in solid sources such as books or journal articles and then use the title that they use. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend. I think if you want to make an informed !vote, it is worth reading the above thread. In any event, the name of the child born into captivity is being treated differently by wp and by the media, even if you would urge treating it the same. And that's not a reason to retain the title, which focuses on the trio ... the three who were "taken" rather than "born" into captivity. We need a name now, of course, as NOTNEWS (a reason to delete, if and when it applies, not to not name an article) bears no relation on the issue of picking the best name for the article. There is no need to wait until books are written on the subject. Since we have an article, we need a name. We already have extensive RS coverage -- much more than for the typical wp article. And of course as editors have pointed out, there is no reason to expect that there will be a common name that is firmer in the future than what we have already. And oh -- there seems to be consensus that the current name is not palatable. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend, wait until books and journals use the same title? That will never happen. It will be referred to by numerous names. And as I'm sure most edtiors on both sides will agree, we need a new title now. And I would strongly endorse what Epeefleche said about reading all the comments in this thread. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment More than one editor has wondered how using the names of the victims can be supported despite claims that using the suspect's name is a BLP violation. As far as the suspect's name, I think the primary factor is that we can't assign him any more importance than being a suspect, not a specific primary focus of the article. As for the proposed title, I believe the title of kidnappings is somewhat key here. While it's certainly not ideal for the victims, I think it's reasonable enough to use such a title with the names of very widely reported victims. Unfortunately, their names were publicized for many years before their rescue. But again, we are an encyclopedia; we report what the sources say. For instance, there is wide consensus not to include the six-year-old's name, since her name has not been widely publicized, unlike the initial victims. I find it hard to say that this is a BLP violation against them; really, it's negative to anyone who happens to have those names, particularly since those individuals are not known for anything outside of being kidnap victims. Back to the title itself, it's proposed as Kidnappings of; if it was something like Rapes of ..., I would not support it, since such crimes (even though they did apparently occur as part of the kidnapping situation) generally have the victims' names elided by sources, sometimes by editorial discretion and sometimes by law. But the sources are not doing anything of the sort here, and "kidnappings" is a reasonably neutral title, especially given the sourcing; we do of course go into the less-pleasant details in the article itself, but the proposed title sticks to the general situation. The victims' names are well-known; what happened to them is well-reported. Suggesting that we need to apply additional censorship seems unfounded. It will not protect the victims or help them avoid victimization, which is the only thing I see BLP suggesting that we help with...which, again, we unfortunately cannot do in this situation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is getting ridiculous - I don't comment or edit very often but I have to agree with everyone who says that the current title is AWFUL. Wiki isn't a newspaper and the title doesn't have to be short or snappy. The connotations of a missing trio (as others have said) conjures up images of a pop group. The proposed title of: The kidnappings of...[victims names] is the only way to remain clear an accurate. The talk of victimizing the subjects by including their names in the titles is unwarranted. Someone looking for information on the case would want to know or already know their names. Including them in the title only serves to make it CLEAR which kidnapping case is referred to in the article. Also this article is not a BLP. It includes some info on the victims but they don't have their own pages. If they had their own pages because they became more notable and it was warranted, I would avoid going into great detail about the case on THAT page but here all the relevant information should be included (no censorship) and trying to give the victims some kind of anonymity by excluding their names from the title is pointless as the case is so high profile. We can't leave out information that everyone else has been reporting because of some misguided attempt to appear sensitive. We must remain factual and neutral or else we seem vague and ineffectual. I've read through the comments and to me there seems to be a consensus for this change. Can an admin not just make the change? More people hate the current title than not so the one with the most support should just be chosen and locked until their is a GOOD reason to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjack900 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think by the time this closes the suspect will have already been found quilty or not quilty, over two weeks have past now and the media craze has died down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Making unsupported allegations about whether or not the suspect has engaged in quilting is likely a serious BLP violation. (And yeah, it'd be nice to see this close before the verdict on his quilt is all sewn up.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that =p, I guess im guilty of T&E (tired while editing). Anyways has there been a commonname for the title now that the media on it has died down? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:) But no, there doesn't seem to be a reasonably common name at all. Things like "Ohio kidnap case", "Cleveland kidnapping case", and "Cleveland girls' kidnappings" are still being used, too generic for us to use really... Most articles don't really refer to even a descriptive title at all, it seems. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Kidnapping is the term used by Amanda Berry in reporting the crime. The subjects aren't "missing" any more. Names are the simplest and easiest way to refer to this case. However, we should aggressively police the content of the article to avoid invasions of privacy and re-victimizing.--Carwil (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There are Wikipedia articles about multiple murders, but do we have any other article about the kidnapping/disappearance/false imprisonment etc of more than one person? Jim Michael (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked. But that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ariel Castro kidnappings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Victims' statement on privacy

Is available here. I invite people to transcribe relevant excerpts for the information of editors.--Carwil (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "Ms. Berry, Ms. DeJesus, and Ms. Knight will not be participating in any interviews or speaking with any representatives of the media at this time."
  • "most importantly, Ms. Berry, Ms. DeJesus and Ms. Knight have asked — in fact, have pleaded — for privacy at this time so that they can continue to heal and reconnect with their families. … Give them the time, the space and the privacy so that they can continue to get stronger."
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariel_Castro_kidnappings/Archive_4&oldid=1136529553"