Talk:Shawn Hornbeck/Archive

message: This article should not be delated, we need more awareness of these issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.20 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep

message: I tried to put the image on the article, then I thought to myself... Is it appropriate to place the image of the victim subject? Navou banter 16:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His picture is on CNN, BBC, and every news network and newspapper in several countries.  The younger picture was released as part of the missing child compaign.  SO from that perspective I dont see a probelm.  Though I do not know what the copyright status is of photos that come off the news newtorks.  I suspect they cannot be used under the GFDL and the Fair Use argmest could go several ways I am sure there is a polocy though. Dalf | Talk 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you keep calling him "the victim"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.162.22.241 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Regards, Navou banter 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo / Image 

message: On Michael Devlin's page it says "He is being held at the Franklin County Sheriff's Department on a three million dollar cash only bail.
" but on this page it says one million dollar bail.  This page needs to be changed, but its currently cited.  --Mjrmtg 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page says one million dollar bond.  It's not quite the same as bail. However, the bail article doesn't really distinguish the two very well. Prometheus-X303- 16:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction, I honestly don't know what the difference is between bond and bail.  --Mjrmtg 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand correctly, bail is the amount set by the judge to secure release from custody.  One website explained "A bail bond is a contract that enables people to pay a small amount of the bail cost, usually around 10%, to a bail bond agency. The agency then provides the court with the rest of the bail amount and promises that their client will return for trial."  Here are some other answers I found useful. Prometheus-X303- 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different data on Devlin's page 

message: Hornbeck and his family have given multiple press conferences available and covered by the international media (Today, Oprah,CNN, etc.) Furthermore, as a public figure, his birth date is, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays "widely known and available to the public"-see http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/hornbeck.htm and http://www.findmissingkids.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42&sid=56ed53a74c11705bb18a9c1fa47b63f0 and  http://www.cbs.com/primetime/without_a_trace/missing_person/hornbeck_shawn.shtml for just 3 examples available to the most casual Net browser. Furthermore, his being under 18 is certainly not a barrier to his birthday being posted-see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Fanning and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connor_Lee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Gaydos and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosuke_Ikematsu and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Hess amongst MANY others. Tommypowell 13:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Ben_Ownby#Date Of Birth-December 6, 1993 Prometheus-X303- 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question Is there anyway we can discuss a consensus as to the inclusion/exclusion of the DoB?  There is still a great deal of reverting. Navou banter 05:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tommy.  This kid is famous enough to the point that his birthday should be included.  He's no different then Elizabeth Smart now.  I don't see any damage coming out of including his birthday.  Fighting for Justice 05:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally do not like the idea of it being posted, but at the same time I understand the argument why it should be since it is so widely available. But still, he is not a celebrity and his birth-date has no direct relevance to his case, so perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't be another place where you can find it. -- piper108 05:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a privacy violation to me.  Plus, it's not exactly encyclopedic, more trivia than anything. John Reaves (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Facilitation Are there any policys or guidelines applicable to the inclusion/exclusion of the DoB? Navou banter 05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know WP:BLP mentions it, but it's pretty vague if I recall correctly. John Reaves (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His privacy is still intact.  Adding his birthday violates nothing, imo.  Fighting for Justice 05:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a question of privacy should his birth-date be added since it adds nothing significant to the article? -- piper108 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Note This may not be resolved today, It migh take a couple of days to reach consensus.  Everyones comments are appreciated.  Navou banter 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Facilitation Could This section of WP:BIO apply here? Navou banter 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it's going to depend on whether a casual googler can find his birthdate outside of wiki and it's clones.  Can they?  I wasn't able to. Wjhonson 08:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is vague, the subsection -Privacy of birthdays- states "When in doubt about the notability of the person in question... err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date."  While he is very much in the news at the moment, who knows how long this will last? (This is the same dilemma for victims who were part of media blitzes: what cultural impact will they have in ten plus years? )  I assume he and his family will want their privacy back soon.  I think month and year would be enough.Prometheus-X303- 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Question A compromise of July 1991 has been suggested also, are there any thoughts on this? Navou banter 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Question A compromise of July 1991 has been suggested also, are there any thoughts on this? Navou banter 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea of just putting his birth month and year, unless at some point his exact birth date becomes pertinent to his case. -- piper108 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Question Justice, Reaves, Jhonson, Powell, 'theus, Rollo, et al,     Would you support this compromise?  Navou banter 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LoL. I don't think it matters much at this point. Those who want to know the very day of his birth will find out via the web. But in 1991 and in July 1991 are just fine. - Rollo44 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I support it, but that still leaves the issue of the other crime victims who are minors.  While they still have complete DOBs, others will point to them and cry foul. Prometheus-X303- 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Understandable.  It is my goal to create consensus regarding this article only.  It is my hope that once we generate a consensus here, we can move forward to the other articles.  As far as other articles are concerned, and at this time, my opinion remains Neutral. Navou banter 22:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can accept the compromise if that is the consensus.  Ward3001 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry this is so late, but I think if there is any question of a privacy issue, we should just not include it.  As it had been stated before, the DOB isn't significant to the article, and it is borderline trivia. John Reaves (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is significant, in that it figures into the story of his apparent complicitness (albeit probably under duress) with his kidnapper. See the USAToday reference which I posted below. Wahkeenah 13:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did read it, I understand its point, and you are misunderstanding my comment. I'm not arguing he was complicit in his kidnapping. Questions are out there about why he didn't run when he had the chance, i.e. whether he was complicit in his continued captivity. The typical explanation would be that his kidnapper threatened harm to himself or his family if he tried to leave. But since everyone is being coy about specifics, that's an unknown. You want my opinion? He was abused by his kidnapper, and he's continuing to be abused by his own parents, who dragged him onto the Oprah Show like a trained seal, at the same time playing the game of forbidding Oprah from asking certain questions. That kind of thing might tell you all you need to know about why he didn't try to escape. At least Elizabeth Smart's parents had the good sense to keep her mostly under wraps until she had a chance to decompress. Meanwhile, the St. Louis paper and USAToday raised the "why didn't he escape?" question as well as spilling the beans about his birthday. If you're worried about a suit, then those other papers should be equally worried... which they are apparently not. If you're really worried, you should also delete this talk page before someone sees it. It's just more wiki-paranoia. Wahkeenah 14:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth -July 17, 1991

