Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alternative naming proposal 3: Cleveland Trio kidnapping

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)

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/ [blockquote] 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.”[/blockquote]

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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)

Martin, Broadsheets (as well as tabloids) are owned by News Corp. and other mercenary corporations and are abrim with opinion pieces costumed as articles. Just because a paper espouses white liberal bourgeois attitudes doesn't make it any better or any less unreliable than the Daily Mail, sorry. But thank you for demonstrating your having been brainwashed thanks to liberal cultural hegemony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 23:58, 14 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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)

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.

Proposed title	Summary of reason(s) it was opposed	Discussion(s)
2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio	Implies they went missing as a trio or were somehow connected before they went missing Implies they went missing in 2013 Implies they are still missing.	#Proposed move to "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight" #Section break and suggestion
Ariel Castro case	BLP (inncocent until proven guilty) "Case is euphemistic" "Too narrow"	#Alternative proposal 4
Berry – DeJesus – Knight confinements	"Sounds like it refers to the period when they were in labor during pregnancy" Fails WP:COMMONNAME<br.Dashes are "odd" Should use full names or no names	#Section break and suggestion
Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio	Implies they went missing as a trio or were somehow connected before they went missing Implies they are still missing	#Admin move request: remove "2013" from title #Proposed move to "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight"
Cleveland kidnappings case	BLP (see below) "Could refer to many events" No need to shield the names of the (adult) victims	#Alternative proposal
Cleveland missing trio rescue	"Confusing, inaccurate, out-of-context, and contrary to precedent" No need to shield the names of the (adult) victims "Awkward"	#Alternative proposal 2
Cleveland Trio kidnapping	BLP (see below) Implies they went missing as a trio or were somehow connected before they went missing "Vague in general" fails WP:COMMONNAME	#Alternative proposal 3
Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight	"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." note: This also applies to other suggested titles with the words "kidnap" or "abduction" BLP violation to include, in such a prominent fashion, the names of private individuals who to date have not sought publicity	#Let's try again: "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight"

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.

Proposed title	Sumary of comments	Discussion(s)
Disappearance and rescue of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight	(no significant comments)	#Proposed move to "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight"
Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight	"disappearances" is too vague	#Proposed move to "Disappearances of Amanda Berry, Georgina DeJesus, and Michele Knight"

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 [1]. 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)

• 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)

Sorry Theworm, but no. It's not worth going into all the problems with it, but it doesn't matter... this is not a move proposal discussion. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:12, 15 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:

• Three naked women on all fours were spotted being led around on leashes in backyard of Cleveland kidnap house TWO years ago - but police didn't take the neighbor who called it in seriously by UK Daily Mail. Stating "Neighbors of accused kidnapper Ariel Castro have revealed they saw three naked young girls crawling in the backyard of his house on all fours with dog leashes around their necks and three men controlling them, but amazingly police never responded to their call" with the phrase "their call" signifying it was indeed reported to police. Note: Daily Mail is a "tabloid" fwiw.

• Non-tabloid, UK edition of HP, Ariel Castro Neighbours Reported ‘Naked Women On Dog Leashes In Backyard But Police Did Nothing' "Neighbours of suspected kidnappers Ariel, Pedro and Onil Castro, claimed to have seen naked women tethered with dog leashes crawling on their hands and knees in the trio’s backyard, it has been reported." (UK Huffington Post referencing neighbor Israel Lugo)

• USAtoday: Reports of sex abuse, beatings inside Cleveland house "Israel Lugo said he, his family and neighbors called police three times between 2011 and 2012 after seeing disturbing things at the home of Ariel Castro. Lugo lives two houses down from Castro and grew suspicious after neighbors reported seeing naked women on leashes crawling on all fours behind Castro's house." which makes more specific ("called police three times between 2011 and 2012") allegations, and "A third call came from neighborhood women who] 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."

