Talk:Michael J. Devlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael J. Devlin article.
Article policies
Missouri Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Merge

No way. Keep the articles on the boys aloneTommypowell 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. Keep this poor boys artical away from that man's artical User:Tommy23 18:49, 13 January 2007


Why should the kidnapped boys have articles separate from the kidnapper's article? The boys aren't at all worthy of note on Wikipedia other than for the fact that they were allegedly kidnapped by Devlin! BlackberryLaw 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, he was held captive for over four years and survived - then was miraculously found. More specifically, he was kidnapped by... The kidnapper is a detail, merely. The kid is what is notable. 72.193.74.36 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No way! No way! No way! The boys need to be separated from the criminal!→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue on the merge. I understand that some think the children should be kept seperate. I think the best answer is for an article on the kidnappings and subsequent recovery be created. A single article on the abductions would be able to give the most information on all involved and the circumstances surronding them. Each person could have their own section on that topic, and all 3 people could be directed there, as they are only known for this reason. I don't know, people will probably disagree, just an idea 71.160.179.87 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

Another vote for no merge. I can to Wiki looking for info on the boy, not the abductor. Cjmazzanti 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who ever suggested this be merged is sick and should be banned from Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.165.20 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. Support merge as the children are non-notable subjects who have done nothing encyclopaedic and are whose only claims come from being allegedly kidnapped by Devlin. GassyGuy 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The child's heroic story of survival and reunion is notable. His sacrifice to protect his family is notable. The name of the cowardly kidnapper is merely a detail. It's not unlike a prisoner of war, who suffered torture and horrific captivity, but held on and survived. That's the story - not the name of the guards or captors.72.193.74.36 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Its ironic - and sadly typical of Wiki - that despite finally being freed from a kidnapper Shawn isn't allowed to be free on WIki but must be lumped back in with the guy that took him. What does that tell you about the Wiki? Its nothing good is it.

