Talk:Shawn Hornbeck/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

Speedy delete tag

It is too early to decide to delete this article. The story just formed yesterday & is destined to become a bigger news story as the details of Shawn's 4.5 years in captivity is made public. This is a MAJOR story-do not delete this stub. Tommypowell 14:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone cares about missing children. The article needs to assert notability or be merged with the sex offender article John Reaves 14:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What makes this story any different from Elizabeth Smart's article or Steven Stayner's? Are you going to advocate for those to be deleted to, John Reaves? This is very notable, if you watch ANY news channel over this weekend. Kerusso 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't just a page about a missing child - this particular child is all over the news because, against all odds, he was FOUND alive four years after being missing, with another boy who had been more recently kidnapped. The fact that he was 11 when he disappeared, his father owns a prominent missing-childrens' charity, and is now 15, qualifies him for notability. Not to mention... You know... News coverage from sea to shining sea and beyond (Australia, the Beeb, etc)- something any ordinary missing child would not achieve. Tuviya 14:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"Not everyone cares about missing children." You're a horrible person if you don't.
So? That has nothing to do with anything, especially determining if something is encyclopedic. 71.62.13.35 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"Not everyone" cares about any single article here. So what?72.193.74.36 02:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
All I can say here is that this child was missing for 4 years. This story is now major on all the news stations. Elizabeth Smart has a page, so he should too, she was only kidnapped for 9 months.Casey14 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, besides Elizabeth, Steven Stayner also has a page. This case is almost identicle to Stayner's. Steven was kidnapped when he was seven and found 7 years later, with another boy. I guess it is only notable when there is a book and TV movie made (I know my first name is Steven). The Shawn/Ben story is extremely notable and deserves articles, BUT the articles needs to be expanded on. Something that should be easily doen this week Kerusso 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly debatable that speedy delete is appropriate here. There are other similar articles on Wikipedia, and technically according to Wikipedia's notability rules, this article qualifies, even if it is still just a stub. If you really want it deleted I recommend following WP:AfD procedures and let the community decide based on consensus. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I've removed the speedy deletion tag as the article asserts notability of the subject, in that in the words of WP:BIO he "... has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". However I've also placed a suggestion that the article should be merged with Michael_J._Devlin. Shawn Hornbeck in himself isn't notable; what happened to him undoubtedly is. As for the argument above that "XYZ has an article so this one should stand", please remember that inclusion is not notability. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say what the precedent is here. Danielle Van Dam, Adam Walsh and Kimberly Leach all have articles as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As well as all the Iraq beheading victims. Fighting for Justice 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be merged with the Devlin article. --piper108 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Keep and Update Why would you delete this story, or even merge it? Think of the many other pages here. --ShortShadow 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of merging the articles is so you don't have mulitiple articles that say essentially the same thing, since they all deal with the same topic: the case of two kids being kidnapped by Michael J. Devlin. --piper108 21:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a particularly interesting death camp survivor, or POW. If their story is one of survival, heroism, etc, then that's the story - not the name of the captor. This is the same sort of thing. Devlin is merely a detail in this story. The articles should NOT be merged. 72.193.74.36 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree we need a "central" article, by design, or agreement to "main article" stuff out. --- Stbalbach 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No

Please do not delete this this is a miracle story


I agree that it should be kept, but it being a feel-good story isn't a good enough reason. It has to be notable. On top of which, this isn't where the deletion should be discussed.

Keep

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).

Why merge it with the article on the kidnapper? That only puts more influence & attention on the kidnapper & not boys in the middle of the story. Keep the article. More information will be coming which will add to the interest. This is a brand new story & it is too soon to be deciding to delete it.Genmo 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted as certainly, this person will become more significant in the public light as this case progresses and the possibility diminishes that the public disclosure of information related to his kidnapping and captivity could jeopardize the prosecution's case. There would be no reason to delete this article now, when certainly, as this case develops, there would be a need to recreate it. This person is a central figure in a event that is quickly growing in major significance. Keep. Adrade 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

i vote to keep it. --Jaisonline 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: this is why Wikipedia exists!