message: Hello.  I am the creator of the Shawn Hornbeck article, which I created with the date of birth intact (See Elizabeth Smart).  Wikipedia rules-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays provide for inclusion of subjects dates of birth Where "well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public"
Since I doubt anyone would seriously contest the fact that Hornbeck is "well-known" (International media press conference coverage, Oprah interview, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN Headline, Court TV, Larry King, Youtube and over one million google pages) I will deal with the birth date being "widely known and available to the public".
First of all, Hornbeck's own family website http://www.shawnhornbeck.com/aboutshawn.cfm lists his date of birth.  Secondly, a government web site- http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/hornbeck.htm- as good a source as possible, has his date of birth. Then there is the CBS network site, again as good a source as possible-http://www.cbs.com/primetime/without_a_trace/missing_person/hornbeck_shawn.shtml. Then we have http://www.findmissingkids.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42&sid=56ed53a74c11705bb18a9c1fa47b63f0 and www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=68556 and http://www.alostchild.com/ecard/index.cfm?viewCard=307&password=y1usk4eKMn and http://serenityunveiled1.tripod.com/ and http://www.sssalas.com/MissingChildren.html and MANY more.
If we go to Google and enter "Shawn Hornbeck Birthday" the very first page is http://www.shawnhornbeck.com/pr/071204pr.htm along with numerous other sites giving his exact date of birth.
If we Google "Shawn Hornbeck DOB" we find numerous links to the exact date of birth on the first result page-http://www.courttv.com/missingkids/july2.html and many others.
Finally "Shawn Hornbeck Date Of Birth" returns numerous sites listing the exact date of birth, including this US Government site-http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/hornbeck.htm also referenced above. 
On Usenet, Hornbeck's date of birth has already been permanently archived here-http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/browse_thread/thread/3fec58597f40fbd6/b30b4af7e44a5191?hl=en#b30b4af7e44a5191.
We also have the articles on Elizabeth Smart and Kara Borden, complete with dates of birth and unbothered by trolls and vandalisers.
CONCLUSION-I think the above websites clearly show that Hornbeck's date of birth  is
"widely known and available to the public" pursuant to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays.
Notwithstanding, a number of users, most prominently  John Reaves have continually reverted the date of birth. Even though I am the creator of the article I am still hindered by the "3 revert Rule".  So I appeal to the Wikipedia community to restore the continual deletions, mostly by this one user.  Thank you.68.9.171.151 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum to my comment - I just noticed that Shawn Hornbeck is protected from editing, so temporary removal may be a moot point unless we can convince an admin to make the change.  Ward3001 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment to Addendum The text should stay as is, when we reach consensus, then we can have the protecting admin review this talk page, and edit to the consensus version, or unprotect.  I requested the page protection in order to allow this consensus discussion to move forward without the distraction of page reverts during this dispute resolution. Navou banter 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Question Ward and Tommy, would you mind commenting on the above question regarding compromised edit? Navou banter 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I have not reviewed those articles, It could be said that articles generally do not set precedents for other articles, but as for that my opinion remains neutral.  That notwithstanding, for this article only, Powell, how do you feel about the above suggested compromise?  Please reply in the above threaded discussion regarding the compromise suggestion if you don't mind.  Navou banter 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I for one believe Hornbeck is a public figure and his full date of birth should be in the article.  I see no harm coming out of that.  Fighting for Justice 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FULL DATE OF BIRTH