NO merge for the victims and the kidnapper Tommypowell 13:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I say a definite NO to any merger between the boys and this individual. They've gone through enough and I think it is completely wrong to force them to have any further ties to him. --TommyOliver 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Tommy
  • Then I don't see why you would oppose deleting the articles, since they're just reminders of everything they've gone through. That seems like it would be the most sensitive option. GassyGuy 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Because we should empower the victims--TommyOliver 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a better reason than "they've been through enough" or "putting their names that close is sick!", they'll be merged. John Reaves 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Well considering that you are NO administrator, it is not up to you if a subject will be merged or not. Seems you think too highly of yourself here. This John Reaves goes around issuing people "warnings" and such, and after looking at his profile, he has no authority to do so. Just a over jealous poster who thinks way too much of himself. I would not place much crediance in what he says. Kerusso 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother listening to someone who clearly has no familiarity with Wikipedia policies. If this user had any experience at all, they would know that any user can issue a warning, and any user can merge an article. Users such as Kerusso that rely on personal attacks and misinformation need not be listened to. Also, I'm not sure why you think "posters" is an insult. John Reaves 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well considering I have checked your comments on various articles and you clearly seem to think you are above all else, that is a sign of someone who thinks too highly of themselves. Kerusso 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied on user talk page, others should learn a lesson about civility from this user. John Reaves 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
and I replied on my page as well, issuing you a warning as wellKerusso 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the kidnapper if you must, but the kid is the one with the accomplishment worthy of mention. Merging is equating a coward with a hero. It's sick. 72.193.74.36 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The kid hasn't done anything worthwhile. Exactly what accomplishments does he have under his belt? John Reaves 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The kid has accomplished the very unusual feat of staying alive for four years after being kidnapped. Most kidnapped children are killed in short order. Additionally, this will likely turn into a case study of stockholm syndrome and brainwashing, etc. --TommyOliver 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Any article I've read doesn't mention violence or abuse, so his "feat" of staying alive is no more notable than yours or mine. A case study is hardly notable. John Reaves 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Putting emotion aside, notability has nothing to do with feats you have accomplished. In other words, one having a valid article on Wikipedia is neither an honor nor a dishonor, it is merely an affirmation that one has the ability to be noted. The boys in this case are notable because their searches have occured very prominently in the United States media. The suspect is notable because he was also featured very prominently in the national media. Regardless of your personal feelings on Wikipedia maintaining information on most people who have received their 15 minutes of fame, this has been the interpretation of the notability policy for a very long time and if this article or the abductee's articles are deemed unnotable, one has to deem a multitude of other articles in the project unnotable. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
On that note, see also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. (Also, personal opinions aside, it should accepted that this article clearly isn't going to be deleted). John Reaves 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying inclusion is an indicator of notability, but we're not talking about one article here. From Elizabeth Smart to Natalee Holloway to Richard Jewell to Kate Faber to many others I can think up of if given the time and space, people who were in the national news for only "15 minutes" have met the consensus for notability. Personally, I am not opposed to this because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but I do respect your opinion and I think I understand where you're coming from. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NOTE: One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Take it for what it's worth. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It just sems that common sense should be able to come into play when differentiating that which is newsworthy from that which is notable. GassyGuy 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Undent* I'm kinda on the fence. I do think we need these sort of articles because people come here to find out what's actual from rumour. We're becoming the news-source-of-first-choice. However, maybe after some time, articles like this will face a deletion vote ? I could definitely see this becoming non-notable in a year, but right now it seems notable. I mean it's all over the news. Wjhonson 08:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being discussed here. I could see opposition to merging the childrens' articles into this article, but I personally don't see what would be wrong with creating an article entitled something like Hornbeck and Ownby abductions that covers the whole story. It's the story that's notable and that we have sources on. But with all the random people coming out the woodwork and making comments completely unrelated to the writing of an encyclopedia, I suppose it'd be best to wait a few weeks for the passerby to disappear before fixing this all up. --Delirium 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The bizarre conflation of people with articles "keep the boys away from the kidnapper" etc is ridiculously and disturbingly emotional and should have nothing to do with whether the articles and subjects are important enough to stand alone or should be merged. 76.185.78.163 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment to add my voice to those who object to the merge.... I have often found Wikipedia's standards of "Notability" to be too stringent. I've had some of the things I have added to articles in an effort to make them more complete deleted for lack of "notability" Now it seems that "notability" has not only been a force for omitting interesting and useful facts, but has also trumped human decency....

[edit] Amount of bail?

The bail amount here conflicts with the one on Shawn Hornbeck. Does anyone have the real amount? Is it 1 million or 3 million? Gloriamarie 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It was one million, I read that in several news releases. Although it might have been raised. --TommyOliver 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date Of Birth

Pursuant to administator cbrown1023-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shawn_Hornbeck-the birthdates of the other major players in this case must be censored on the grounds of "doubt about the notability" of this matter and therefore [we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date".] Since, unlike Hornbeck and Ownby(Oprah, Today, press conferences, Larry King, etc.), Devlin has not engaged in any voluntary media appearances and his birthdate is much less available to the general public his exact birthdate should also be censored. Please note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays mandates no ditinction in the listing of birthdates based on age. Tommypowell 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please start using double brackets ([[ ]]) to link to stuff on wikipedia, e.g. Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays. John Reaves (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Added month of birth and left an editors note. -- Stbalbach 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 6 midday edits

I've added information that has been reported today by St. Louis sources on both the Internet and television.

While doing so, removed the allegation/implication that the New York Post reporter had gained admittance to interview Devlin by means of misrepresenting (to Franklin County officials) her relationship with him.

By way of explanation, for the curious:

It is undisputed that she listed herself as a friend on a sign-in log. However, in accordance with what is apparently common practice in Missouri jails, she was not required to characterize her relationship to Devlin until after Devlin had been advised that he had a prospective visitor, and after he had agreed to visit with her; only thereafter does a prospective visitor complete this bit of paperwork.

This background information about visitor procedures has been mentioned by local reporters; I don't have a citation, but don't suppose a citation is required in the case of material that is removed.