When I read about this story in the newspaper, Wikipedia is where I went to learn more. --mikedow

Photo / Image

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)

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)
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).
Ok. Regards, Navou banter 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Here are some Sources i found via a quick and dirty google search.

Mystery: Why didn't abducted boy run?: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/164623

Heres the Google Cache of the Guestbook page were Shawn apparently commented to his own search website look at Dec 1 2005 http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:o61Zl-2t70UJ:www.shawnhornbeck.com/gues

And heres his Gamertag page that people have found online http://www.gamertagpics.com/users/d/De/DevilDevlin/ -QACJared Jan 15 9:42PM EST


Kidnapper's Connection to Xbox Live Community http://www.gamertagradio.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?t=3172

Stockholm syndrome

I'd like to hear more about this. It sounds like Stockholm syndrome may have played a factor. The boy was relatively free to leave and interact with others. It's possible he may have enjoyed a certain degree of freedom. Has the motive of the kidnapper been determined yet? - Rollo44 06:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Find a source that says specifically that Stockholm syndrome played a factor and we can "hear more about it." Do not speculate and don't use sources that speculate. We have to be sure to follow the guidelines of WP:BLP, and we have to use uncontroversial sources. As it is, I'm not sure this article is going to pass WP:BIO a month from now... but that's a discussion for another time. AniMate 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The evidence so far seems to indicate that Shawn was quite happy living with his new father, and had no intention of going back to his old family. In fact, he actively hid from them. Calling this an instance of Stockholm syndrome seems a bit biased because it implies delusion. I don't know of any harm done to him, apart from the missing years of school education (which might have been just one of the reasons for him to prefer living as "DevilDevlin" instead of Shawn Hornbeck).

Different data on Devlin's page

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)

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)
Thanks for the correction, I honestly don't know what the difference is between bond and bail. --Mjrmtg 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

Date of Birth

Date of Birth -July 17, 1991

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)

See Talk:Ben_Ownby#Date Of Birth-December 6, 1993 Prometheus-X303- 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


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)
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)
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)
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)
Facilitation Are there any policys or guidelines applicable to the inclusion/exclusion of the DoB? Navou banter 05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I know WP:BLP mentions it, but it's pretty vague if I recall correctly. John Reaves (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
His privacy is still intact. Adding his birthday violates nothing, imo. Fighting for Justice 05:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Facilitation Could This section of WP:BIO apply here? Navou banter 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • I suggest you google "Shawn Hornbeck Birthday" and click the very first link. Not too difficult. Tommypowell 17:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

I think "(born 1991)" is a very sensible compromise. - Rollo44 11:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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


Comment: This is not the first time a vague policy has led to conflict. With the lines not clearly defined, some articles include exact DOB, such as Elizabeth Smart. Then another article comes along, with different editors interpreting policy differently and blocking attempts at adding exact DOB. Perhaps this discussion will serve as notice to the policy makers that they need to be more clearly defined. Prometheus-X303- 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A google search of "Shawn Hornbeck Birthday" brings up the birtdate-on the very first hit. I think (LOL) this is "widely available to the public". So there really is no "issue" here-see Elizabeth Smart and Kara Borden. The only "issue" is the repeated reversions of John Reaves. If he wants to found a web site with his own rules he is free to do so. Until then, he is bound by Wikipedia rules. Tommypowell 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question A compromise of July 1991 has been suggested also, are there any thoughts on this? Navou banter 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Question Justice, Reaves, Jhonson, Powell, 'theus, Rollo, et al, Would you support this compromise? Navou banter 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I can accept the compromise if that is the consensus. Ward3001 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

