Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move[edit]

The issue is no longer relevant as the article was moved on May 29, 2013, following three weeks of discussion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:40, 29 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.

Hi. I moved this article, removing the clumsy ", Ohio," from the title, to shorten and to align it to Cleveland which has no Ohio in the title. It's intended to be a non-controversial cleanup move. I take no sides in your ongoing title discussions, and my move is without prejudice to whatever y'all come up with. Later. -- Y not? 15:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Endorse technical MOS-friendly move. While we obviously have significant contention over the article title, simplifying to the common name of the location (which is well-known enough to stand on its own, thus the titling of Cleveland) seems perfectly reasonable. My objection in the edit summary was really just to make sure a rationale was provided so any possible objections can be raised, given the existing discussions. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Y not?Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 25 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.


Victims' statement on privacy[edit]

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."

Thank you all[edit]

Add name of Amanda Berry's daughter[edit]

I know that there are (MOS(?), BLP(?)) indicating that living relatives of the subjects of articles should not necessarily be named if they are not the subject of the article. (You wouldn't put the fact that Serial killer Micheala Jones-O'Toole had three brothers named Manny, Moe and Jack). However, I'm not sure that applies to Amanda Berry's daughter. She is certainly more central to the article, and from some sources, four Kidnapping charges will be filed not three. (Not sure if the article name should be changed based on that). The name is referencable (I get about 4000 news google hits). However, this is *not* something that I feel is a *Be Bold* addition.Naraht (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The daughter is not named in this article because we do not breach the privacy of non-notable children. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
People who are non-notable rarely get more than 4000 news google hits in the course of a month.Naraht (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that last post is trying to tell us. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There were also previous discussions on this issue. See the archives. Consensus is absolutely to not include the daughter's name, and I think some strong arguments need to be made for doing so other than just "there are some Google hits." Again, most sources exclude the name, yet that's only one part of our decision to do so (since that's just part of WP:BLPNAME.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
We should not be including the name of a minor when there is no reason to, and there is no reason to include it here.Martin451 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
To 2001:db8 , In the prior discussion of the daughter's name, the only two people who were against were you and Martin451; so consensus, but not "absolute". But at this point, it appears that I'm the only one in favor, so I drop the proposal.Naraht (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
To clarify for any future discussion, there was another previous discussion including discussion of using the daughter's name, though that mainly went off on an unrelated tangent. (I mentioned previous discussions in that one itself, but I may have just been referring to editing consensus based on insertion of hidden notes/removal of the name; I forget.) I appreciate your proposing of this rather than just inserting the material. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'm sure that once charges are filed that various parts of the articles will be re-evaluated. My guess is that at *that* point, this will come up again.Naraht (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
"The name of a child born to Amanda Berry during her captivity will be deleted from the public record involving the kidnapping case, a judge has ruled." That should probably be guidance for the article, for what it's worth. Mapsax (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move from "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" to "Cleveland Kidnappings", requested September 12, 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Ariel Castro kidnappings. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle KnightCleveland Kidnappings – Article name is WAY too long and also too precise (listing the 3 names is unnecessary and overly precise), conflicting with WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. It needs to be shortened. "Cleveland Kidnappings" is probably the best option for shortening it, in my opinion. The reason is, it is used by most major news outlets and major websites, for example About.com, Atlantic Wire, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Democracy Now!, Global Grind, Huffington Post, KTLA (CW affiliate), Los Angeles Times, Mediaite, Jezebel.com, National Public Radio, New York Daily News, People Magazine, Tumblr, USA Today, WLWT (NBC affiliate), and WPTZ (NBC affiliate) (those are just some of the sources I found on the first few pages of a Google search for "Cleveland kidnappings", although Google searches are customized for each user so your search results may be different). Now I know there is a counter-argument, namely these are not the only kidnappings that ever occurred in Cleveland, so potentially it is possible someone might not think "Cleveland Kidnappings" is specific enough, although this is a very remote possibility. However, in practice, "Cleveland Kidnappings" is the phrase that most major news agencies and websites use to refer to these kidnappings, and the current "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" could not POSSIBLY be considered to be a concise title. And people who are looking for the article about this are not going to type in "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" into a search engine, but they ARE likely to type in "Cleveland kidnappings" into a search engine, so renaming this article would get it more visitors and more editors. As a potential alternative title just in case people don't like "Cleveland Kidnappings" as a title (not my first preference, but if anyone