Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


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

I don't see all that much useful in there that isn't bordering on BLP-unfriendly material, past Pedro Castro mentioning that a police search was a waste of money; that bit is certainly notable and should be added back in. Alcohol problems, job histories, etc, aren't really relevant, since they have no reported bearing on the crime. We already mention that Castro's brothers were initially arrested then released, so that part is in there. We could definitely add a bit about how heavy the media coverage of the exonerated brothers was, if there's a source that notes that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Also the first sentence, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it's relevant that they lived half a mile away from the suspect's home; it's kind of a coatrack into suggesting they were involved by virtue of living very close, given that they're no longer suspects... Consider if we'd include it if the material was that they lived 10 miles away. We probably wouldn't, so without any sort of source connecting their proximity to the incident, I don't think it's relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
We routinely reflect such things. Even in this article -- as with the uncle's store. It also makes clear they were not living with him, though they were in the neighborhood. Been appropriately reflected in RSs. Plus -- I'm not seeing any mention of the brothers at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
2013_Cleveland,_Ohio,_missing_trio#Investigation_developments: "Two brothers of Castro's were also initially taken into custody, but they were released a few days later after police announced that they had no involvement in the kidnappings." (The "few days" comes from uncertainty at the moment on when they were released.) The thing with the store doesn't imply guilt on the uncle's part; my concern is that stating the brothers lived very close might do so. If you think it's reasonable to include irrespective of the distance, then go for it...but if the distance is a factor in the decision to include the material, I think we need a source to link them to avoid OR and any BLP issues. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Will consider. May do tomorrow. For some reason that didn't come up in my prior search ... but despite there being refs in what was deleted, the language you point to is sadly completely unreferenced.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. I added a ref (not the best, but of course most sources don't care about past suspects) for the other brothers being cleared and released. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

Sylvia Browne says Amanda Berry is dead

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

I think I removed it per WP:FRINGE. Please do not conflate a "psychic" with a self-described psychic-type person. Do you have a reliable source that this individual has reasonably provided information as to the status of individuals, in a reliable fashion? "All over the media" doesn't necessarily cover "human interest" stories about WP:FRINGE-ish characters– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
2001:db8 Do you have a reliable source that any "psychic" has reasonably provided information as to the status of individuals in a reliable fashion? What exactly do you contend is being conflated? Sylvia Browne is a notable person who claims to be a psychic. She was featured on a notable, national talk show (Montel Willams) weekly for an extended period of time. It was on this show that her statements regarding Amanda Berry were made. The issue of this particular and of "psychics" in general has been reported not as "human interest" but as serious journalism by noted journalists on a notable national news show (Anderson Cooper 360 and others) over the last few years. This aspect of the story of Amanda Berry is being covered by the national news networks and channels. Amanda Berry's mother was told on national TV on a that her daughter was dead, she died without her daughter being found, all the while her daughter was being held less than 5 miles away. Please provide some explanation of how a major media discussion of a notable figure is giving undue weight to a fringe theory rather than providing appropriate discussion. Perhaps your idea of conflating a "self-described psychic type person" with a "psychic" is part of the cause of the confusion. Note that Sylvia Browne was described as a psychic on a national TV show that featured her weekly. In terms of relevance again Amanda's mother appeared on national TV to ask Sylvia Brown about her daughter. In terms of notability of the prediction and it's proving false this is being covered by all the major news networks as part of the story, also that the subject of psychics making predictions about missing persons has been the subject of multiple national news programs, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. This information is considered important enough to be be reported by secondary WP:RS as such it qualifies for inclusion. Please restore or provide a suggestion for how this aspect can be appropriately include in this article. (MrBill3) (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe all so called psychics are 1000% blood sucking lowlifes that feed on distressed people - but this woman has an extensive WP article and is a public figure of some note. This should be covered, at least by a line, in this article. Legacypac (talk)
According to WP:FRINGE, "editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." That is not what was happening with the Sylvia Browne reference. This is why I am restoring the statement, and adding further material to indicate that Browne has received significant media criticism for her "false and potentially damaging" according to ABC and the HuffPo, and the pseudoscience/fringe claim is significant to the media coverage in this case.Nmillerche (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Browne receiving criticism does not seem relevant to this article, but is relevant to Browne's own article. Would we cover it if the 50/50 guess had gone the other way, "validating" the psychic rather than debunking her? I doubt it, because we'd say "that was a WP:FRINGE prediction, it wasn't based on any actual science!"; so why does WP:FRINGE also not apply the other half of the time, when a psychic is wrong? It may be relevant that Miller apparently died believing her daughter was dead based on that information, but I still do not see the relevance of a psychic being wrong, however famous said psychic is. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

See also is sexist

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

You will probably enjoy reading Missing white woman syndrome. It clearly describes the reality of stories like this getting so much attention. And although there's always some element of it, this one has the blatantly salacious aspects - rape, sex, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2013‎
Steven Stayner and Timmy White's disappearances did not receive much publicity until they escaped from Kenneth Parnell and Ervin Murphy. The media don't carry much coverage of missing boys. The case is similar to this one, apart from the gender of the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Added that one to see also. Fletcher (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Google News

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

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

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

I'm at the home page for Google News and can't see what you're referring to. Do you have a link to back up the claim? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 15:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Google News uses one top story in a given section that you'll notice has an expanded layout, with several links to different news sources on the top, and sometimes it includes the relevant Wikipedia article in the list. The stories below the top story are then just a single link and an abstract of the text, and do not have a WP link. If you visit at a time when the Cleveland kidnapping story is the top article, you'll see the WP link. Fletcher (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see that now. How is this our problem, again? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not. As to the OP's comment, he doesn't understand what NOTNEWS means. We do cover current events if they are considered encyclopedic.Fletcher (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - suspect's high school

Ariel Castro is a 1979 graduate of Cleveland's Lincoln-West High School. Here is verification from two reliable sources, the New York Daily News and The Globe and Mail: [1][2] This should be added to the end of the first paragraph of the "Suspect" section. -- (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it really notable what school he attended? --JetBlast (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's notable. The Suspect section is his biography, and schools attended are standard biographical content. ;) -- (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes -- we typically reflect such information is such articles. As do RSs ... which are the sources of such information.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs editing

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

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


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

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

Ariel Castro divorced?