message: The article has been fully protected and the DOB has been removed (per legal and WP:BLP reasons).  Please bring this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, they should be able to solve this dispute. Cbrown1023 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a cheap shot at ending a dispute in favor of exclusion. → R Young {yakłtalk} 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the edit through protection, since that's against protection policy.  The justification that it was removal of "potentially libelous information" doesn't apply, because there is no possible interpretation of the word "libel" under which a date of birth can constitute libel.  I don't take any position on whether it should be in the article or not, though. --Delirium 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Delirium-can you tell me how you "reverted the edit through protection"? Tommypowell 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted an edit to a protected page that was made with an unjustifiable assertion ("removing libel", when there was clearly no libel).  If someone wants to edit a protected page, they need to assert some justification for doing so. As I said, I don't have any position on whether it should or shouldn't go in the article (I don't think there are any legal issues at all since it's been published in the mainstream media, but I don't particularly object to not including it either). I read WP:BLP and it provides basically no guidance on the matter, saying that "some people" feel birthdates are private information, while other people disagree, so it seems to leave it up to a case-by-case analysis. --Delirium 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB 

message: For the record I STRONGLY object to the removing of the date of birth which makes Wikipedia look farcial and discriminatory.  I wonder why all the "weepers" don't censor the birthdates of Elizabeth Smart or Kara Borden? seems like blatant sex discrimination to many-link
I AM ISSUING AN APPEAL TO ANY ADMINISTATOR to reverse the improper "reverts under protection" made by cbrown 1023 to this article and to the Ben Ownby article; subjecting Wikipedia to potentially horrible sex discrimination exposure. Tommypowell 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all already know what you think, no need to incessantly repeat yourself.  Your conspiracy theories are not helping anything. John Reaves (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just curious, what is the rational for not removing the date of birth for other non-public figure-minors (at least the case for one of the two mentioned above)?  I understand the rational for doing so here (though I think its a bit silly).  Dalf | Talk 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the Wikipedia definition of "public figure" because if wall-to-wall media coverage, voluntary international press conferences, interviews and appearences on Oprah and over a million google hits don't make someone a "public figure" then clearly Michael Devlin, who has made no voluntary media appearances, is not a public figure and his birthdate must also be censored. Tommypowell 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment Read above. Navou banter 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but what makes Kara Borden a public figure? Dalf | Talk 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think common sense would tell you that since you on an online encyclopedia, you should search for the definition of public figure. John Reaves (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not a Wikipedia regulation but an article posted by an individual editor  and certainly does not give a decipherable definition. "Notability" is pretty clearly defined in Wikipedia rules but not "public figure", at least that I can see.Tommypowell 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty decipherable to me. John Reaves (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK-what is it?Tommypowell 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to bother copying and pasting the article here, read it yourself. John Reaves (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjecting Wikipedia to sexism exposure 