• Reported also here: Police Ignored Reports Of Women On Leashes Outside Kidnappers’ House?

• Also Yahoo news: Police Apparently Missed Multiple Calls About Women on Dog Leashes in the Castros' Yard which notes, "While some are calling the USA Today report "mostly hearsay," it's hard to believe that so many different neighbors would've made such similar calls." adding that " It's not just the USA Today piece that's making these claims either. Local news outlets are issuing similar reports." linking to local news report which detailed other examples.

• NBC yesterday.

• Importantly police are already changing their story stating "following the USA Today report, Cleveland Police walked back on their previous statement and admitted that they had actually received two 911 calls regarding the Castro house" from no calls (police earlier stated "they never even received any calls" see link) to "two" calls, "Upon researching our call intake system extensively," but still not including the calls neighbors report making, only the "self call" by Ariel and the "bus" call...unless they expand from 2 calls to more calls with another revision, so worth monitoring (it's not clear whether the neighbors claimed to have used 911 rather than a local police number, and not clear whether those would be in the same 'call intake system' as the two 911's) Reported at Police Apparently Missed Multiple Calls About Women on Dog Leashes in the Castros' Yard at The Atlantic Wire.

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 [2] 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 [elderly] 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 [Scranton Castle residents] 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/ [As noted earlier, "three men" is not the same as saying that two of them are Ariel's brothers] 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)

Bearing in mind this is Ohio we're talking about... maybe the locals just thought it was a neighbourhood dog-training session... Basket _Feudalist 11:17, 15 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)

No offence to anyone, but the above discussion pretty clearly demonstrates why Wikipedians are popularly stereotyped as girlfriendless nerds-! As the answer only requires the most basic7th Grade understanding of the human reproductive system; or has biology been removed from the syllabus inplace of creationism?! LOL Basket _Feudalist 11:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

On edit: It also makes you wonder how many female editors we actually have, that there wasn't one who was here to answer it first hand...11:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because no female editor chose to comment on this discussion says little. The conversation was taking place largely during the middle of the night in the US (where most editors who watch this talk page are likely to be based), and there was no indication from the section title or really edit summaries what question was being asked. You are also assuming that every female editor has experienced an early-term miscarriage, I highly doubt that this is the case. Had the question been asked somewhere like the reference desk or talk:pregnancy then the response would have been quicker. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I did not "assume" anything; you are inferring that I meant 'from experience'... yeah, right. The only assumption I make is that they may have paid greater attention in Human Biology class... a door something seemingly closed to the average male editor!!! ("LOL", etc)Basket _Feudalist 12:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is a woman more likely have paid attention in school biology lessons than a man? Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If I have to explain it to you, it could well be beyond your understanding; however it's not only school is it, there are other sources of information (more likely but not totally) available. Basket _Feudalist 13:39, 15 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."[3] One of the two sources[4] 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 Wikipedia needs an article on "Black and Missing"[5][6].) 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)

HiLo48: "...but you must realise that much what you see in media every day is sensationalised trivia." This from a guy who talks about Missing white woman syndrome which has been seized upon by opinion piece writers for the press to try to advance their delusions about male victimhood. It has little to no academic credence except for its inception and then only with regard to ethnicity or economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 00:45, 15 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Note: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, part of BLP, strongly suggests we do have an interest in not compounding the trauma of victims.Fletcher (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Nina Burleigh Article