This is exactly why WP:BLP exists, and you are exactly the kind of editor who needs to read it, Wahkeenah. You have implied that a minor was complicit in his kidnapping. Do you really think that's encyclopedic or in anyone's best interest? That is exactly the kind of inference that could get Wikipedia and the Foundation sued. These guidelines exist for a reason... please do not try to justify violating them. AniMate 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

FULL DATE OF BIRTH

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)TommyPowell Forgot to sign in.Tommypowell 16:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Comment Tommeypowell, unfortunatly, and respectfully, you are no longer the sole creater of this article. Now we all own it... and no person owns it. Many members of the cumminity have reverted the DoB leading us to believe that consensus might be different then what you would like included. Consensus is determined by discussion, and if consensus is the exclusion of the full DoB, then we will not include. Navou banter 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:BLP seems pretty clear that non-public figures should be given privacy. "Non-public" means someone who has not willingly engaged in a life or career on the "public stage". Hornbeck is a "victim" of circumstance, e didn't set out to become famous on his own and use the press the achieve that end. -- Stbalbach 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You say that {"Non-public" means someone who has not willingly engaged in a life or career on the "public stage".}

I believe this is your own "home-made" definition. The language you use appears nowhere in Wikipedia I can find. Feel free to start your own site with those types of rules. This is an encyclopedia and birth dates (where available) are included. If the birth date of a person who has over a million google hits and whose birth date is readily available on scores of sites, Usenet and his own family web site must be censored on some vague, unspecified "privacy" ground then every birth date of a living person must be deleted. Incidentally, Hornbeck willingly went on Oprah and was interviewed, sat in the first row and stood and took a bow. Even under your (bogus) definition he has entered the "public stage". Also, I am still waiting for someone to tell me the distinction between Hornbeck and Elizabeth Smart or Kara Borden or Natalee Holloway, none of whom went on Oprah yet all of whom have their picture and birth dates in their articles, unbothered by trolls. Tommypowell 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think the underlying issue is the protection and standards of Wikipedia that all contributors share. It's true that his full date of birth is easily accessible elsewhere; that will never change. My greatest concern with this or any other article might be that information is displayed that leads to some malfeasance, and it's discovered that the perpetrator acquired the information on Wikipedia. I realize that avoidance of risk to such harm to Wikipedia will never be fully achieved, but I think an effort should be made to comply with Wikipedia's directive that "biographies of living people must be written conservatively." I oppose inclusion of the full date of birth for Shawn Hornbeck at the present time. That may change later. In the mean time I think we should err on the side of caution and remove full DOB on Shawn Hornbeck as well as this discussion page until a decision is made either by consensus or by arbitration. I'll wait to see if one or two others agree with immediate but temporary removal before deleting. Ward3001 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
Question Ward and Tommy, would you mind commenting on the above question regarding compromised edit? Navou banter 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am still trying to figure out what distinguishes this article from Elizabeth Smart or Kara Borden or Natalee Holloway all of which have continously had the birthdate without any problems from serial reverters? If anything, the case for Hornbeck is stronger as he has voluntarily gone on Oprah and his family website includes his date of birth. People seem to be coming up with their own "home made" definitions of terms like "public figure" and "privacy" that have no bearing on the Wikipedia policy that "weel known" people should have their birth dates included when "widely available to the public" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdaysTommypowell 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

I want the full date of birth-as is on hundreds of web pages and Hornbeck's own web site.68.9.171.151 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Tommypowell 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 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)

Comment

Removing the birthdate (when lots of people know it including me and its available on other sites) only hurts Wikipedia. Shawn Hornbeck and family chose to go on Oprah...and the family said it was 'his decision' to attend the press conference. Hence, in my opinion Shawn is a public figure. Listing his date of birth is not the same as listing 'home address.'→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's public knowledge. Check out today's USAToday story, which quotes from the St. Louis newspaper: [1] "The Post-Dispatch previously reported that on Sept. 29, 2006, a police officer in suburban Glendale stopped Shawn late at night because he was wearing dark clothes and didn't have reflectors on his bike. According to the police report on that encounter, Shawn told the officer his name was Shawn Devlin and gave him the birth date July 7, 1991, 10 days off his true date of birth. Shawn told the officer he was riding his bike to his apartment in Kirkwood after visiting a friend's home." Wahkeenah 04:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New section

