Talk:Kara Borden/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

arbitrary break

This image is supposedly of KBB http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/3395/10037123iw.jpg Rast 19:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

myspace screenshot links

Well, if they won't let us link to them, should they be downloaded and hosted here? if its bandwidth they are worried about... if not, what is their reason then?--Azathar 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Page Blanking

  • Some one blanked the page, from IP address 64.235.168.32, which is owned by Susquehanna Communications, a company out of York, PA. Sounds like some one doesn't want the page to be here. Oh well.--Azathar 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Good catch. Looks like a residential ISP. Too bad about that whole "customer privacy" thing most ISPs have; I for one would love to know who the vandal is. Rast 02:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too, also checked the Ludwig article, and the same IP addy blanked the page there too (since been fixed). Prolly a friend of them, or maybe Kara herself, she did set her myspace to "Friends Only" after David was arrested.--Azathar 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also just noticed that this same IP user is responsible for removing external links previously. Maybe the IP needs to be banned for a period of time to punish for censorship or something.--Azathar 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Please do not link to lampkeeper.com for a mirror for Borden's site. Lampkeeper4.252.75.6 04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Current tag

Even though she wasn't charged in anything, she is still a victim in a current event that is unfolding before us, just like David G. Ludwig's story is unfolding, and since they are the same story, except one is the victim and one is the main suspect (though he has confessed, just not in court yet), she should be marked with the current tag.--Azathar 03:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While I take mild exception at calling her a victim (accessory after the fact is probably closer to the truth), and while I doubt there'll be many more updates to this page, your reasoning is plenty good enough for me to withdraw my objection to the "current" tag. --Yamla 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Assuming what the police have told us is true (a huge assumption since they are neither infallible or omnipotent), she's very clearly an accessory after the fact.
IMO the "current" tag is no longer approriate, since "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" is not really true any more. But I'm not a wiki-expert so I'll leave ito for someone else to remove. Rast 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
If she is no longer a victim, but an "accessory after the fact", then that information should be put in the article, as long as it is cited.--Azathar 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
All the information I have found is that she isn't an accessory, that she was in fact a witness to the crime, and then left willingly with Ludwig [1]:
Ludwig fatally shot Michael Borden, prompting Kara and her younger sister, Katelyn, to flee, Totaro said. Katelyn hid in the bathroom, where she heard a second gunshot, Totaro said.
I'd say that she wasn't much of an accessory, since the article goes on to say that she never agreed to any violence if her parents found out. --Azathar 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. That makes her an accessory after the fact. --Yamla 18:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yamla, How do you figure? If that was the case, then the police would be pressing charges against her, according to the PA papers, they aren't going to, all she did was run away with him after she ran away from him. How does that make her an accessory? I know its been awhile since I studied anything beyond terrorism in my Criminal Justice courses (I graduated in 2002 with a B.Sc. in Criminal Justice & Psychology), but I just don't see it here.--Azathar 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
After reading over the Accessory entry Yamla, I think I see why you may think Kara is an accessory after the fact, though, if you would explain your logic, just so I can be sure. Thanks.--Azathar 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, accessory after the fact does not exist in Pennsylvania, thus Kara could not be charged with it. Also it would be hard to charge her with it anyway. As a fourteen year old, what tangible support could she have possibly offered in Ludwig's escape? She certainly didn't drive the getaway car. If anything, her presence made him easier to catch. After all, it's a lot easier to spot two people than one. -- FloydDoorz 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I did not know that Pennsylvania does not have Accessory after the fact. That's rather strange but I do not live in the U.S. Anyway, Borden did not report the crime and while she (probably) did not drive the vehicle, she definitely fled with Ludwig and offered him emotional and financial support (here, limited to purchasing food, as far as I can see from the video tapes) during the flight. Further, if Ludwig's statements are correct, Borden was the person who demanded they flee the state and the one who proposed marriage. --Yamla 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Borden even admits she was the one who wanted to flee, if I remember correctly, but, she didn't want Ludwig to use violence, she just wanted to run away if her parents or others found out. I do agree though with the fleeing willingly with Ludwig and that she didn't report the crime. I appreciate your answering my question. Thanks.--Azathar 16:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


"Christian people" category tag

On what basis is this person linked to the "Christian people" category? There's no basis for it given in the article itself. --Lloannna 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Date Of Birth