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

I was struggling with that too, but saw an interview ~with a close relation that said they were common law married, so no specific divorce occured. Legacypac (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
That section needs more sources. Did Castro marry her? If so, did they divorce? Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate edits

Several edits just cut out significant details about the victims.

[3]. IE: lack of Amber alert on Gina, basic bio info about Amanda. No explanation given. Here [4] common-law is deleted as not in source, yet this can be sourced easy [1].

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

Changes like [5] are removing large amounts of information. While some of the cleanup is appropriate, removal of that much content on a sensitive and contentious article without consensus does not seem reasonable. If material is unsourced, irrelevant, a BLP concern, or whatever, it should be removed in separate edits with appropriate edit summaries...not in one giant edit marked simply as "cleanup". I don't think it'd be unreasonable to revert those two giant edits entirely, or to the version before them. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Info I removed in my cleanup edits was either a) not present in the sources cited or b) irrelevant. How about this -- I'll go back through now and isolate the info that I removed, and post it here for discussion. Does that sound okay? I think that would be much more productive than reverting completely back to a much, much messier version of the article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to do that, that would be great. Thanks. You did make a lot of good edits (thus not quickly reverting it, since it'd wipe those out); my concern was that it was quite difficult to compare the edits and determine the rationale for various removals due to being done in bulk. (I agree that a lot of the pruning made sense, but I'm not sure on some of them.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment and for not mass-reverting. I understand your concerns. I've been delayed by an IE crash but will post the list of removed info hopefully within a few minutes. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed information