Note I have requested a more experienced mediater to assist me. Navou banter 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone have a suggestion regarding a compromise that we can explore? Please reply to this threaded disussion. Navou banter 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for some help with this here [2]. This is actually a pretty touchy subject. WP:BLP is one of the most contentious aspects of the encyclopedia, and the one taken most seriously by Jimbo and the Foundation. Whenever there is doubt, err on the side of caution is a general guideline. Giving a few news conferences and interviews doesn't make someone a public figure, IMO. The abduction is just one aspect of these boys lives, and they do NOT live their lives in the public eye. The responsible thing to do is respect them and follow WP:BLP:
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.
This seems obvious to me. They aren't celebrities, sportsmen, or politicians. They aren't public figures. They're kids who went through a horrible ordeal. Despite objections, there is obviously some doubt about whether or not the birthdate should be included... thus we should err on the side of caution and not include the exact date. AniMate 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
A straw poll is not generally recommended, however, in this case I think it might be appropiate to guage where we are in discussion. A straw poll is never binding in any article. Lets try this to see where we are?

Please do not edit the question during the poll. This straw poll only includes those people actively involved in the above discussion. To discount canvassing and votestacking, I would move to discount anon and those that were not actively participating in the above discussion.

Any objections to this poll?

Statement: We should include the full date of birth

Note: The poll has NOT started. It must be discussed for objections first. Navou banter 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a matter of consensus or for a poll. I think it's a matter of policy. We need to have the policy clarified and then follow that to the letter. AniMate 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a BLP noticeboard. I am about to leave for work, but if this isn't resolved by Monday, I'll make an entry there, assuming it hasn't been done by then. Prometheus-X303- 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The notability and status of the subject is in question with a few editors. Should we err on the side of caution in accordance with the above stated official policy? Navou banter 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To me the policy stated above spells it out pretty clearly that his date of birth should not be on the article. --piper108 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
His birthday is public knowledge. Also, he's been on Oprah. If that's not notability, what is? Wahkeenah 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because you can find it on a hundred other sites doesn't mean that you need to find it on Wikipedia, unless it is pertinent to the case in some way. And since he's no longer missing (which is why his birth-date was posted by his parents on the Internet to begin with) it really isn't. I agree that he is notable, but I still don't think the birth-date needs to be there unless the importance of it can be explained. --piper108 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand that reasoning at all. Why is anyone's birthdate listed in an article about them, then? Wahkeenah 06:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the main question here is how much information is "public" information when the subject has not willingly become a public figure, especially when the subject is still very young. Should we put the name of his cat, or his favorite color, into the article? I don't see the point of having something there when no one can offer any significance to it. Afterall, policy states to "err on the side of caution," so it's important for me to understand why his date of birth needs to be present. --piper108 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
His parents schlepped him onto the Oprah Show. You can't go on the Oprah Show and then yelp about not being a public figure. Or are you making a case for his parents having "brainwashed" him, just as some are saying his kidnapper did? That he did not go on Oprah willingly? Wahkeenah 06:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Status It appears a sysop has edited the protected article in accordance with WP:BLP rendering this mediation moot. I appreciate eveyones comments and I must compliment the civility in the discussion. Great job everyone! Regards, Navou banter 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question Regarding he straw poll above, any objections? Navou banter 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am objecting to any straw poll. Next we will have a straw poll on Tom Cruise and all the Scientologists will vote off the birthdate on privacy grounds. Wikipedia allows birthdates where a "well known" persons birthdate is "widely available". This includes child victims like Elizabeth Smart and Kara Borden. Like it or not, the information is all over the WWW and Usenet, even on the Hornbeck family website! Wikipedia is not about suppresing easily located facts or trying to "unspill milk". Perhaps the trolls trying to censor this article should check out Franz Kafka as to their mentality. All the arguments made against the birth date (identity theft, privacy) can easily be made about any living person. Sorry people, but if you look around the site you will see that, where available, birthdates are routinely included, regardless of age. If you want to change the policy take that up with the founder Tommypowell 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note The straw poll was suggested so that I could see where we are in discussion, polls are never binding in articles. Additionaly, policys can be changed by the editors if there is consensus. Navou banter 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Question Tommy Actually this is for everyone, two questions. Has the notability been called into question by other editors, and, do you we have a suggestion for a compromise? Everyone may not get thier way in this... unless there is consensus. However, it does not appear that a consensus is developing. Navou banter 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DOB