Whether, or for how long, she misrepresented her relationship to Devlin himself in conversation, appears to be a matter of some dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publius3 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Later: someone had deleted my changes, and said something was garbled. I had previewed it before saving it and it did not look garbled, so I was curious and looked at History. No sign of garbled text there. But, then I noticed the citation was incomplete. So, I filled in a complete ref-tag for the citation, restored earlier edits, and changed three or four words elsewhere for clarity.

I am not much experienced at this and it is turning out to be so much work, it is a bit discouraging. Hope I have not really disrupted anything by being a greenhorn. If there is still something that appears garbled to anyone, could you please state specifically what it might be. Publius3 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You fixed it, thanks. I removed "both" as its redundant, specifying the location for one at the end of the sentence it is clear both are there, plus that is where he lives, it reads kind of awkward otherwise. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it may sound a bit awkward as I had worded it -- although to locals it is perhaps not entirely redundant. I could not quickly figure out any other way to succinctly express the fact that of all the many Imo's Pizza locations in the St. Louis area, Devlin worked at the one in Kirkwood. He had in fact first worked at the one in Webster Groves for years, when it was owned by the man who now owns the Kirkwood location. Both are within a couple miles of his residence. In contrast, there is only one location of Bopp's funeral home. Had he been working full time at Bopp's, and part time at Imo's, Bopp's would have been placed first in the sentence and it would have been clear without a "both", just exactly which Imo's he had been working at. This kind of thing is why it takes some writers a long time to re-work most of the sentences in their novels I guess! Publius3 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth not documented

The Infobox indicates Devlin's place of birth as Kirkwood, Missouri. But I don't see any citation for this, and it might be just a bad guess.

Devlin was adopted when quite young by a family in Webster Groves, Missouri -- one of several adoptees in that family. His parents are still residents of Webster Groves. In extensive coverage of this case by the St. Louis area media, I've not seen or heard anything to suggest that the family has disclosed his place of birth--if in fact they even know it.

Before raising this issue, I've searched the Webster-Kirkwood Times --for instance, http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-01-19&-token.story=66378.113117&-token.subpub= --and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journal sites, www.stltoday.com and http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com respectively. No mention of his birthplace in these newspaper archives.

I intend to remove the place of birth data unless/until a citation is provided. Publius3 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth not documented, again

The Infobox on December 21, 2007, indicates Devlin's place of birth as Webster Groves, Missouri. But I don't see any citation for this, and it might be just a bad guess. Same scenario as for February, 2007, when the Infobox indicated Kirkwood, Missouri as birthplace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius3 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the victim's names

An editor has decided to unilaterally redact the victim's names. While I can see the argument for his side, I disagree as the names of the victims continue to be used routinely in the media (see [1] and [2]), for instance. This is something that should be discussed for a consensus before moving forward. Calwatch 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would also like to know who removed the two articles about them. It appears that no discussion ever took place. That's not correct. Fighting for Justice 04:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. A discussion should have taken place.piper108 05:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is total BS. The names have been and still are, in literally millions of mainsteam media articles. If someone can tell me how to reverse this I will do it myself. John Celona.

What happened to Shawn Hornbeck's and Ben Ownby's pages? I added links on this article but they come up red. Anyone know what happened? --Mjrmtg 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an administrator unilaterally decided to delete the pages. Take it up on WP:AN. I personally think that the pages for Hornbeck and Ownby are non-notable because they are not notable people by themselves, but anything about their abduction doesn't qualify under WP:BLP since they voluntarily disclosed much information to the media, maintain a web site, etc. The search was never as intense as that of Elizabeth Smart, for instance. Calwatch 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As the administrator who deleted the two articles on the crime victims and proposes to remove their two names from this article, I am happy to respond to the concerns raised. In doing so, I appreciate the work that contributors to these three articles have invested in them, but hope that all of you can consider other points of view as well, including an increased emphasis that Wikipedia as a whole has been placing on considering the effects that our articles, on what is now one of the largest and most powerful websites in the world, have on living people who are subjects of them. There are related discussions going on right now on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, on ANI, and on a number of discussion and talkpages including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute.

