Talk:Michael J. Devlin

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 {^yakł_talk} 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)

Was Shawn abducted?

I heard somewhere that Devlin gave Shawn a nazi salute and said "mein fuhrer", quite frequently. What is the evidence that Shawn was abducted? Apparently he was not restrained, and Devlin is not being charged with his kidnapping, only Ben's. Shawn had lots of friends, slept over at their places, denied looking like the missing boy. He looks happy on the photos shot while he was living with Devlin. We shouldn't jump to conclusions while so little about the case is clear. Also, nothing so far hints to anything sexual involved (the sex offender registry link seems to be bogus). This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow press.--87.162.53.59 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stockholm syndrome--TommyOliver 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. It's a well-known fact that children like this are threatened. Their family is threatened by the abductor. Eliz Smart's abductor threatened to harm and kill her sister, after which she cooperated. This should be obvious to anyone. Do not diminish this child's sacrifice and strength.72.193.74.36 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In all likelihood he was threatened in the beginning. But the notion of Stockholm syndrome must certainly be explored. The boy had many friends, rode his bike outside, and was free to interact with others. He may also have grown accustomed to more freedom (no school, no obligations). Stockholm syndrome is a complex psychological phenomenon. - Rollo44 07:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wiki is an Encyclopedia--HomishBoy

What happened to Eliz Smart has no bearing on this issue. I agree with User:87.162.53.59 there is no evidence that he was actually been abducted and wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia not a tabloid magazine. Encyclopedia's are based on fact, not conjecture. Merge the articles.

It doesn't matter if Shawn went willingly with him. Under the law, he is a MINOR and it is an abduction regardless if that child put up a fight or not. He had no right to take the boy in. That is kidnapping! Fighting for Justice 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading. Some of you people need a course in law!!! No evidence that he was abducted??? The last time the parents of this child saw him they believed he was riding his bike to a friends home. He didn't go to the friends home, and he never called and said, "Hey mom and dad I decided to live with Michael J. Devlin now. Cya". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

• It's been reported now that he was abused while living with the kidnapper. I think it's pretty clear that he was there involuntarily. --TommyOliver 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)