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)

  • Are you seriously trying to say that a birthdate, widely available to the public, and listed on the subject's own web site is ""libel". If so I assume you are calling for every birthdate on Wikipedia to be taken down, including Elizabeth Smart and Kara Borden? Tommypowell 14:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a cheap shot at ending a dispute in favor of exclusion. → R Young {yakłtalk} 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Delirium-can you tell me how you "reverted the edit through protection"? Tommypowell 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommypowell (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Delirium, you need to read WP:BLP. This isn't about libel, it's about legality and following policy. You did not. AniMate 07:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Resources

Here's a good article for when we get back to addressing the important details of his biography. Keep adding to the list as you find 'em. ~ Rollo44

Compromise?

I don't think anyone above has outright refused the prospect of a compromise offer, unless I'm missing something. Is there anyone who is not alright with the article treading with caution per WP:BLP concerns by including only his year of birth? There is no encyclopedic need to list someone's entire birthday, of course, and the fact that there is controversy at all in this article shows that we must indeed "tread carefully". Cowman109Talk 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It doesn't really matter whether his birthday is posted here or not, but the arguments against it exceed the bounds of the usual wiki-paranoia. The family posted the birthdate themselves and dragged that poor kid onto the Oprah show, so they have no grounds for any kind of suit against wikipedia. Wahkeenah 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well it can be argued that the information about him was necessary in the search for him, but quoting directly from the family's website at shawnhornbeck.com,
    Shawn and his family wish to thank everyone for their support and words of encouragement. We know that everyone is still wanting to speak with the family and with Shawn, but there will now no longer be any media interviews unless Shawn wishes to speak. Shawn and his family carefully decided to get all of the media interviews overwith in one day so any interviews that you may see on TV from now on have all been pre-recorded. We hope that everyone respects the decision of Shawn and his family during these times and will respect their privacy in the future so that Shawn may begin his journey to lead a normal life at home with his family and friends. Thank You! - 1/19/2007.
    Now that the search is over, as you said, whether his birthday is posted or not is of little concern, and as the family would prefer privacy, to me there appears no reason not to tread carefully. Cowman109Talk 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't greatly object to removing it, but there is in general encyclopedic reason to include birthdates, since that's for centuries been established as a canonical part of bibliographies, and any bibliography missing a date of birth (and date of death if the person is deceased) is considered incomplete. --Delirium 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    True, but we must also take into account the circumstances of this biography in that the subject is a minor whose family has explicitly stated that they would like their privacy respected in the future. Once again, if anyone strongly objects to treading cautiously by not giving the subject's specific birthday, please speak up. Cowman109Talk 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    They are "playing" the media, basically jerking the public (and their kid) around. They deserve no special treatment. Wahkeenah 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I follow - whatever the family's intentions, how is that relevant here? Cowman109Talk 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Editors above are using the family's intentions and their alleged right to privacy (after making themselves very public) as a guideline for posting information here. Maybe you should just ask them to edit the article directly, and be done with it. Wahkeenah 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In light of Wahkeenah's point concerning the USA Today article, I think it should be included. It appears that his birth date is going to become more and more publicly known; especially considering the implications giving a false birth date could have when his case is researched. John Reaves (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right!Tommypowell 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that you didn't convince me, it took someone who was not even originally involved. John Reaves (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In the last few days I've seen several articles that discuss him giving the wrong birth-date, usually with the article stating how his answer was "ten days off," "a week off," etc. It seems his birth-date is more relevant to the article than I first believed. I think now it would be difficult not to include it. --piper108 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Comment It seems that the developing consensus is to include the birthdate. Are there still any arguements against?