thinks "Cleveland Kidnappings" is too general and not specific enough), I would suggest "Kidnappings by Ariel Castro" as an alternative option, an option superior to the current title because it is more concise, but not as good as "Cleveland Kidnappings" because it is not the most common phrase the media uses to describe these events. Another benefit to "Cleveland Kidnappings" as a title is it does not identify the names of the victims in the title, and they all wish to have their privacy respected, so this would do more to comply with their wishes, so it would arguably be more in keeping with WP:BLP than the current title (although perhaps some people might disagree with my interpretation of WP:BLP on this). Yetisyny (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • WP:COMMONNAMES forbid ambiguous and inaccurate names. The proposed title is either ambiguous or inaccurate. What about 2013 rescuing in Cleveland or 2013 Cleveland rescuing or Cleveland missing trio? Or Crimes of Ariel Castro? --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails WP:PRECISE, and clearly WP:RECENTISM. These are not the only people kidnapped in Cleveland. "Cleveland kidnappings" should be a list of kidnappings involving Cleveland. If you want it shorter, we have a single name that will fit, it's "Ariel Castro". Ariel Castro kidnappings --- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support Ariel Castro kidnappings. bd2412 T 13:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (By Nominator) As I said in the move request, my main concern is that the current name is too long, I would be willing to accept any of the alternate names that either of you, or anyone else, comes up with, as long as they are concise. "Cleveland Kidnappings" was my personal preference, but if the consensus is willing to reach a different article title instead, as long as it is a more concise title, I am willing to support moving it to that title instead of moving it to "Cleveland Kidnappings". As I said in the move request, I think the best alternative to "Cleveland Kidnappings" would be "Kidnappings by Ariel Castro". With regard to "2013 rescuing in Cleveland" or "2013 Cleveland rescuing", those are both OK but it would sound better to say "2013 rescue in Cleveland" or "2013 Cleveland rescue", since "rescuing" is not commonly used as a noun. "Cleveland missing trio" does have a slight problem, as they are no longer missing currently. "Crimes of Ariel Castro" is perfectly fine with me and probably the best of the 4 suggested by George Ho. "Ariel Castro kidnappings", suggested by 70.24.244.158 and seconded by bd2412, is pretty good, but it's a little ambiguous as to whether he's the kidnapper or kidnap victim, which is why I think that "Kidnappings by Ariel Castro" is preferable to "Ariel Castro kidnappings", as it is not ambiguous.
So at this point in time, given the feedback about "Cleveland Kidnappings" (yes, there have been other kidnappings in Cleveland, that is a valid point, so perhaps it isn't QUITE precise enough), I'd like to change my original suggestion and suggest "Kidnappings by Ariel Castro" as the proposed article title INSTEAD of "Cleveland Kidnappings" and see if there can be consensus about that being a good title that everyone finds acceptable. I just went with "Cleveland Kidnappings" because this is the most common name used by this by the media that I could find lots of references for, but I agree that perhaps it isn't precise enough, and that WP:RECENTISM might apply to all my citations of various media outlets using it. I still support "Cleveland Kidnappings" but only as a second choice to "Kidnappings by Ariel Castro", given the issues that were raised with "Cleveland Kidnappings". I would also like to reiterate the point that these 3 women have requested privacy and that not having their names in the article title would be a good way to go along with their wishes (the name of the baby born in captivity is not in the article title, for similar privacy reasons). This is part of why I still believe the current title of "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" is unacceptable, along with it not being concise (failing both WP:CONCISE and WP:BLP). And while several months ago, having "Ariel Castro" as part of the article title would have been inappropriate given that he was only a suspect and not yet convicted of a crime (innocent until proven guilty), that is not the case anymore, so having "Ariel Castro" in the title now is perfectly valid, especially given that he confessed to the crimes AND was found guilty AND there was overwhelming evidence that he was the perpetrator. Additionally, WP:BLP no longer applies to Ariel Castro now that he's dead, although it DOES still apply to the victims. This is why "Kidnappings by Ariel Castro" is an appropriate title at this point in time and in the future (although it would have been an inappropriate title several months ago before his trial due to WP:BLP and innocent until proven guilty). --Yetisyny (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move proposed by the nominator as lacking precision. I would support the proposed Kidnappings by Ariel Castro (preferred) or Ariel Castro kidnappings (not ideal since Castro wasn't kidnapped) over the current unwieldy title. There is no longer any need to avoid Castro's name in the title, as he pled guilty and is deceased. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose to Kidnappings by Ariel Castro. I would support Ariel Castro kidnappings, but for some visceral reason, in spite of the "precision" factor, I like the current title better than Kidnappings by Ariel Castro. For what it's worth. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too broad of a title, are you saying that no other kidnappings took place ever in Cleveland? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Ariel Castro kidnappings for BLP concerns mostly. Moondyne (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is turning into a mess Due to people throwing out alternate titles I do not see how this move can go on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We already discussed this when the story first broke back in May and this was the title agreed upon. The proposed titles are not specific enough (that being said, the current one is too specific, but it's still the best one to use). The article could be called just Ariel Castro, but that would be the title of an article about Castro himself. Paris1127 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Second Proposal[edit]