The subject of the first of the articles I deleted is a 13-year-old boy who was kidnapped and mistreated in a horrifying way including more than a dozen sexual assaults over a period of several days. The second of the articles concerns another teenager whose kidnapping lasted longer and who was separated from his family for more than four years. The ordeals suffered by these young people are harrowing to contemplate; the only saving grace is that ultimately they were rescued alive; and any decent person must hope that they are now able to overcome what they suffered and lead successful lives.

In doing so, one of the things they will have to learn to live with is the pervasive publicity that they have now received in the mass media, including on the Internet. Ordinarily, media do not report the names of victims of sexual assaults, and certainly not of victims who are minors. In this case, the publicity is an artifact of the fact that before these teens were known to have been sexually assaulted they were "missing children" with the associated publicity as their families sought to rescue them. Perhaps the media and the families decided that the publicity when the boys were being searched for was already so pervasive that relevation of what had happened was a fait accompli and nothing to safeguard confidentiality could now be done. If that is so, it is a sad and troubling situation, and I see no reason that Wikipedia should knowingly make a bad situation worse.

We strive to create a broad-based and comprehensive encyclopedia covering an enormous variety of subject matters. I have invested hundreds of hours of my own time because I believe in that goal. But encyclopedic breadth does not exclude consideration of other relevant concerns, We have a duty to take into account the predictable impact of our articles upon living subjects, and owe an especial solicitude to the needs of young teenagers who are the innocent victims of crimes that already will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

I do not contend that the fact that these boys' names and family circumstances have been publicized in other sources, and that they participated in discussing with journalists what had happened to them, are wholly irrelevant in deciding whether and how we should include such information. But at the end of the day we have to decide what we believe is appropriate to be included in our encyclopedia, in which we hope that Wikipedia and our articles will be immortal. Whether today, or twenty years from now, if someone Googles (or whatever the then equivalent in later years is) the names of one of these people, should the first hit be what happened to them when they were 13? I would say no, and I would like to believe that a strong consensus of the Wikipedia community would agree. Note that I am not saying we shouldn't describe what happened, if editors wish (notability issues about the crimes themselves can be addressed in the ordinary course of editing); my specific question is whether publicizing the victims' names will make us a better encyclopedia or make contributing to it more rewarding to any of us. See also my prior comments on related issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad.