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

  • "[Knight] disappeared near West 116th Street and Lorain Avenue"
    • Provided source ([6]) says West 106th Street and Lorain Avenue; since the source also said all three disappearances were from the same block, I thought it easier to just remove the address rather than try to untangle the confusion. No objection to re-adding sourced address.
  • "shopping plaza on West 117th Street" (became "shopping plaza in Cleveland")
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
All the girls disappearing from same small area is important. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "[Berry] was believed to have made it home from her job at a Burger King at West 110th Street and Lorain Avenue, and she changed from her uniform at her family's apartment, but no one witnessed her there. She left money and all her clothes at home. She was known to have had plans to celebrate her birthday the next day."
    • Cited to a source ([7]) that preceded her rescue, and which seemed to contradict every other source
  • Berry's mother's name
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
She devoted her life to the search and died of a broken heart. Suppressing her is inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Browne's prediction being "false and potentially damaging"
    • Cannot find any news report where this quote originated; they all quote ABC News, but ABC News didn't include it
Did you look? I've seen plenty. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I did look; I found several pages restating what's here on Wikipedia, or restating what's on the Huffington Post, but I did not find a news source that indicated who originally spoke or wrote the words "false and potentially damaging". I did not see the phrase in the ABC News report that Huffington Post linked to. 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Before her disappearance, Berry had been in a gifted program at John Marshall High School, but had switched to an online home school program in which she was on track for early graduation."
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
Basic bio info on victim. Fact she was student (and a bright one at that) is important for context. She was not some druggie loser or runaway. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "No AMBER Alert was issued the day DeJesus disappeared, because no one had witnessed her being abducted. The lack of an AMBER Alert angered her father, Felix DeJesus, who said in 2006 that he believed the public would listen even if the alerts become routine.
    • Source ([8]) says nothing about AMBER Alert
Then you have the wrong source because I inserted that with a good RS. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the NECN source was the only citation for that paragraph when I edited the article. If there was a source, it had previously been removed. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some details about the Hispanic guy sought after DeJesus' disappearance
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
The sketch and description are very close to Castro. Major detail in investigation prior to discovery. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should wait for a reliable source to discuss any similarity between the sketch and Castro before including it here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some content about pregnancies and miscarriages
    • All seemed to be superceded by the more specific report that Knight had five miscarriages and DeJesus was never pregnant
  • Search of Castro's property, mention of cadaver dog
    • Citation for cadaver dog ([9]) didn't mention it; the fact that they searched the property and hadn't found human remains seems irrelevant detail, given the article doesn't mention accusations of human remains
Dog was sourced well. Of course there are accusations or suspicions of human remains. Remember there are other missing girls, possible fetuses/babies etcLegacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think either of the citations present when I edited the article discussed the dog. (Just to be clear, when I say something wasn't sourced or needs to be sourced, I'm talking about the citations next to that information in the Wikipedia article. I'm not talking about whether there are news sources anywhere with that information that could be cited by the Wikipedia article.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Castro's uncle's grocery store
    • Not in sources ([10] and [11]) and not relevant
Widely reported. Close relative with business nearby, community leader. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Common-law marriage dispute
    • I have no idea what the dispute here is about, because the source next to "future" ([12]) didn't say anything about his wife whatsoever, and the source that DID discuss his wife ([13]) called her his wife, with no suggestion that it was common-law only
Google Common-law wive Castro and there are many RS. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Price of Castro's home
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
Why?? Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Castro "spent three days in jail before being released on bond"
    • Not in source ([14]) and not relevant
  • "He was also arrested in December 1993 for disorderly conduct, to which he plead guilty."
    • Not sourced
Yes it was. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "In 1996, Ariel Castro was accused of pulling a fence post from a neighbor's property. The neighbor's 6-year-old daughter stepped in the resulting hole and fell, hurting herself. Court documents detailed significant hostility between the neighbors, and Castro said he spoke with police "on a number of occasions” about the neighbor. Castro was ordered to pay $241 in damages."
    • Source ([15]) said nothing remotely about this (and it would probably be irrelevant anyway)
Another legal brush, indicates temper. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Photos of Castro in 2001, provided by his family, show a padlocked basement door inside the house"
    • Irrelevant detail, especially when his son TALKS about all the locks
No point is the locks in place the year before Knight kidnapped. There is a suggestion out there there was a captive before Knight. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Figueroa twice suffered a broken nose, and suffered broken ribs, a knocked-out tooth, a blood clot on her brain, and two dislocated shoulders."
    • Unnecessary detail
Really? Castro beat his common law wife badly over a number of years? Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Castro was stopped six times by Cleveland Police between 1995 and 2008 for traffic violations."
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
Very common to include other police contact in a suspect biography. CNN has video of a traffic stop where Castro was close to arrest for riding a motorbike without a proper license. Had they arrested him, things Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "According to his former sister-in-law, Castro had dinner with his daughter Angie in his house just hours before the captives escaped the house. “She thought he was the perfect dad,” said her aunt."
    • Apparently irrelevant detail
to you maybe - point is the Castro would have people in his house while the captives were there - pretty bold. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Local police and the FBI maintained active investigations after the disappearances, following many leads. The investigations into the disappearance of DeJesus and Berry were widely covered by media regionally over 10 years, and on both national and international TV shows."
    • Unsourced and already covered under sections about DeJesus' and Berry's disappearances
no need to source this summary statement. Nothing wrong with it.Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wolford's convictions
    • Unsourced
It was sourced, and is important. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully, your edits removed substantial information that provides context to the story. While I do not own the article, I can say I spent over 3 hours carefully searching out details and inserting them, especially looking for sources that pre-dated their discovery (because I believe that these sources would be more accurate than the rushed articles after the escape). Everything I added was well sourced, so either someone removed the sources or you failed to check them carefully. The old sources are not likely to get rewritten in place 5 or 10 years later. Nothing here is random unsourced garbage. I'd respectfully ask that that most of this info be restored. The person who unilaterally decided to gut the article of details should do the work to put it all back. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to this edit too [16] |Castro asked his son about one of the girls he was holding captive. Again, well sourced quote removed. Please restore these disruptive deletions. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That was after my initial edits. The quote that you referred to was sourced to a Daily Mail article. User:John apparently feels the Daily Mail is an unreliable source and, for reasons I don't understand (I've actually just been trying to discuss this with him at User talk:John), he felt the best thing to do was to take out the Daily Mail citations, while leaving intact the information that came from those citations. I cleaned up his mistake by taking out the material that was no longer sourced since the citations were removed. I have no objection to you or anyone else re-adding the quote, as long as it's accompanied by a source that includes that quote. (I don't even care if the source is the Daily Mail or not.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The correct thing to do is restore the source, not delete the info. Daily Mail may not be the best source for general facts, but direct quotes from an interview are ok IMO. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No. --John (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Because I had time and I don't want to spend all weekend waiting for you to restore the unsourced information so I can revert it again, I found sources and re-added the information. Hopefully this resolves your concerns. (And now comes the part where John removes the new citations, presumably.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to work with you Theoldsparkle to craft the best article possible. Some of your edits are quite good,there just seems to be some variance in what we feel is important. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that and I hope we can work together too. I'm sorry if I sounded terse in my earlier comment. I know that my initial edits did probably look like I was removing a lot of stuff for no apparent reason, and in the future when I make edits like that to other articles I'll keep this experience in mind and try to explain myself better. Right now my main concern is just trying to keep the article well-sourced as it changes and expands. As I said at the top of my list of changes above, I mostly would not object to the stuff that I removed being added back in, as long as it's accompanied by a source that specifically supports that information. (Also, in case you missed this, the quote about Castro asking his son about Berry is in the article now, with a source; it's in the last paragraph under "Suspect." When the info about the neighbors got added back in, I thought it made more sense to rearrange the content in those two paragraphs a little bit. And the information about Robert Wolford is in the "Amanda Berry" section.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had missed your earlier comments where you had gone through my list of removed content until now. I've responded to some of them. I think we may have an essential misunderstanding: for the most part, when I made my edits, I looked at what citations were provided for that information in the Wikipedia article. If those citations did not support the information, I removed the information. I did not do research on whether any sources exist for that information. If the sources exist to adequately cite that information, then the information can be re-added with the proper citations. It is not my obligation, when I see unsupported information, to leave that information in place while I go search for sources. It is the obligation of the person adding the information to provide proper citations, and I encourage you to do so if you wish to include this information. (And now, I'm about to sign off, and I'm not sure how much I'll be online in the next few days because I don't make Wikipedia a priority over the weekend. I can only hope the article will keep improving in my absence.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposed edit to "Abductions - Amanda Berry"

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

Instead of: "Police initially considered Berry a runaway, until a week after her disappearance, when a man used Berry's cell phone to call her mother. The man claimed that he and Berry were married and that Berry would return home in a few days.[26] Miller searched for her daughter for three years, but died in 2006 of heart failure.[27]"

I propose: "Police initially considered Berry a runaway, until a week after her disappearance, when a man used Berry's cell phone to call her mother. The man claimed that he and Berry were married and that Berry would return home in a few days.[26] Amanda Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, searched for her daughter for three years, but died in 2006 of heart failure.[27]"

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

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

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

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

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

Disappearance of Ashley Summers

I am not sure this section belongs in the article at all. Investigators have stated that they thought it was connected, but have found no evidence of such. The abductions were covered on TV together, but that seems even weaker. From [17], the ref that best supports keeping this as related: "Ashley's physical appearance and the proximity of her home to the other disappearances meant investigators had to suspect the cases were linked, FBI agent and spokeswoman Vicki Anderson said Tuesday." But again, no actual evidence has been presented (and I'm sure we'll hear about it if something turned up in the search of the house), just vague assertions. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Ashley Summers