If this truly is a WP:BLP issue the WP:CON may apply...


From WP:CON:

"There are a few exceptions that supercede consensus decisions

Consensus decisions in a specific case cannot override existing project-wide policy. For example:
WP:BLP may not be superceded for a specific article via consensus..."

Well, it seems that WP:BLP is vague in that respect, and it is turning up that his age and birthday are of key notes in his biography per the story of him giving his a birthday ten days off to a police officer. Unless the office intervenes at the request of the parents, it does seem that his birthday is a key note in part of the article. Are there any objections to leaving the birthday now that it has been determined it is an important note in his biography? Cowman109Talk 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No objection. 68.9.171.151 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Subjecting Wikipedia to sexism exposure

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)

Tommypowell (talk · contribs), I am unsure what you mean exactly. We are discussing this article Shawn Hornbeck. Could you also address the edits and not the editors. Regards, Navou banter 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
Comment Read above. Navou banter 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but what makes Kara Borden a public figure? Dalf | Talk 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something but I have read the entire Wikipedia BLP-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Public_figures and I find no definition of the term "public figure". I think a common sense definition would be "anyone who repeatedly appears in the mainstream media" but common sense is not neccesarily a quality shared by all. Tommypowell 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
Seems pretty decipherable to me. John Reaves (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
OK-what is it?Tommypowell 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother copying and pasting the article here, read it yourself. John Reaves (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

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)

oops, I may have duplicated part of Cowman109's query above. Navou banter 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you think the consensus is? John Reaves (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
The discussion appears to be reaching an inclusion consensus. Is this correct? Navou banter 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am for whatever gets this page unlocked!!! It's been locked for days now over a silly day and month while new information has been coming to light! Let the reverters waste their lives reverting... ~ Rollo44 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I disagree that their is consensus. Reading WP:BIO I cannot agree that Shawn Hornbeck is a public figure. He's certainly not notable outside of this one incident. Eventually, these articles will be merged into one umbrella article covering the abduction. Right now there's alot of public interest, but it will in fact wain. Public figures are people who live their lives in the public eye. Leave the exact date out. This isn't about people who want to "waste their lives reverting," it's about following policy. AniMate 03:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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).
Query Having one objection, (so far) Animate, shall we unprotect the article and include the dob? Navou banter 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will absolutely remove my objection if someone can actually give me a valid reason to include it. I'm not crazy about any of these minor victims having their DOB in their articles, so the argument Masha Allen or Elizabeth Smart have their birthdates included isn't an actual reason. Just because information is available, doesn't mean it should be included. Once again, I quote:

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)

  • In that case, why have ANYONE'S birthday included? I see no reason for knowing the birth dates of child actors. And you have been given good arguments. You just don't want to listen to them. It looks to me like you just want to win an argument for the sake of winning. Fighting for Justice 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • AniMate makes a perfectly sound argument. Just because someone is notable doesn't mean all facts about that person should be disclosed, particularly regarding a minor who never anticipated this kind of media attention. I don't care either way. I am frustrated though because the development of this article is being impeded solely because of his birth date. Please let's resolve this matter posthaste. ~ Rollo44 06:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the date can be included without violating the spirit of this policy (and even the letter given its vaugeness). It is clearly stated in the bit that you quote that the concern is -With identity theft on the rise. You need to move your italics back to the beginning of the sentence and not start in the middle is all. Dalf | Talk 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • I looked in Shawn's guestbook and his birthday is right in there. If the family didn't want it exposed, then they would have removed it. The family is obviously not opposed to media coverage. ~ Rollo44 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So we are all in agreement? Navou banter 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Tommypowell 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus Reached