Please note that the date of birth has been on this article since November 2005. If someone now wishes to revert it please follow the dispute resolution process. Tommypowell 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

It is clear that there is a content dispute regarding the DoB in this article. I have requested page protection until disputes can be resolved. Any objections to informal mediation? Navou banter / review me 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


What value is it to know her birthday? Steve Dufour 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Birth date should be given as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). --Yamla 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There are additional rules for living persons. Steve Dufour 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you cite applicable policy so that we know where you are coming from? Also if someone could briefly summarize the conflict would be helpful also. Regards, Navou banter / review me 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question of Style

Are there any public sources for the inclusion of the DoB? Navou banter / review me 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have undertaken to remove the date of birth per our biographies of living persons policy that exact dates of birth of living people be used only with extreme caution and only in cases of clear notability. To wit, 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. This person is an extremely minor figure whose life has been entangled in a tragic murder case and thus been thrust unwillingly into the spotlight. The date should only be included after extremely careful consideration of the issues involved. FCYTravis 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dispute resolution

Per FCYTravis (talk · contribs), this is no longer a dispute resolution issue as s/he has edited over the protected version per policy concerns. Any objections to unprotection? Navou banter / review me 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You knew the policy before this started, as did Tommypowell (one of the edit war-ers). (I don't think you participated in this one, but he definitely did.) It won't be unprotected until the users who were edit-warring have agreed on a solution (or one of them is blocked). Cbrown1023 talk 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Navou banter / review me 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I would like to file complaints and dispute resolutions in this matter against FCYTravis for his unsupported edit over protection and Cbrown1023 for his repeated threats to block me for reposting deleted information which was on articles for 2 years without complaints. There is no policy barring birthdates for public figures who have been the subjects of massive international media coverage. Would someone tell me how to file complaints against these 2 users?Tommypowell 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • side note: Politely and without commenting on the editors, only the edits (I can not stress enough, this style is important) list at WP:ANI. After a day I am going to move these two messages to the archives. Navou banter / review me 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Solutions

Does anyone have any proposed solutions? Navou banter / review me 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the solution is within the BLP which clearly does not bar birthdates for "widely known people" where the date is "available to the public". Clearly here we are dealing with persons subject to massive international media coverage whose birthdates are readily available globally via a 10 second google search-mooting the BLP concern for "identity theft". End of story. The BLP makes no exceptions on the basis of age, alleged crime victim status or occupation. The "other camp" seems to be saying that any editor can arbitrarily remove birthdates from any article they want by stating "notability is in doubt" and threatening to block users who restore the information, no matter how well sourced. This seems to me a road Wikipedia doesn't want to be on. This is an encyclopedia not a privacy protection service. Going down this path would allow any user to take down any birthdate on any whim within the mind of that user. That is the death knell of an encyclopedia.Tommypowell 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a valid point, can anyone address it? Also, feel free to propose other solutions. Navou banter / review me 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not see a reliable source for her birthday yet. Regardless of all else, could someone please provide one. Do not provide a primary source, messages on a bulletin board or a google search. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was on the article for 2 years. Look in the edit section. 68.230.130.19 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Tommy Powell
That was a google search that found a forum post. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Noooo-it is a newspaper article.Tommypowell 19:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The domain name "www.google.com" does not belong to a newspaper. Link a newspaper article directly here. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It is in the Lancaster New Era newspaper published in Lancaster, PA-November 22, 2005. You can sign up for the archives and read the whole article or click here-http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=lancaster+new+era%22+kara+borden%22+ludwig+2+06+91&btnG=Search and look at the first result. If you question the source give specific language from the BLP using quotation marks. Tommypowell 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I purchased the article from their archives. It does not have her birthdate. Please donate $2.95 to the wikimedia foundation for decieving me. I will no longer engage in discussion with you untill confirmation of your donation is sent to my attention. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is another source-http://holidayresource.infoctionary.com/CALENDAR/DATE/2007-02-06 You claim to have purchased the article-post a link here and I will pay you the $2.95.68.230.130.19 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Tommypowell 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The tenth paragraph reads, in totality, "A holster." You cannot read the full article without my login. Please send me confirmation of your donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • $2.95. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion at WP:AN/I appears to be for enforcement of BLP for this instance. BLP overrides consensus. Navou banter / review me 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.