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

I agree and have removed the section. When investigating any crime police look for links with others. This one might stand out because of Missing white woman syndrome, but there is 1) no evidence that it's the only one police are considering and 2) no formal evidence of any connection between the crimes at all. Purely speculation by media. (And our editors?) HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget the FBI and the Cleveland Police Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) No. (Or should I say Yes.) And I do wish you would learn to place your comments correctly on a Talk page. Me burying yours well inside mine demonstrates why we have firm guidelines on this. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I refactored (hopefully not improperly) to merge this with the section above, since there was just one other section separating the two... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, HiLo. It's very frustrating when editors put crap like that into an article, especially one as sensitive as this one. -- (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper resource

From The Plain Dealer: Candidate for external link? Mapsax (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing to The Charley Project

We have various things that are sourced to The Charley Project ([18] [19][20]), which says it "does not actively investigate cases; it is merely a publicity vehicle for missing people who are often neglected by the press". This seems inherently POV, with a high likelihood that they will use improperly sourced information. Those pages list "source information", but don't actually link to any references...just the websites of the claimed sources. References to that site should probably be replaced with appropriate reliable sources or removed; much of it is indeed accurate information, but much of it is outdated or otherwise incorrect. Not an adequate source for a BLP article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Naturally in disappearance cases there will be some speculation and some stuff may turn out to be incorrect. However I am sure that with some digging all info posted here sourced from that site can be verified elsewhere. Remember though, that these were cold cases so we are searching for reports from 10 years ago. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I just replaced all of those with proper refs, and despite some effort, could not find several details (including the man claiming to be married to Berry, and some info on the suspect in the sketch.) Some of the details were incorrect as well; when a source is questionable, you can't simply assume the material can be found elsewhere... You're welcome to look for appropriate RSes that contain the removed info, of course. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I found a direct quote sourced to a specific FBI agent about the phone call and added that. I also found a couple tabloid sources for the getting married part, including one that said there was a second call from the man but have not added them. I don't think the getting married detail is critical. Also found a source directly comparing Castro's stats to the sketched suspect stats. Thanks for improving the sources, the article is better for it. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative naming proposal: Cleveland kidnappings case

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trioCleveland kidnappings case

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

  • Recognizability and Naturalness- In their headlines the media are typically using a combination of Cleveland (and sometimes Ohio) and kidnapping/kidnapped [21]. This precise title is used frequently in the media (plus or minus the plural) [22][23] Even when one searches for a woman's name, many of the headlines come up with Cleveland kidnappings come up on google searches. See this for example [24].
  • Precision Per Legacypac's comment in the section above "Cleveland kidnappings" might refer in general kidnappings in Cleveland. Adding "case", as suggested by User:2001, helps clarity and specify this.
  • Conciseness. Using the women's names in the title also makes it very long and ungainly. The current suggestion is much shorter and more concise. I would also argue that in time people will forget the women's names but remember the location.
  • Consistency It has been argued above that the Smart and Dugard articles are parallels. However, those women have sought publicity for themselves by writing books about their experiences. Until we know whether these women do the same, or as in the case of the Fritzl case will withdraw and never speak publicly, we should not use these articles as parallels; per being conservative in BLP cases.