Just throwing this out there, Nina Burleigh is notable here on WP and has written a piece about Castro and his past history. Should it be used here in this page? We seem to be focusing only the 3 woman removed from the home, but there was another victim first. http://observer.com/2013/05/the-other-cleveland-victim-castros-late-wife/ Sgerbic (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There are four victims in this case: Berry, DeJesus, Knight, and the child. Currently, there is content about his relationship with Figueroa in the "Suspect" section. For the record, The fact that Nina Burleigh is notable is irrelevant. I see that you have been actively involved with content related to her. Would you mind sharing if you have a conflict of interest with regard to Burleigh? Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you ISP person. I've rewritten Burleigh's WP page, I've also rewritten and created many other pages as well. I mentioned that she is notable only because WP is okay with mentioning "opinions" when the cite comes from people who have WP pages. And not the opinion of some random anonymous person. I didn't try to insert her article, I was just asking if others thought it was a good idea. That is why I wrote it on the Talk page. Don't jump down my throat please, assume good faith. Sgerbic (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your statement ("We seem to be focusing only the 3 woman removed from the home, but there was another victim first") is on the verge of violating of WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and most importantly, WP:BLP. The subject of this article is about the kidnapping of Berry (with child), DeJesus, and Knight. Not anyone else that the alleged perpetrator may have wronged in the past. So of course we are focusing on the three women removed from the home. Further, the supsect is innocent until proven guilty, yet your "another victim first" statement implies that he is assumed guilty; as if all the women are in fact his victims. The legal system will decide that. With regard to Burleigh, there are some indications in your editing history that perhaps you have some type of personal connection to her. But it's not clear, which is why I asked since it's relevant to your interest in inserting her highly contentious opinions into this article. Your response did not answer if have a COI with regard to Burleigh. Do you honestly believe that we should consider including the opinions of a writer whose piece begins with "Ariel Castro, a musician and layabout, had abducted three girls, turning them into sex slaves who, thanks to padlocks, chains and beatings, remained under his total control for around 10 years"? Seriously? I'm not saying that I don't (or do) agree with everything the writer is saying; I'm simply pointing out that we are editing an encylopedia, and, in this case, an extremely contentious article where we need to be very diligent about not violating any of the relevant policies. Please be aware that volations of BLP apply not only to article mainspace, but also to talk pages and all other pages. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative naming proposal 4: Ariel Castro case

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 "Wikipedia 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 [7]. And an encyclopedia is supposed to be more factual than the media (the average person seems to take Wikipedia 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 naming an article after a suspect (someone who has merely been accused of a crime)?! Really?? Absolutely not. 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) 08:44, 16 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)