New Proposal (By Nominator) Since there is already a 100% consensus by everyone besides me to reject my original proposal to change the title to Cleveland Kidnappings, but it seems like most people would agree on either Kidnappings by Ariel Castro or Ariel Castro kidnappings, I am changing my original proposal and now would like people to debate whether or not they support changing the title to Kidnappings by Ariel Castro. So please say Support if you support changing it to Kidnappings by Ariel Castro and Oppose if you oppose changing it to Kidnappings by Ariel Castro. Everyone has already rejected the idea of changing the title to Cleveland Kidnappings so let's just consider the matter settled that we WON'T change it to THAT title, and let's now debate whether Kidnappings by Ariel Castro would be a good title for this article, or whether you would prefer some other title or want to keep the current title. I think Kidnappings by Ariel Castro is probably the best option that can find consensus. This will be a NEW vote, so everyone who voted on the previous proposal can vote on this new proposal TOO (and as the proposer of it naturally I support it). Please post the votes on my new proposal below this comment. Thank you. --Yetisyny (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • For those trying to follow the discussion of Yetisyny's second proposal, I will simply note that I expressed an opinion on it above. You may read it again if you like, but in any case it applies here as well. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The bloody thing gets a proposed move every time there's a new moon. Basket Feudalist 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Michelle Knight interview[edit]

The Dr. Phil 2-part interview of Michelle Knight might provide some material for the article...if not the interview itself then a report on it (that report reviews Part 1, Part 2 will likely be covered after it's broadcast today). Mapsax (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Daughter's name[edit]