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

  • Support - No particular reason at this point to use the names in-title. Including all of them reads as a bit list-y and probably violates WP:COMMONNAME, since most sources seem to be using simply "Cleveland kidnappings," or a close variation thereof. It is possible in the future that the victims, collectively or individually, may become notable enough for articles in their own right, so in that case it wouldn't be possible or desirable to avoid using their names in the title, but for now it is not necessary. I also concur entirely with the BLP issues raised by Slp. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this or the one above. Looking at Google News, this is one common way to refer to it ("Cleveland" is now much more common, even internationally, than "Ohio" which wasn't the case a couple of days ago), although there is no apparent consensus whether to use "kindapping" or "kidnappings" in the news media I think we should use the plural and have the singular as a redirect. Like it or not the women's names will always be searched for on Wikipedia and will therefore remain as links to this article (whatever it's title) as redirects or links on a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thryduulf, the article can only have one title, and in the original/current move proposal which recommends Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, last night you said "This now has my full support". And as I said below, some editors here may be unaware that there have been many prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland over the years. This is a perfect example of why having two move proposals happening at the same time should not be done. I would ask that you please choose one or the other to support; not both. -- (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know it can only have one title, but I can support more than one proposal - i.e. I would be OK with it being at this title or the victims' names title. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I appreciate your well reasoned arguments, but there are several reasons I oppose this suggested title. 1. adding case does not differentiate this these kidnappings from any other Cleveland kidnappings cases. The word multiple or serial or even triple would be better as Cleveland Multiple Kidnappings is unlikely to be confused with other cases. 2. The idea we could shield these girls somehow via our title choice here assumes way to much power in WP. 3. Even the Fritzl case article includes the victim's family name in the title and the article names all the victims, including the children. While they retreated from public view, it seems to be due to the extreme abuse and being cut off from the world by their father. In no way am I diminishing the suffering in the present case, but there are no indications that these victims will need to be secreted away in a fortress house and guarded 24/7 nor was a family member responsible. They are all reuniting with family and friends and happy to be free. 4. Agree media is calling it Cleveland Kidnappings but that is current news, not what it will be called next year or during a trial on this case. For example, the media talks about the current Olympics without the year before, during and immediately after, but by the following year everyone says The Vancouver 2010 Olympics or 2010 Winter Olympics. We need a title with staying power that makes sense next year and ten years out.Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we can change the name next year if necessary: the question is what is the best name "now". In any case, I and others have argued, in the future, it is likely that the names will be less remembered than the locale. Per your point 1 and see below: What are these other Cleveland kidnapping cases? Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Slp1, as the nominator of this move, I hope you're not going to continue harassing every editor who opposes your suggested move. -- (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not even going to dignity that with a response, except to say that if you really think that this is harassment then you should go to WP:ANI and make a complaint there. I would urge you to do so in fact. --Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I think the word you're looking for is dignify, not dignity. And how funny that you say you're not going to dignify it with a response, yet that's precisely what you did... respond. Haha. Your petty harassment of editors who oppose you is certainly not worth the time of any of us. As you've been told previously, the one who shouts the loudest and hardest isn't going to win by doing that. ;) -- (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, this editor is simply defending his or her argument in a discussion. Per WP:CIVIL please stop needlessly making accusations of harassment. (Or maybe I am harassing you now?) Fletcher (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If you feel that I've crossed the line of civility, report it. I will continue to state my observations and express my opinions about this proposed move. And how ironic that someone who invokes WP:CIVIL ends their comments with "(Or maybe I am harassing you now?)". Perhaps you should read this article. -- (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Keeping repeating that there is a similarity with the Dugard and Smart articles when I have shown, repeatedly and in this very proposal to boot, that they are not, is unhelpful and veering into WP:IDHT territory.
As above, what are these other prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland? This would be a good point, but please provide the links to the articles about these cases to prove your point. Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you actually believe you'll convince a consensus of editors that there is no similarity to the Dugard and Smart kidnappings? Seriously? Uh, they are all prominent long-time kidnappings of young females, who were horrifically abused - both mentally and sexually - and then ultimately freed. Dugard, Berry, and Knight were all impregnated by their kidnapper. So there's no similarity? Really? Your denial of the obvious is very disruptive. And Cleveland is over 200 years old and has had many kidnappings of young females in its history. Do you actually believe this is the only major kidnapping in the history of Cleveland, Ohio? Do your own research; I'm certainly not going to do it for you. Nor does it even matter. Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping are proof that Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight is a perfectly appropriate article title. There were very thorough discussions about those article titles by many experienced editors. Are you going to harass every editor who opposes this move request? (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You are being evasive here. Slp1 asked you about other prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland that the proposed title might be confused with. Your reply that, as a 200 year old city, Cleveland has had many kidnappings is not apposite to his question. What prominent Cleveland kidnappings, with articles on Wikipedia, do you have in mind? If you know of some, your point stands; if not, it doesn't. Fletcher (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As I clearly stated: (1) All of the other kidnappings in Cleveland's history are completely irrelevant to the title of this article. The Dugard and Smart articles make that abundantly clear. (2) I am certainly not going to waste my time doing research for someone else. Do it yourself. It will clearly make my point. Cleveland has a long history of prominent kidnappings. But even if there were no other prominent kidnappings in the city, it still wouldn't change the fact that this article should be titled exactly like the Dugard and Smart articles. -- (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The proposed title was Cleveland kidnappings case (singular), not Kidnappings in Cleveland, so it won't be confused with a general summary of kidnappings in Cleveland. If there are other prominent kidnapping cases that title will be confused with, you can list them; the fact that you haven't after being challenged suggests you don't know of any, undermining your point. I'd be interested in those notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.Fletcher (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, you didn't carefully read my above response. And "Kidnappings in Cleveland" is extremely confusing from a contextual point of view. Cleveland's over 200 years old, so which Cleveland kidnappings? When? Who? Sorry, but it's an awful title. That's precisely why many experienced editors decided on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. The only ones being undermined are those ignoring the Dugard and Smart titles, which are part of precedent for crimes like this. -- (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I will rephrase: I wasn't actually suggesting "Kidnappings in Cleveland" but saying that title was not what the proposed title implies. The proposed title has a singular 'case' so it cannot be confused with a list of kidnappings or a general history of kidnappings in Cleveland. It has a plural 'kidnappings' indicating there were more than one as part of the subject case. You continue to evade answering the question about prominent kidnapping cases in Cleveland that might cause confusion. As far as "precedent", that is a complex issue; Wikipedia has no system of binding precedent (that I know of???) but I agree it's logical to consider what has been done in the past. Scanning categories (e.g. Category:Rapes in the United States, Category:Sexual assaults in the United States) we have many articles named for single homicides and suicides, and many articles named for the famous incident or for the perpetrator, but I don't see articles named for living victims who would not pass WP:BLP1E. The victims in this case may be WP:LOWPROFILE, unlike Dugard and Smart who have published works making them high profile figures. While I don't think we need to suppress their names altogether, putting their names in the article title goes against the spirit of BLP1E. Also, there are very few articles with double victim names listed in the title and I don't see any with three, so there may be an effort to focus on the case name rather than victim names when there are multiple victims.Fletcher (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the reasons above, I do not see why we editors on Wikipedia should shield ourselves from the names of the victims that have been in the media for the past 10 years. Same thing below - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
But nobody is suggesting that we "shield ourselves from the names of the victim". We are trying to shield the victims from this becoming the number 1 google search result when somebody is considering giving them a job, or dating them.... Slp1 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Legacy and IP76 (and to an extent Knowledge), above. I've watched this conversation before opining, but find their reasoning the more convincing, as well as the last comment of Knowledge.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per same editors referred to by Epeefleche. The long-term media coverage and widespread use of their names, as well as the complexity of this case, make protecting the victims unfortunately something Wikipedia cannot do. (And as far as me "suggesting" this title, it was intended as a counterargument to an even-worse title to give a better example along similar lines, not as a suggestion I thought made sense for this article or supported.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP disaster again