• Oppose per the obvious BLP concerns above. But it might be worth examining why, if BLP prevents elevating the presumed-innocent suspect's name to prominence in the title, it does not prevent giving similar prominence to the victims of his alleged crimes, who have not sought media attention. From what I can tell this would be a precedent on Wikipedia.Fletcher (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a big difference. By associating someone's name with an event you are definitively stating that persons association with the event as fact. By calling this "Ariel Castro case" we would be stating that his alleged role in the crime as fact. The role he has been alleged to have performed is "perpetrator". Unless and until he is found guilty of the crime in a court of law it is a BLP violation to state as fact that he is the perpetrator because he is innocent until proven guilty.
    In contrast the role of the women is alleged to have been "victim of kidnap". As authorities have charged someone with their kidnap it is established as fact that they were kidnapped. Neutrally stating (relevant) facts is not a BLP violation. It would probably not be a BLP violation to name the article "Missing women found in Ariel Castro's house" (note that I am not proposing this) because that is factual (I say "probably" only because some people might think it implied his guilt, I don't think it does but it would need to be discussed). Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The phrase "Ariel Castro case" does not actually say anything about Castro's guilt. It only implies a situation centering on someone named Ariel Castro. From the title alone, you couldn't know if Castro is a perpetrator or a victim -- you couldn't even be sure that it's a criminal case or some other kind of controversy (cf. Terri Schiavo case). The reason BLP is relevant is not because the proposed title directly implies Castro is guilty, but because simply elevating his name to the title is giving him prominence while he is still legally presumed an innocent man and is not a public figure in any way other than the criminal allegations against him. For the same reason, people would be uncomfortable with your pretend-suggested title that named Castro. And for the same reason we should be uncomfortable titling the article after rape victims who are not public figures in any one other than their victimhood.Fletcher (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Like Fletcher, I am amazed that so many editors can so clearly see the BLP issues with regard to using the accused's name but not those of the victims. These names are all over the news now, but in a few months or a year most people won't remember them at all, and will be pretty useless as a search term etc. But the women who have these names will go on with their lives, we hope: go to college, get jobs, make friends, date people, marry, have children. And whenever anybody googles their name before considering offering them a job or a date this article is what is going to come up first, and their very personal past is laid bare - for ever. Think about it carefully for a minute: is this really what you would want for your sister, your friend, your mother, your daughter? These women have been free for 10 days now, and we haven't heard a peep out of any of them. Maybe this will last and maybe it won't, but until we are clear that they are going to seek public attention, we owe them a duty per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and WP:BLPNAME to try and minimize WP's contribution to ongoing victimization. And if we haven't made this specific decision for these reasons before, then here is the chance to start. WP's understanding of BLP policy is not static. Slp1 (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Once again, Slp1 is wrong on several levels. First, WP:AVOIDVICTIM is about article content, not the title; and the policy has been adhered to beautifully in the article. And not including their name in the title will of course not change the fact that the three are focused on in the article content. So that makes no sense. And WP:BLPNAME only applies "when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated" and in cases where there is only a "brief appearance of names in news stories", so obviously that does not apply here. Not even close. These names have been disseminated all over the world in a sustained manner, and this has been not just a top story in the U.S., but the top story; it was the headline story on mainstream newspapers and national TV news broadcasts across the country for an entire week. Slp1 said, "These names are all over the news now, but in a few months or a year most people won't remember them at all". Do people remember the Elizabeth Smart? Do people remember the name Jaycee Dugard? Of course they do. But even if people forget their names, that's completely irrelevant. So what if people forget their names? It doesn't change the fact they were the three involved in this highly prominent case. So, remembering someone's name is a fictional standard. The Dugard and Smart articles are Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. And this one should similarly be Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight. Obviously, we cannot name the article after a suspect (someone who is presumed innocent), so that comparison is illogical. This proposal is obviously dead and the original proposal has clear consensus. It's time to move on. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Might the reason people remember Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard have something to do with the fact that they have given interviews on TV and magazines, and written books to publicize their case? That they actually appear to want publicity? That is the major factor in why there isn't a BLP problem with the names of those articles. But here the situation is different.
• Why do you think doesn't matter if people forget their names? If these women continue to maintain their privacy, then forgetting their names is actually what every thinking person would wish for them. Do you really think that just because these "three [were] involved in this highly prominent case" that it doesn't matter if we prolong their victimization by specifically reminding people of their names in large type in the title every time the case is mentioned in google searches, on this website, in links, on mirrors etc etc etc?
• WP:AVOIDVICTIM states that "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." That's a policy statement that guides and informs all BLP editing, including our choices of titles.