There has been previous discussion and agreement to keep the name of the daughter out of the article. WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM suggest keeping the name of a minor out of the article, she did not have widespread coverage before the case broke last year. There is no good reason to include the name, does anyone disagree? Martin451 14:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC) User:KahnJohn27 claims there is permission from the victims to name the daughter. However the victims have repeatedly asked for privacy,[1][2] and the name of the daughter was stricken from the court records [3][4] of Castro's trial. Amander Berry's sister has made a specific plea for the privacy of the daughter[5] who is still a minor. WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies here.Martin451 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the victims are asking for privacy from the media so the media stops bothering them because usually in these type of cases the media is always after the victims to get their interviews, their condition etc.. They have actually themselves used the daughter's name openly in the media. That itself amounts to permission. Also sorry but you are wrong that if court has stricken her name from public records we cannot mention her name. Wikipedia's content cannot be governed by anyone except Wikipedia itself and also Wikipedia is no public record though anyone access it. Read WP:BLPNAME carefully because it explicitly says that "names of non-notable members should not be mentioned if there is no reliable source". Not only is the daughter of Amanda Berry noticeable but there is reliable proof for her name. Also relating to victims of gruesome crime WP:BLP states that, "Naming of a victim of a horrible crime should be avoided if the victim or their family does not want the name to be mentioned and there should be reliable sources for the name". It is clear that the family has no problems with naming the daughter of Amanda Berry. Wikipedia respects privacy of victims. If they don't want their name to be revealed then it wouldn't, their name can't even be mentioned in talk pages. However since here the family has no problem there is no problem at all mentioning her name. However if despite the permission you are still omitting the name then it amounts to "censorship of Wikipedia" which is strictly not allowed by all Wikipedia rules. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Also please note that actually Amanda's sister has " actually asked the court for privacy of the name of her sister's daughter from public records". Media outlets, media websites etc do not come under public records. Unless the court orders her name to be removed by the media outlets or the the daughter's family themself voice dissallow the media to mention the name of the daughter there is no problem at all mentioning her name and it is therefore not violating any Wikipedia policy. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Just because something exists, does not mean it should be included. Not including this is not censorship, it is common sense. The family have made a clear call for the privacy of the daughter (linked above), and its current inclusion is in violation of WP:BLP, one of the core principles of wikipedia. The family have called for her privacy, not by her name, but by calling her Amander's daughter[6], as you say "Naming of a victim of a horrible crime should be avoided if the victim or their family does not want the name to be mentioned..."20:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
How many times I have said that call for privacy is asking "the media to leave them alone and not bother them". Please read your own source carefully. The privacy is for asking the media to leave them alone not prohibiting them to mention their names. Oh and the family made the cl for privacy to the court for exclusion of daughter's name of public records, not from the media. Double check your sources and your self-made statements. You are greatly misunderstanding the statements of the victim. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
KahnJohn27, please take note of the following: The matter was previously discussed and the consensus was to leave the daughter's name out of the article. When it comes to WP:BLP, there is a delicate balance between openness and the rights of the subject(s) who are still living, which is why we seek consensus on an issue such as this. Since Wikipedia is often used as a source of information, it could be considered part of the media - and just because the victim said she wanted her daughter's name out of the public record doesn't mean she didn't want it out of other sources as well, including Wikipedia. Best to keep the minor child's name out of the article.THD3 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Tell me then where is the consensus then? Where was it discussed? Rather than a consensus I think an RfC would be much suited for solving this issue. Also the public records are records and documents of the government that can be accessed by the public. So media and Wikipedia does not come under it. Read Public records. They were talking about keeping her name confidential in the documents of the government. Basically my edit isn't violating any policies. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Please review the archives, which are linked near the top of this page.THD3 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Look it's you saying that there was a consensus then give me the link. I'm running late here. I have to sleep too. Just give me the link to the consensus will you. Also note that I saw one of tge consensus and that "consensus" only included two users. In such issues opinions of multiple involved and uninvolved users should be taken rather than just 2 or 3 editors. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about this consenus. Only 3 users were involved in that. You have to be joking if you consider that this justifies your avoiding the name of the daughter. Such issues should be collectively discussed by multiple users. 