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

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

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

Go read the source first HiLo48 and stop jumping to conclusions. This is directly from the Plain Dealer who got it from the responding officer report. This is what the victim said happened, plus info the family reported just after the (alleged?) abduction. If you want to couch it a little, fine, but lay off the dramatic language and attacks on other editors. We do not need "legal proof" (whatever that is for a victim account) to reflect what responsible RS report. What part of these sentences do you doubt or have ANY evidence is incorrect? Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Fact #1 - Berry was a BK just before she disappeared. Fact #2 She was found at Castro's house 10 years later. Fact #3 she got from BK to Castro's house by car (or maybe she walked, flew, or was teleported, tied herself up, and the whole kidnapping was faked). Fact #4 she was imprisoned in that house. Never said Castro was guilty BTW, only reflecting what sources say happened. Again, which part of the quoted text can you provide ANY evidence is incorrect? Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Never said Castro was guilty, eh? Try reading this carefully.... "Berry accepted a ride home from Castro...Instead she was taken to Castro's house and imprisoned." HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The statement should be reworded and reinstated to the article. It should say that the police and/or Berry said this. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You are still just pushing a WP:FRINGE view that there was no kidnapping until proven in a court. Now you are edit warring. I asked you "What part of these sentences do you doubt or have ANY evidence is incorrect?" but instead of answering you deleted the paragraph twice. I'll reinsert it with something about the police report said. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You've got it the wrong way around. I don't need any evidence about the alleged kidnapping to show that we can't include text like that in the article. Have you heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It's not a WP:FRINGE view. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Look above in the discussion over the article name - you said they could have faked the kidnappings. That is FRINGE and a possible BLP violation against the victims for suggesting they perpetrated a 10 year fraud. I stand by my position that some of your activity here is to advocate against the fact the kidnappings happened and not to improve the article. Next time you don't like some phrasing, just improve it like most editors do, not delete well sourced facts and post on Talk about what you perceive is BLP disaster. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I give up. Every time you tell the world what I said, you get it wrong. No point in further discussing this with you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I do assume good faith editing, but can I gently suggest reading WP:ASF. If you feel the need to dispute facts presented (like Berry was kidnapped and driven to the house they escaped from), bring forward a source that says otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
For the record, HiLo is correct. In the US court system, everybody is innocent until proven guilty. While I think all of us here think he's guilty, it's still a BLP issue if we allow the article to state something that is unproven (regardless of if the Plain Dealer published it) as fact until he is convicted. There's still a chance he can be acquitted and because that possibility is still out there, we can't say that such and such happened without prefacing it with either "Amanda Berry said..." or "Castro is alleged to have...". Just my 2 cents on this issue.--Giants27(T|C) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with couching the statements a little - actually went and did that myself. The issue is inappropriate wholesale deleting of properly sourced information rather than improving the article. No guilt is asserted by citing basic facts. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
@Giants27 -- in the U.S. legal system, he could of course have imprisoned her, and still be innocent.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No, you simply don't understand what a fact is in cases like this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That, or he disagrees with you. "In agreement with HiLo" and "wrong" are not the only two possible options. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in this case, they are. I'm not American, but it stuns me that so many Americans don't understand their own justice and legal system. See Giants27's post at 20:04, 9 May 2013 above. He is one American who does. I wish there were more like him active on this article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia, of course, is not a part of the American legal system, nor is this American Wikipedia, as has been pointed out a few times. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Except, Wikipedia is constrained by the American legal system, being hosted in the U.S. Policies like BLP are not only intended to protect innocent parties, but also to protect Wikipedia (and editors) from being sued for libel...which certainly can be done under U.S. law, when things like allegations of wrongdoing are incorrectly presented as fact. There have indeed been various libel suits filed against the project in the past. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite sensitive to the libel suit issue. We trigger such suits not, you will be interested no doubt to find out, where there is the absence of the word "alleged" in a case like this (i.e., editors fighting over whether the three women were allegedly in Castro's house). Rather, we attract libel suits when there are blatant lies. If we are worried about libel suits, our efforts should go to blocking immediately those who make libelous statements -- and I've spoken at length with a sysop who refuses to do so. But this stuff, though it is what editors argue about, is not what fuels the few suits we've had in the U.S. and elsewhere (where we've faired rather well, though it is a drain on resources).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't imagine simple BLP phrasing violations from re-reported material generally would...but think it's a good idea for other editors to realize that such wording can expose the WMF (and the editors themselves) to legal action by aggrieved parties. I think many editors do not realize BLP partly exists to protect them, not just to make it harder to edit. (Of course, having blatantly incorrect material is indeed much worse than leaving out an "alleged", as you say. But that's not to say someone won't decide to sue over the latter at some point.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Please read my first post in this thread. Clearly not everyone agreed initially. If there really is agreement now it's pretty begrudging from some parties. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, what I see is people talking past each other. It would be better to just tweak the article text -- in ways that no one here apparently disagrees with -- to make sure it's clear statements are just allegations.Fletcher (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, You're straddling the line between simply invoking rhetoric like "innocent until proven guilty," to try to advance your present non-argument, and downright apologism... sure, the justice system doesn't consider somebody guilty of a crime until found guilty in a court of law, but a perpetrator is a perpetrator, whether or not they are caught, least of all convicted. The rhetorical nonsense that is "innocent until proven guilty" rests on the delusion that every murderer, rapist, and paedophile is a swell guy until a jury tells us otherwise. Although it's neither fair to accuse somebody of something they didn't do, nor is it remotely conscionable to assert the illusion that an alleged perpetrator be treated with respect, which in turn shows none for their victims. It both undermines and compounds their ordeals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes, we must remain vigilant on such matters. Thanks for your efforts. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I note that User:Legacypac has just reverted some of my work in this area. I won't fight him. An edit war won't help. I know he's wrong, and time will let us make this article better. Although it's still possible for Wikipedia to be sued on the basis of content in the article for even a short period. And it's morally wrong too, but the excited editors don't seem to care. I cannot see the problem with following normal legal practice here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot help the FACT that I know you are wrong. (And your grammar is becoming worse.) I dare you to show some courage to back up your poorly veiled threats and take me to some Administrator's Noticeboard accusing me of vandalism. You would be laughed at. You simply do not seem to understand the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL. What? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to write up your background here or put it on your user page and point us there, if you believe it is relevant to this discussion and the application of BLP to this article. I ::I note that User:Legacypac has just reverted some of my work in this area. I won't fight him. An edit war won't help. I know he's wrong, and time will let us make this article better. Although it's still possible for Wikipedia to be sued on the basis of content in the article for even a short period. And it's morally wrong too, but the excited editors don't seem to care. I cannot see the problem with following normal legal practice here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You failed to say I am ALLEGED to have reverted your work - could you please update your post? Otherwise someone might sue you for a false accusation. In my opinion, some of your edits are bordering very close to vandalism and make the article read poorly. I have just made some good faith adjustments to improve the article quality and will continue to do so whenever I feel like. FYI-Crimes are alleged, but all the facts in the article to be alleged. Statements by people to the media are not alleged, they are just reported. Locations last seen are not alleged. Lay off the wikilawyering please, Is Castro going to sue WP because we said a girl was last seen near X location?Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot help the FACT that I know you are wrong. (And your grammar is becoming worse.) I dare you to show some courage to back up your poorly veiled threats and take me to some Administrator's Noticeboard accusing me of vandalism. You would be laughed at. You simply do not seem to understand the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There was no threat - just a point. I understand perfectly what the problem here is; you state as fact pure unsubstantiated allegations, yet you edit the article so that well substantiated facts become alleged. If you knew my background you would never make such stupid inappropriate allegation against me. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL. What? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to write up your background here or put it on your user page and point us there, if you believe it is relevant to this discussion and the application of BLP to this article. I am curious to see how that might be the case in order to better understand your point of view. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You really cannot reasonably make a request that another user "steer clear" of your edits and any discussions; how do you expect the editing process to function if that is the case? If you have a problem working with User:HiLo48, you either need to resolve it, or not edit the same articles. Warning a user for alleged personal attacks is of course fine, but telling that user to stay away from your edits is in itself disruptive. So is continuing to discuss it on this talk page; take it to your user talk pages, or take it to WP:AN/I if you feel that is necessary, rather than giving warnings here. There is really nothing "sensational" about making sure we are not violating BLP guidelines. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Legacy, 2001's comments are excellent and I hope you'll listen to him. I'm not taking sides, but HiLo has no obligation whatsover to apologize to you, nor can you expect him not to participate in discussions in which you're involved. If you don't want to deal with HiLo again, then it is you who needs to stay away from him. Good luck. (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Daughter's age and Unborn Victims