I am glad to participate in further discussion here, and if anyone truly believes that the articles on the minor crime victims under their names should be restored, a deletion review may be requested. Newyorkbrad 19:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who am I to argue with an administrator? No deletion review will be filed by myself. --Mjrmtg 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, i will end up arguing with the administrator. Should we, then, delete the Elizabeth Smart article then? I personally feel that Hornbeck and Ownby are non notable in and of themselves, but remember Hornbeck volunatrily went on to Oprah to share his story. If and when they choose not to maintain publicity, if they say "leave us alone", then I could see your argument. The names are notable because many people may have seen the story but may not have remembered when the kids were found for whatever reason. Therefore, I am going to continue to revert back the name changes until we get a broader consensus. Calwatch 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And Brad how does any of your above argument address the fact that you decided to delete the articles without any Afd or other discussion? Wjhonson 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I carefully considered that, but there is a growing recognition in the community that conducting deletion debates under the names of the articles themselves, a la Brian Peppers or the current "QZ" situation, winds up giving greater publicity to the non-public person where the whole point of the exercise is to avoid such publicity. Still, my intent was not to cut off any discussion that the community does want to have, and while I appreciate Mjrmtg's confidence in my judgment, my having been chosen as an administrator does not change that. Newyorkbrad 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hornbeck made himself a public person by appearing on Oprah. Wikicensorship is not an appropriate reaction to that. Wjhonson 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Also your "careful consideration" should take into account the Wiki-community. It appears you failed to attempt to publicly gauge the mindset of your peers. Wjhonson 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've listed the deletion for WP:DRV as a procedural nomination. (Note that deletion debates are not indexed in the Google database, for precisely the reason that people generally don't like a wikipedia deletion debate to be the first hit on their name.) I encourage all to participate. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion Review#Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby. Calwatch 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My further comments are at the DRV debate. Guess I'll see you all there. Candid expression of opinions is welcome. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the deleted contents of the article on Shawn Hornbeck to my space at Shawn Hornbeck (at countyhistorian.com) for reference. Wjhonson 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ooooh, censorship! Funny how every time that word is used, it's to justify inclusion of something which human decency indicates should be omitted. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should redact the names and apply the journalistic standard of not reporting minors and not reporting victims of sexual assault. The fact that other outlets have not held to this standard for whatever reason (even if legitimate) is no reason for Wikipedia to be the lowest common denominator. We already provide references to sources that have not held up this standard and that should be sufficient. The ages and perhaps the gender of the victims is notable as well as their times in captivity and circumstances. But their names are not relevant in any way. At some point, these children may become adults that wish to share their story and at that time their names might be relevant. But until then, they are minors that are victims of sexual assault and they should be given anonymity until such time as they can make an informed consent regarding their identity. --Tbeatty 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing the names is not consensus. They've been widely reported already. Wjhonson 04:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be conssensus including the deletion of the articles. The "two wrongs make a right" argument of being widely reported is not a valid reason for perpetuating that mistake. Wikipedia doesn't have to do it. --Tbeatty 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The deletion of the articles is on DRV right now, as you know. However even with that, deleting the articles is not the same as deleting the names. You have no consensus for deleting the names. Wjhonson 06:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Since including the names of minor sexual assault victims is not the norm, consensus would have to be to include them. Even then, it seems it would violate policies on BLP. Regardless of whether other sources have reported it. Wikipedia does not have to be the lowest common denominator and the names of the victims are irrelevant to the biography of the kidnapper. It does no good to have the names in the article as it adds nothing but it can do terrible harm to the future lives of the victims. --Tbeatty 04:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Should we convert this article into something like 2003 Missouri kidnapping then? I think the story of Hornbeck is at least notable, even if Ben Ownby is not (like the other kids who disappear for a few days and are forgotten days after their return). Since the biography of Devlin is paper thin, that would be the next alternative, especially focusing on the search, any false leads, efforts, etc. Calwatch 04:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I fail to see a discussion. Citing an alleged consensus in talk is not right. There are basically three on your side (Tbeatty, Sarah, and Newyorkbrad, the DRV administrator) and three on the side of keeping the names in. When you revert, at least state the honest facts rather than claiming something that doesn't exist. Calwatch 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad move

Removal of the names is literally one of the worst and misguided decisions I have seen made on Wikipedia, smarting from a holier-than-thou BLP paranoia. This was a notable case, even as a European, I was aware of the particulars in this case. Names of the missing are made public, as well as descriptions. That they're found again doesn't mean they automatically go back into the media black box, never to be mentioned again. If Madeleine McCann is miraculously found alive, you genuinely believe that all mention of her name should be redacted? You have really argued yourselves into a hole and need to step out an look at the bigger picture. Wikipedia is for the reader first, remember this. It is an encylopedia first, remember this.