message: Comment It appears we may have a consensus on the inclusion of the DoB.  Is this correcr? Navou banter 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, I may have duplicated part of Cowman109's query above. Navou banter 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think the consensus is? John Reaves (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am assuming inclusion of the birthdate like every other case of kidnapping where the victim's birthdate is "wideley known and available to the public" per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays , regardless of age (See Elizabeth Smart and Shasta Groene and Kara Borden). Tommypowell 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The discussion appears to be reaching an inclusion consensus.  Is this correct? Navou banter 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus If there are no objections, we can have the page unlocked and insert the full dob per consensus (unless i'm mistaken).  Continue to add new information to the talk page in the meantime.  The WP:DR is moving along nicely and looks like it should be concluded very soon. Navou banter 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why then does the Masha Allen article have her birthday included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Query Having one objection, (so far) Animate, shall we unprotect the article and include the dob? Navou banter 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with  caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth,   err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.
There has been no argument put forth that shows why policy shouldn't be followed. The article was protected per WP:BIO and legality, I believe. Not because of a revert war or for  us to reach consensus. AniMate 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *To exclude it would be blatant sex discrimination.  Plenty of female victims alive or dead have their birth dates included.  Fighting for Justice 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think saying that is taking it a bit too far. Nowhere on here has anyone suggested leaving out his birthdate because he's male, or including birthdates for a person because they're female. I am in agreement for adding his birthdate to the article. --piper108 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * So we are all in agreement? Navou banter 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Tommypowell 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Policy is a very important thing and is the "supreme order for Wikipedia".  Policy says that because we are "in doubt about the notability of the person in question", we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date".  That is what is currently on the page.  Elizabeth Smart and the others you mentioned, are currently over 18 or are "famous people" such as actors and musicians, in which case, they are not the same.  The smart thing to do would be to just include the birth year or the month, which is what was done.  As I am an administrator, my only opinion is policy, and I am, therefore, quite neutral on this topic. Cbrown1023 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does being an admin have to do with anything? John Reaves (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: by protecting the article, I performed the action as an administrator, not an involved user. Cbrown1023 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't realize you protected it. John Reaves (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, you are right, I didn't protect this one. :-P oops, I protected the other one where this notice was placed... Tommy knows about that one as well. Cbrown1023 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can not ignore that fact that there are a couple of editors still "in doubt", Cbrown1023 who stated the obection here, and Animate, who stated the objection here and on my request for page unprotection.  Cbrown1023 is correct, BLP is not something that can be stripped because we have consensus per WP:CON.  That is policy.  So even if we have a general consensus, if BLP states otherwise, then that is that.  Just a status note... Page unprotection was requested here and contested here and subsequently declined here.  
I also want to thank everyone for the civility and the well rounded arguements.  Eventually the page will be unprotected, and if you want edits now, use the  template on this talk page.  Regards, and best of luck, Navou banter 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I have modified my above comment to include those editors whom stated objections.  As long as they are "in doubt" regarding the notability, then BLP states we should "err" on the side of caution, meaning even you are correct or we have consensus, we make an error in the exclusion of the full date of birth regardless.  This is impassable on WP:BIO and WP:CON. Navou banter 12:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot believe you've locked this article over this utterly trivial and ridiculous issue.  Whether the exact birthday is included or not is of exactly 0 consequence to vast vast majority of readers and people that might use wikipedia.  If there is any controversy, the status quo should be a moratorium on including the birthday until we reach a consensus, NOT simply locking down the entire article for the duration of this squabble.69.171.60.23 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I opposed inclusion of the full DOB, and I have accepted the final decision, but I must agree with 69.171.60.23 that the lock on this article went on far too long. I realize this is "water under the bridge," but I hope all of us can benefit from experience and learn to set our egos aside for the good of Wikipedia. The article should have been unlocked pending consensus or other final decision, with the understanding that an edit war would again result in a lock.  Ward3001 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * I have once again requested unprotection here. Navou banter 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Addendum to above: Use the    tag to request an edit be done in the meantime.  Regards, Navou banter 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Addionally (last one, promise): This is my first mediation.  If you have comments, for improvement, please leave them on my talk page. Thanks, Navou banter 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing Statement