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

I think the date of birth should be kept, as it helps explain the timeline of events. The daughter's name, definitely not, per previous discussions: that part adds nothing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Very good point, 2001. -- (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Age is widely published and we need that here. Date of birth is ok as it helps timeline. Name not ok.

Martin451 also removed unborn children from the victim list with a note "I think this is stretching it" His opinion means zero on this issue. The unborn children are victims according to the DA,[2] and subject of pending Aggravated Murder charges. In Ohio, Aggravated Murder is the only charge in this case that carries a potential death penalty. So, I'm reinserting this because most people consider the death penalty a big deal. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Here is a very good discussion of the issue at Time. [3] If the ref provided does not say "unborn child(ren)", this one does multiple times to refer to victims, some of which were ruled murders. (and uses "unborn fetuses" too). Also there is a federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Anything not encyclopedic about reflecting a term used by Time in a quasi-legal analysis of this specific case? Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The media may refer to such, but that does not make the term encyclopedic, since it is not the correct scientific term. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act does use "unborn child", but keep in mind that that refers to federal crimes, which this is not; nor can you legislate away scientific terminology for encyclopedic purposes. The Ohio prosecutor has referred to "terminating pregnancies." If Ohio specifically brings charges that include "unborn children" as listed victims, then I would say it may be reasonable to include. The relevant Ohio statute [25] states "No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy", so I don't think Ohio can bring such charges due to that. The prosecutor's statement mirrored what the law actually says, indeed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok well if a federal law name and Time Mag does not convince you, is there some other agenda because refusing to use a commonly used term in Wikipedia is a weird argument. Better go make these pages comply with your opinion ASAP. I don't care if we call the victims fetuses or unborn children, or something else but under Ohio law (and 35 other states and federally) they are victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talkcontribs)
The Ohio law and prosecutor's statement (this is not a federal case) makes me think it is unreasonable to list "unborn children" under victims, as well as generally accepted scientific nomenclature for an unborn child. Feticide says it is "an act that causes the death of a fetus", and the only reference to "unborn child" in that article is in quotes. Unborn_child_(disambiguation) calls it "A vernacular or political term ..." All references to "unborn child" in Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act are in quotes (or in the quoted text from the actual law.) Those articles do not support your point, but rather the opposite, as they put "unborn child" in quotation marks since it is not a correct encyclopedic term for a fetus; it is not a "commonly used term in Wikipedia". (And Unborn child itself just redirects to Prenatal development.) And again, see the link I pasted to the actual Ohio murder statute [26], which refers to "unlawful termination of another's pregnancy", not "unborn child"; no specific victim is named. The crime is against the mother, not directly against the unborn child (note my vernacular usage there.) The information is in the lead, as it correctly should be; I'm certainly not suggesting that we suppress details of a horrific crime. Simply that we use the correct terminology, both scientific and legal. And that does not appear to support listing these unborn children in the victim list, since Ohio does not recognize them individually as such, whatever your views on the issue. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

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

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

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

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

I don't think Hilo48 is saying that these women weren't held captive for many years. Instead, he or she is saying that it's a WP:BLP problem to say suspect X held the women captive for many years (without using "alleged" or similar qualifiers, etc). That said, let's all strive to be WP:CIVIL. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite right. I have a very different view of WP:BLP from that apparently held by Legacypac. Mine isn't going to change any time soon. I believe Legacypac's view on WP:BLP is very wrong and very dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 kindly stop with the personal attacks. Stick to talking about improving the article. If you persist with personal attacks I intend to take action against you. This is your last warning. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL. No personal attack there. Just truth. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The prosecution are talking about the murder of an unborn child. Remember this is the same people who are talking about 13,000 kidnapping charges. This is probably the biggest case of their careers, and they want to look good, so this is basically bluster. Also unknown number, they should say exactly what the charge will be, and how many before this is included again.Martin451 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The speculation of a wp editor to the effect that "this is probably the biggest case in [the authorities'] careers" and "they want to look good, so this is basically bluster" is -- even if it happens to be true -- completely unacceptable OR which should not influence editing in the slightest. Reflecting what authorities say, which the RSs report -- good practice. Having an opinion as to whether the authorities have told (and the RSs have reported) something that is bluster on the part of the authorities - great for a blog, but has zero place here, and should not at all impact editing of this or any other wp article. It really doesn't even belong on this page, per NOTAFORUM. Let's focus on what the RSs say, and reflect it. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree we have to follow RS. [27] The murder charges will be the most difficult to prosecute.Martin451 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


Unnecessary detail?