The only reason anyone would search for Shawn Hornbeck is to find information on this case, or the boy himself, given that he has his a charity/foundation named for him. What they don't want is a redlink. The victim's names are an important facet to this case, as with all abduction cases, it is made public, given such an extraordinary case as this, it is never redacted. Wikipedia aims first to be a world class, free-use encyclopedia. Censoring information in the infinitesimal chance we can single handedly beat off every other media source providing the names is not only damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a comprehensive encyclopedia but also ridiculously naive. Decorating Wikipedia as some holier-than-thou demi-god because of Google rank smacks of arrogance, do you not think traditional media will last as long as Wikipedia? To paraphrase, "In 100 years, I don't even think people will know what Wikis are". Placing the possible privacy concerns of very public victims over encyclopedic worth is one of the worse decisions I have seen on Wikipedia. I wish you the very worse of luck in trying to delete Natascha Kampusch. - hahnchen 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Gavin Arvizo gives a good precedent. We need to write the article to minimize the usage of the name (as the Michael Jackson trial article does, mostly calling him "the accuser" despite his name being public record for years), but the current article is ham handed and leads to confusion. Something like "the 2003 abductee" and "the 2007 abductee" is better, which I will use. Calwatch 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a non registered wikipedian, but a very active one nevertheless, I consider the articles' deletion as one of most unacceptable cencorship moves I have witnessed in the encyclopedia. The argument for protection of minors involved in sex crimes does not stand as most people here have pointed out it's they themselves and their family that seek out this visibility in the media. Reading the editor who deleted this entry, reading his (well meaning perhaps) rant that is, I never once read the word allegedly as this is a case in trial at the moment. While I can understand his outrage against such alledged crimes it has gone against his better judgement. 84.254.50.127 02:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a long discussion of this on deletion review. The consensus was that the article about one victim (who was missing for only a short time and did not especially seek publicity) was left as a redirect, while for the other, who has sought publicity for other missing and mistreated children, a more appropriate article was created at Shawn Hornbeck Foundation. There's been a lot of water under the bridge on BLP's and related issues between the end of May and now, and I think we all have a better sense of how these issues can best be addressed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

All the References and External Links must be removed because Wikipedia cannot contain the name of child sex victims, per administrator Newyorkbrad. [[3]]John celona 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an absurd oversimplification of what I said in that deletion debate, which I urge contributors here to read in full and comment on. Newyorkbrad 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has contributed to this article I would like to know which of the following is going to be permitted and the rationale for such: 1. The names of the two victims are to be censored from the article and any links or references or 2. the names of the victims are not barred from the article or 3. The names are barred from the article but permitted (with photos) on all links and references.John celona 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a matter of discretion for the editors on the article. I would personally prefer that they not be included. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I was alerted to this by Hahnchen, who made a very odd and oblique edit on my talk page. Checking, I see that he has recreated the deleted pages of the victims as redirects to this article. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For clarification, I have not recreated them, but that was the outcome of the DRV. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Since any trivial search for "Michael Devlin" will find him inextricably linked with the names Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby, it would be a object in silliness for us to censor their names here. If at some time in the future, those links wear out and a search for "Michael Devlin" gets mixed results, then it may make sense to remove their names from this article as well. For now my opinion would be to keep them here. This is reinforced, by the way, as the links show their names anyway. Any casual editor would feel an impulse to put them back in for completeness, without being aware of this controversy. Wjhonson 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing details of "other cases"

I have removed the other cases that were listed as currently being investigated. If and when we have reliable sources that confirm that charges have been laid, these details do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. Risker 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Blogs