It appears that we do have consensus for the addition of the birthdate. My opinion remains Neutral. In summary of viewpoints:

1. The DOB has become a note for the article itself and inclusion is neccassary for this note.

2. General Consensus is for the inclusion.

3. Before the DOB is taken out of the article it should first be discussed on this talkpage.

Editors who endorse this summary

  • Navou banter
  • John Reaves (talk) (Though I still maintain he shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.)
  • .V. -- (TalkEmail) 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I've been reading this for some time, and I believe this to be the correct course of action.




I have requested unprotection for this article. Navou banter 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I won't make this a huge issue anymore. I wasn't around for any of the articles that people keep pointing out as examples to not follow policy. I do understand where the "inclusionists" are coming from, however, I'm about longevity. Will Shawn Hornbeck's family want a lot of information about him out there in 6 months or a year? Will he be notable in 6 months or a year? Will he have done anything notable (aside from being kidnapped) in 6 months or a year? I know I keep throwing it out there, but WP:BLP is in place to protect the subject AND the encyclopedia. FWIW, there is no sexism involved (though I'm suprised Tommypowell managed to find Fighting for Justice to agree with something so absurd and insulting.) In my opinion, we are working on an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
One last question for the "inclusionists." If DOBs and personal information are so important, why aren't his parents birthdays quoted? They're the ones who maintained the website. Aren't they as important to the story as he is? Where are their articles? They kept the story in the media for four years... and I must applaud all of the "inclusionists" who kept this article in the encyclopedia for four years... oh wait... AniMate 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the parents are notable enough for an article feel free to start one. However, their birthdates must be "widely known and available to the public" as Shawn's and Ben's clearly are to be properly included in the article as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays. 68.9.171.151 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question Forgive me if I am wrong, is 68.9.171.151 = TommyPowell? Perhaps forgot to log in. Navou banter 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SorryTommypowell 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Let's get this unprotection underway. ~ Rollo44 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Statement

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)

What does being an admin have to do with anything? John Reaves (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
by protecting the article, I performed the action as an administrator, not an involved user. Cbrown1023 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize you protected it. John Reaves (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • cbrown 1023 says ". Policy says that because we are "in doubt about the notability of the person in question"----------No one here has expressed doubt about the notability of Shawn Hornbeck, the subject of non-stop international media coverage, Oprah, Today, BBC, Deutsce Weil, etc.Tommypowell 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) For that matter the BLP makes "no" distinction between "actors and musicians" and other listings concerning dates of birth. The only criteria is that the birthdate be "widely available to the public". Can someone with more Wikipedia knowledge tell me the procedure for lodging a complaint against an administrator?Tommypowell 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Cbrown states- "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."---Uh, nooo. Elizabeth Smart's birthdate was up long before she was 18. Then we have Shasta Groene and Kara Borden. Also, there is nothing in the BLP that makes a distinction in birthdates between those under 18 and over 18. The same rules apply to all. Tommypowell 00:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a few notes


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 {{editprotected}} template on this talk page. Regards, and best of luck, Navou banter 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "BLP is not something that can be stripped because we have consensus"-Where is BLP stipped? It seems abundantly clear that the birthdate is to be included "where widely available to the public". Nowhere is there some "age" exception. This is all Alice In Wonderland "make the decision and find a rule" logic at this point. Tommypowell 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • I have once again requested unprotection here. Navou banter 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum to above: Use the {{editprotected}} tag to request an edit be done in the meantime. Regards, Navou banter 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Page unprotected here before I made the second request, just did not notice. Navou banter 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)