2 or 3 users are too few to determine whether the name should be included or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It was also discussed here to some extent, and more recently here which had six participants.Martin451 17:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Remember, consensus is not merely determined by "how many" voted a certain way, but also by the weight of the pro/con arguments. The only "pro" argument I've seen presented in this latest thread is that the minor child's mother hasn't made a statement that she doesn't want the name published at Wikipedia. Against that we have the policy that we don't include the names of non-notable children, the ruling to keep the child's name out of court records, and the fact that most mainstream media has not published the child's name. Further, we should look outside the box of what WP:BLP states and look to why is does so. One reason is to avoid litigation against Wikipedia - which operates with a very small financial base and could well face real jeopardy if sued over this matter. As I stated before, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the child's name. When interpreting rules that are open to interpretation, it's better to err on the side of caution, and "be bold" doesn't equate with "be reckless".THD3 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
If it helps to increase the number of commenters, I can say that haven't seen any good argument in favor of including the child's name in the article, and WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM appear to provide a good rationale for not including it. After seeing the references to prior Talk page discussions, I also agree that it appears that there has been a consensus not to include the name. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
While referring to here there were 4 users (seems so) against including the name and User:Naraht was in favor of including the name. I am starting to somewhat agree that perhaps the name should be excluded until it can be confirmed there is explicit permission. That earlier discussion whose link is given is a consensus but I still think that since there aren't many users in that consensus we should just hold an RfC? This way uninvolved editors can also express their views and it can be firmly decided whether name should be mentioned or avoided? What are your opinions? Also I'll like to publically apologize to Martin 451 for insulting him by calling him ignorant and other insults. I hope you can forgive me. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:KahnJohn27 , I like the idea of a more formal RFC, specifically with those who understand the relevant policies more than I. I'm still slightly leaning toward inclusion, but as indicated in the archive above, I didn't want to be bold on the topic. I notice that Fritzl case does contain the names of all of the children, an RFC might reasonably be broad enough to be relevant to that article as well.Naraht (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That comment about the Fritzl case is very interesting. I looked at the Talk page (and its archives) for that case and was surprised to see only a small amount of discussion of that issue – mostly just a couple of small mentions in the context of discussing other issues such as what the name of the article should be or whether the Fritzl surname should be mentioned. I saw some mention in passing of a suggestion to remove children's names, but it doesn't seem to have ever been the focus of much thought or discussion. I also notice that someone said the names of all the children in that case have since been changed to protect them from unwanted attention relating to the case. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think because of the case of being old there is no problem with the names being mentioned. Also there is a time limit to the not including the name of the victim of a horrible crime. Besides whether it was small discussion or not we are not the ones to decide. Also you forget the surname of the perpetrator of the crime was also Fritzl. Also just like the adult victims of this case they have voiced no objections whether their name should be mentioned. Also they haven't made their request to courts to remove their name from public records or anywhere else. Besided it's not necessary that the victim has to say "Ok you have my permission to use my name". If you think a consensus can do anything then you are wrong. A consensus cannot violate the policies of Wikipedia. WP:BLP does not say that explicit permission in which a victim says personally they say you can use the name is necessary for the name. Also note that pertaining to name of victims WP:BLP it says "it is better to avoid the name if the victim or the family does not want so" not that "you cannot mention the name". The policy is actually somewhat in form of an advice. That is the sole reason why I suggested an RfC because of the policy being somewhat an advice. Why don't we remove the name of every victim of a horrible crime with a consensus? A consensus is not all-powerful and it's not neceszary to have a discussion or consensus if it is clear according to policy what should be done. Read last section of WP:CONSENSUS which explicitly says that a consensus cannot overrule the policies of Wikipedia. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the Friztl case there was also Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard where it was discussed briefly here and here with a larger discussion here. The result is that the names of Dugard's children were not included in the article.
To quote Rodhulandemu "Although there are some sources for these names, whether to include them is guided by policy as "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." These children are not notable in themselves, and the principle on Wikipedia has long been that we should strive to protect the identities of children; it follows that we would need a very strong reason (other than "we can") to include them, as well as very reliable sources. Rodhullandemu 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"