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

It does not seem very relevant to me. What would be relevant is her physical condition; e.g., if she was disheveled, or if the clothes and makeup indicated she appeared to be in good condition instead. Might want to look for sources that expand on her appearance as relating to her actual condition. A simple description of clothes doesn't seem like it belongs, without further context. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is somewhat relevant. Of interest -- and notable to the RS media as well as to the fellow who found her ... part of why he found it all surprising that she was captive. And we have lots about conditions of captivity, which it bears on.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the source again, it does have detail on Ramsey saying she apparently didn't look like a kidnap victim. It definitely seems relevant if that context is included, so I'll readd it as such. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. Now I see why those details were present in the article. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How Long is a City Block?

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

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

This Google Map shows the distance between the two furthest points of the three disappearances. The total distance is calculated as a 4 min walk, 36 sec drive (if that long) and 0.2 miles. [1] Some might even say these locations are all the same general location "in front of a specific mall"

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

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



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

Alternative naming proposal 2: Cleveland missing trio rescue

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trioCleveland missing trio rescue

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

  • Sorry, but there are several huge problems with that title. Suffice it to say that it's confusing, inaccurate, out-of-context, and contrary to precedent with regard to titles about similar crimes. The primary subject is the kidnapping. Everything that happened during the captivity, including all the emotional, physical and sexual abuse, and their being freed, are simply part of the overall kidnapping event. (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the reasons above, I do not see why we editors on Wikipedia should shield ourselves from the names of the victims that have been in the media for the past 10 years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support tentatively. Maybe Cleveland Triple Kidnapping if it might be confused with other Cleveland kidnappings. I feel like with three victims their identities are more diffuse, encompassed by the larger case of which they were a part. In a case with many victims there would be no question about naming the article by the general incident rather than the victims. This case is more borderline, but naming the three feels too wordy. Fletcher (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Technically, it's a quadruple kidnapping. Castro has been charged with four counts of kidnapping (which includes the little girl). However, the title should indeed allude only to Berry, DeJesus, and Knight, as suggested in the other/original move proposal. Not that it matters.. but for the record, it would be "Cleveland triple kidnapping", not "Cleveland Triple Kidnapping" per MoS. (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Technically we don't know if it is quadruple kidnapping. Allegedly he was the child's father. Maybe he can claim to have exercised parental rights. These are questions for courts to sort out, not the press or Wikipedia editors. We do know that there were three women who were missing and who are now released. Those are not premature legal judgements, so building the title on those facts avoids lots of problems.--agr (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but denying that this poor girl, born of a rape and held with her mother in captivity might not be the victim of a [kidnapping] is very offensive and dead wrong. FACT is she was kidnapped the day she was born in captivity. The court only needs to decide IF Castro is guilty of the crime, not IF she was kidnapped. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a title similar to the one above; Oppose any title, such as the one above that, which includes the names of all of the victims. Many millions of people have heard about, and are interested in informing themselves about, this case. The large majority of them do not know all the victims' names - hence they would not type in the names of the victims when searching for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
What is going on here? My comment just above was for the above alternate proposal (for Cleveland kidnappings case), not this one. Someone turned this into a new section/proposal after I posted that, which is improper. You cannot create a new thread and include comments that were entered for a different thread. -- (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
It's covered somewhere above. "Cleveland kidnappings" sounds more general, like a list of all notable kidnappings that have occurred in Cleveland. "Case" narrows it down to a particular instance of kidnapping/s. If disambiguation is still a problem, I would also support 2013 Cleveland kidnapping case, but 2013 Cleveland kidnappings sounds as if the kidnappings took place in 2013, which I don't think they did (though maybe kidnapping is legally an ongoing situation, not a one-time event?). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Good comments. (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not recall the snow-close suggestion by Legacypac being there when I originally replied with, "Good comments". I believe it was added later and Legacypac did not time stamp it again, as he should have. In fact, if I'm correct that it was added later, the comment should have been placed at the bottom of this thread, not added to a comment that was already replied to because makes it look like I supported the snow-close part of Legacy's comment. While I don't like this proposal at all, it cannot currently be snow-closed. There are 3 supports (including the nom) and 5 opposes right now. That is not even close to snow. More importantly, at the time of his original post (May 9 20:20), there were 3 supports and 1 oppose, so obviously a snow-close recommendation would've been ludicrous. I don't like this proposal either, but we need to be fair and do things properly. Sorry. :) -- (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Legacy and IP76. I've watched this conversation before opining, but find their reasoning the more convincing, as well as the last comment of Knowledge.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The victims names are VERY highly used in media reports. They are now household names for many people. The media is also using Cleveland Kidnappings as a title but that is too broad for the long term as discussed. The most reliable source on this story is Plain Dealer. All their many many stories share the same tag Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Nothing personal, but it's terrible on so many levels. Suffice it to say that it's confusing, out-of-context, and very awkward. And the major subject keyword is "kidnapping". Creating this third concurrent proposal, which stands no chance of being approved by consensus, is disruptive in my opinion. (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons of vagueness noted for other proposals; "trio" is not very good wording (since they were not abducted as a trio), and the case goes very far beyond just a "rescue". The title does not cover the situation very well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)