Risker, the use of blogs as references is not prohibited but only "discouraged". Frankly, I get a little frustrated when people automatically delete blog references without noting why or how they are used (especially when there are 1000s of other blog references on Wiki that no one touches). "Self published" works can be used if the author is an "expert" in the area in question, especially when dealing with a matter that is not in dispute from any other reputable source. BuboTitan 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. The author of the blog claims to have known Devlin many years before the criminal charges. There is no verification that he actually did. "Self-published" would refer to the subject of the article publishing something himself. This is obviously not Devlin's blog. The personal blog of a long-ago acquaintance is sufficiently questionable under the WP:BLP policy to be removed on sight from this article. Risker 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about self-published as in autobiographies, I was talking about BLOGs. Blogs can be used on wiki, under certain conditions, such as this one. It's also ironic that the account of an acquaintance is not acceptable to you, while people write all the time about famous people they never met, and that is somehow better? This is greatly annoying - there is a huge preference toward big partisan blogs on wiki (like thinkprogress, or michelle malkin) - no one deletes those, even though the authors have little or no journalistic credentials. But whenever I use an independent blog, its somehow "suspect". In any case, its a small point, but if you still need more verification, you can look here, where another one of his old friends briefly refers to him as "Devo": http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1578131,00.htmlBuboTitan 10:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am completely flummoxed by the fact that you have insisted on using an inherently unreliable source, i.e. a blog, when you have found a reliable source for the same information. I have inserted the Time reference instead and have made the sentence more accurate. Risker 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I consider this blog author very reliable - moreover in the Time article, all the reporter did was question another guy that knew him. There was no careful vetting there either, since it's such a trivial issue. But more to the point, just one guy in the Time article called him "Devo", he didn't go on to explain there that most people locally knew him by that name (Devlin also used variations of "Devo" in some email addresses and chat names). I let it stand the way you left it, but then put the blog entry under external links for completeness. BuboTitan 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to think this blog is a reliable source. It is not independently verified. There is no reputation for fact checking. He is just some guy who claims to have known Devlin at an earlier time in his life. His blog is, essentially, gossip. Rather than just the two of us going around on this issue, it would benefit from the opinions of other editors. I will take it to the BLP Noticeboard. Risker 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) NOTE: Added: [4] Risker 14:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>The policy on biographies of living persons sets out that "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory, or impossible to verify otherwise, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)". The policy on external links indicates that these should only be used to add "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability". On that same policy, blogs are specifically mentioned as links to be avoided "except those written by a recognized authority" (which, in this context, BLP specifies is the subject of the article). The policy on verifiability indicates that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself, look what I wrote above at the beginning of this section. Moreover, nothing on the blog is controversial or contradicts any news outlet or other source. BuboTitan 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
We are urged to be especially careful with sourcing in BLPs. The policy is clear that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines". You yourself acknowledge above that the use of such material is discouraged; BLPs is not the place to relax those standards. The blog to which you are linking is full of claims about the author's relationship with the subject that are "impossible to verify otherwise" and hence, as WP:BLP indicates, such "should never be used". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this discussion is tiresome there's just two things I need to point out. 1) As I (and you) said, use of blogs is discouraged, not prohibited. I am curious why you and Risker are trying so hard to suppress a blog here, when they are all over Wiki, and used much more inappropriately. For example: As of right now, the "Huffington Post" is quoted 282 timeson Wiki, "BoingBoing.net" 205 times, the "Daily Kos" 160 times, etc, even though none can be verified. You get the idea. Have you done anything to remove some of these? But somehow, non-partisan blogs with actual experience with the subject are a problem... And 2) there's another issue. If we go your way, then the statement that "friends and aquaintences knew him as "Devo" is unsupported (it was supported by the blog, but not by the Time.com link, which only mentions one friend). So I am removing it. Congratulations, the article is now less complete than before. BuboTitan 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am discussing policy with regards to blogs here because this article and this blog were brought up at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I know that there are many articles on Wikipedia that need improvement, but use of inappropriate sourcing is not an all or nothing situation. When it is encountered, it needs to be addressed. As far as the subject's nickname, if it is not verifiable, then it should quite rightly be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri Department of Corrections

There was an allegation that the Missouri Department of Corrections had confirmed the death of Michael J. Devlin included into the article today. I have removed this information as I can find absolutely no reliable source confirming it. However, it may be useful to keep the url for the Missouri Department of Corrections handy on this page, as that is where Devlin is incarcerated. Here it is[5]. Risker (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth not documented, again

This is now (May 2 2008) the third time I've deleted a purported place of birth from this article. Twice purportedly Webster Groves, MO; once purportedly Kirkwood, MO.

There has been no cited support for either of these purported facts.

What has been cited, is to the point: that Devlin was adopted when quite young by a family in Webster Groves, Missouri -- one of several adoptees in that family. His parents are still residents of Webster Groves. In extensive coverage of this case by the St. Louis area media, I've not seen or heard anything to suggest that the family has disclosed his place of birth--if in fact they even know it.

Before deleting the purported place of birth for the first time, I searched the Webster-Kirkwood Times --for instance, http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-01-19&-token.story=66378.113117&-token.subpub= --and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journal sites, www.stltoday.com and http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com respectively. No mention of his birthplace in these newspaper archives. Publius3 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, spoke too soon...I wrote that rationale for deleting place of birth, before actually deleting it...and now find that I cannot delete it due to some blacklisting snafu. Will delete it when I can. Publius3 (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)