In this case, the daughter of Berry is not notable herself. Wikipedia should be protecting the identities of children, especially those who are victims of crime. Consensus cannot override general wikipedia rules, but WP:BLP is here to protect living people, and prevent wikipedia from being sued. BLP is here to protect, not to tell us what must be included. There is nothing in BLP telling us we must include names, but part against inclusion. If we cannot get the ethics of BLP correct, then there is little hope for the rest of wikipedia.Martin451 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It's your own personal opinion that the daughter of Amanda Berry is not noticeable. We determine such things on basis of external sources not by ourselves. And based on external sources she is noticeable since she is the daughter of both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime and also she is mentioned in nearly all articles relating to the crime with or without her name. Besides I'll like to ask you to atleast tell where is such a policy of not including names of non natable children written on Wikipedia? You need to back up your statement. Also if you think WP:BLPNAME favors not including the name then you are hugely mistaken. The policy is there in case the victim or the family does not want their name to be revealed. In case they give explicit permission to reveal their name then there is no problem in including the name and no consensus can remove it since WP:BLP allows to include the name. However the policy does not mention anything about what to do in case there if the victims have voiced no objection in including the name or made no comment about such things. That is why a consensus is better suited to these kinds of situation. Also I ask Roddeldhanemu to stop quoting what he said at another discussion of another article. Nonetheless I will be starting an RfC soon and I promise to mention the concerns of all users here. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There already is a consensus. Consensus can agree to keep a name out, and WP:BLP cannot overide that consensus as there is nothing in WP:BLP that says names have to be used. The consensus arrived before was on the principles of WP:BLP. By all means, start an RfC, I doubt it will change the current consensus. Oh, and it was me quoting Rodhulandemu, not him copying across.Martin451 22:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I also suggest reading WP:Avoiding harm.Martin451 23:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Bruder I suggest you assume good faith because inserting the name is not the only reason I wish to take an RfC. The other reasons are that I wish to know what most of the editors support. If you think WP:BLP does not support including the name then you are wrong. Also it says it is better not to include the name if there is no permission. This makes it sound more like an advice. Also at my talk page you can see the adminstrator that warned me also said that WP:BLP places more restrictions on us for mentioning a name than the media. But he does not say it is prohibited. This discussion is only because there is no explicit permission or explicit disapproval. I ask for an RfC to know what other editors think not just because I think including the name is correct. Also I highly doubt your statement. How will a minor be victimized by including her name on Wikipedia especially since you think she is non-noticeable? I really doubt thia statement of yours. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Including this child's name would be a violation of her privacy, something about which we must be doubly careful given the circumstances of her birth, and the sensational nature of the case surrounding her mother's kidnapping. I see no compelling argument in favor of including it, just one editor misinterpreting policy, mistaking something he calls noticeability (whatever that is) for notability, and generally refusing to accept that consensus is clearly and decisively against him. Moreover, I'm concerned about the attempt at forum shopping at the BLP noticeboard, and the threat of an RfC he has made in an effort to somehow force this edit. The community is clearly opposed to inclusion of her name, her right to privacy is paramount, and it should not be included. --Drmargi (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reagarding 'forum shopping', it should be noted that KahnJohn27 opened an RfC on the issue on this page - and then deleted it again [7] when I pointed out that one can't overrule WP:BLP policy in an RfC. I suggested that he asked at WP:BLPN whether policy permitted the name to be included - though the result seems a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly oppose inclusion of this child's name. At WP:BLPN, KahnJohn27 quoted me in support of inclusion, but misunderstood what I intended in that quote. I was speaking of minor children like Malia and Sasha Obama, or Siri Cruise, who was featured in a photo layout by Annie Liebovitz in Vanity Fair magazine, or Prince George of Cambridge. I am talking about children who have received significant, ongoing coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, not minor child victims of a notorious crime, whose names are mentioned in passing in very dubious sources. I hope that KahnJohn27 can recognize clearcut consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Of all of the issues here, reliable sources for the name isn't one of them. With 5 minutes work, I've found references for the name in CNN, one of the Cleveland TV Stations (ABC 5), and several other places.Naraht (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Just want to state my opposition to including the child's name; it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to break out Michelle Knight[edit]

In the year since the rescue, Michelle Knight has written a book on her ordeal, and of the three survivors she has been the most prominent and visible. I believe at this point she has acquired independent notability. bd2412 T 17:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Common law wife[edit]

Grimilda Figueroa is described as Castro's "future common law wife". She was not his common law wife, she was his partner or girlfriend. "Common law wife" is nothing more than a euphemism in Ohio, having no legal status at all.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)