• This is going to be my last comment in this discussion. I've made my point as clearly as I can, and that's enough. I sincerely thank whoever ends up closing this discussion for wading through the verbiage. I'd merely urge that the closer consider whether the !votes actually address the BLP issues.Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry Slp1, but Smart and Dugard did not give interviews on TV and magazines or write books until long after their WP articles were created. So that argument is completely invalid. And you added this part to your comment five minutes after the original post: "That is the major factor in why there isn't a BLP problem with the names of those articles. But here the situation is different."[8] Well, if you believe that was the major factor, then it invalidates your argument even more. And as has been clearly pointed out to you multiple times, WP:AVOIDVICTIM is in no way being violated; great care has been given to include only appropriate, relevant content to this article. Again, you keep repeating the same arguments but it doesn't change the fact that no policies are being violated with regard to the original title proposed. One final point, including a personal attack on an editor who has been topic-banned is highly inappropriate and, more importantly, totally irrelevant to this discussion. Therefore, it's been removed. The topic ban does not invalidate their prior legitimate comments, even if you disagree with the points stated. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• (1) WP:BLP applies to titles as well as content; there's nothing restricting the policy to article content. Putting Castro's name in the title is being widely seen as BLP-problematic even if the suggested title does not say anything about his guilt. (2) On the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS principle I don't consider your (endlessly repeated) examples of Dugard and Smart as dispositive; and the fact that they have sought public attention removes any motive to change the titles of those articles. Smart's article also preceded the creation of BLP so it's titling isn't evidence one way or the other. Only the continuance of its title in the BLP era, and Dugard, are supportive of your view. However, if we do choose to consider OTHERSTUFF, a wider look at Wikipedia's coverage of kidnapping and rape victims evidences many articles titled after people no longer living or people who are public figures, and very very little in the way of articles titled after living, low-profile rape victims. I read AVOIDVICTIM as suggesting restraint in prominently identifying victims (as in the title), though it seems like the issue has not really been explored. Fletcher (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Fletcher, an overwhelming percentage of editors disagree with you, as evidenced by the original proposal, which expresses their views accordingly. There are no BLP violations in that proposal and there is clear precedence for that title's inclusion. You are preaching to the choir about including Castro's name in the title. For the record, WP:LOWPROFILE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are essays; merely an editor's opinion that is substantially overriden by the policies and guidelines on this matter. (Although the Otherstuff essay is one I like; it just doesn't fit into this particular issue.) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I am breaking my promise not to edit again, but an editor deleting parts of my post will do it every time! Given the topic of this discussion, the reasons for this particular topic ban are highly relevant. But I am assured that the closer will know this anyway, so I won't restore the information, though I will restore another deleted sentence that has nothing to do with this editor.
• Consensus does not and cannot overrule BLP, so a claimed majority is irrelevant. But as it happens relatively few people actually address the BLP issue of the name in their rationales, and some for example Jim Michael and indeed Fletcher, express their opposition in quite different sections. As mentioned above, the closer will need to read the whole discussion closely. Poor thing!
• As Fletcher points out the Smart and Dugard articles are not clear parallels at all. In terms of creating, the Smart article was created in 2002, three years before WP even had a BLP policy Dugard was created in 2009] before BLP even had a section devoted to avoiding victimization.[9]. In any case, our understanding of WP's responsibilities to BLP subjects has increased over the years. I'd recommend that all read and consider this (subsequently [upheld) DRV rationale by arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad which eloquently covers many of the issues involved in very some similar cases: individuals who were abducted in their teens and horribly sexually abused, the subject of lots of publicity over their disappearances and subsequent rescues, but who did not seek any or sought very little public attention. Clearly, I am not advocating for the deletion of the article, just for a title that respects our moral and ethical responsibilities as WP editors not to prolong the victimization of these women. Slp1 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• The same misunderstanding trotted out earlier, above, and replied to, makes its way into the above post. It seems to be a misunderstanding shared by a distinct, non-consensus minority of two(?) !voters here. In the face of overriding consensus disagreement with their non-consensus views.

They assert: " Consensus does not and cannot overrule BLP, so a claimed majority is irrelevant." {"Claimed[?] majority"? That's odd.]

Here's the thing. Consensus is everything. BLP was created, in the first place, by -- consensus. And the disagreement here is as to how we construe BLP, and its application here.

The overwhelming majority construe BLP as not causing a problem in the first-offered name change above. Slp disagrees. Her reading as to how to construe the guideline is clearly a non-consensus one; really, rather fringe in this discussion. So Slp claims (as one editor did above as well) that her reading of BLP is the correct one, everyone else is wrong, and consensus and discussion are irrelevant.

That's somewhat unconvincing. By that line of reasoning, editors could revert all manner of consensus readings of guidelines around the project. Stating that the consensus AfD close, or merge close, or RfA close cannot overrule the lone editor's reading of a guideline, and is therefore "irrelevant."--Epeefleche (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)