Talk:Shawn Hornbeck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shawn Hornbeck article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Correct amount for bail? 2 Alleged 3 picture 4 Category

[edit] Correct amount for bail?

This bail amount conflicts with the one on Michael J. Devlin. Does anyone have the correct amount? Gloriamarie 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is $3 million in Washington county[1] and $1 million in Franklin county[2]. --piper108 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged

Proper reporting uses "alledged" for crimes not yet proven. I hope others agree with me, even though there are obviously strong feelings on this subject. Wjhonson 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the proper terminology. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested page protection per disputes and reversions. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(My opinion is) Page protection isn't needed here. This page hasn't experienced nearly enough conflict to warrant full protection (which is what I'm assuming was requested). John Reaves (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have removed my request with your comment from the RFPP page (hope you did not mind). It looks like discussion is being attempted here. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. John Reaves (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that you do use alleged when referring to the accused of a crime but not when referring to the victim. For example if someone is robbed or murdered, you would still refer to them as a victim of theft or murder even if the perpetrator was still awaiting trial. Dalf | Talk 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With this case, however, it's different. It's actually in question whether he was kidnapped or raped. Voretus 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it in question? Do you have a source? It would count as original research if you don't have someone to attribure the calling into question. Otherwise the overwhelming consensus stands withouth being disputed. More to the point, is the accused even claiming this? Is his lawyer? If they are not using this as a defense then I do not think that we can put it in question. Dalf | Talk 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged victim" would be correct. It has to be proven in a court of law that a crime occurred. Not that Devlin isn't toast. But they haven't held the trial yet. Wahkeenah 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that may be true for the sodomy charge but the kidnaping is proved to have happened it is not proved who perpatrated the crime. But, it is indisputable that someone took an 11-year-old boy form his family (which would still be illegal even if he went willingly). That a crime happened and that he is the victim of it is not in dispute. Who is guilty of the crime may perhaps be, and the extent of what other crimes may hav e been comitted, but in terms of the kidnapping charge, there is no dispute. Dalf | Talk 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The accused pleaded not guilty. His argument (absurd as it sounds) might be that he provided asylum to the kid from an abusive family, or whatever story he cooks up. So it may not be in "general" dispute that a crime occurred, but from the legal standpoint, you have to call him the "alleged" victim until a crime has been proven to have occurred, not just inferred, as we the public are doing. Wahkeenah 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A crime has not been proven. It's indisputable that it has, but it hasn't been proven legally and Wikipedia must err on the side of caution for fear of libel. Voretus 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you will find that even if the kid (1n 11 year old) went willingling. Even if ther person he was with as one of his partnes (if they were divorced) or some other family member. Even if the kid wanted to be there, in the sate of missouir (and I think the other 49 states) it is still the crime of kidnapping. No one has to be convicted of the crim for the crime to have hapened. Do you suppose that if someon is mugged or held up at a store and the person who did it was never caught or never conviced that they were nto the victium of robbery? Basically Shawn's state of mind is irrelvent to water or not a crime was comitted in missouir because of his age. We would only be risking libel if we claimed that a specific person comitted the crime. Stating that someone was the victium of a crim is diffrent. Dalf | Talk 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct Dalf. Even if Shawn Hornbeck had the worse parents in the world, no one had the right to take him away from his family. No matter how benevolent the person taking him is. Fighting for Justice 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It has yet to be proven in a court of law that he was kidnapped. We all "know" he was, based on media reports, but we're talking legalities here. You run some legal risk by labeling him without qualification as a kidnap victim, so the allegedly has to stay where it was. Wahkeenah 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Legally is is already kidnap victim, our cortsystem does not make rules on what people are victiums of. Mush like someon who is shot to death will still be a gunshot victium regardless of what the outcome in cort is. Even if they shoot themselves they are STILL a gunshot victium, even if it was an asccident they are STILL a gunshot voctium. The same is true of kidnapping children. Even if he ran away and was then taken in (which no one is suggesting as far as I can see), it is STILL kidnapping. If you want to claim that someone is claiming that he was not kidnapped then you need to provide a source it is that simple and it needs to be one that will meet the legal standards of missouri. You can put the allegedly on the sexual assult charge because that one IS assocated with a perpatrator, who is being charged. Those charges need to be proved that htey happened and that the perpatratore was the one that did them. The kidnapping charge does not need to be proven that it ahppened only who was responsible. Legally, the fact that he was not living with his parents and that there was no legal reason for it and his age at the time makes it a kidnapping regadless of other circumstances. Dalf | Talk 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It has not been legally proven that a crime happened. Wahkeenah 12:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be proved in a court of law that Michael Devlin kidnaped him for it to be considered a fact that he was kidnaped. My murder analogy above is still valid and I woudl liek you to adress why it does not apply here. There does not EVER have to be any sort of cort case for someone to be said to be the victium of a crime. Wikipedia is not claiming that Michael Devlin kidnaped him, only that he was kidnapped, and the fact that he was not living with his parents is prima facia evidence of the fact (in most jurisdictions including missouri). By your logic we will need ot be editing a lot of article in Category:Unsolved murders to add the word alleged infront of every claim of murder. Dalf | Talk 10:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can find mainstream media sources (not weblogs) asserting that he was in fact a kidnap victim, and not just an "alleged" kidnap victim, then presumably you could use that phraseology here, with proper citation(s). Wahkeenah 11:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, it's in the first sentence of the second paragraph. [3] --piper108 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That settles it, then. Not for sure, to me... but if CNN says it, it must be "safe". They'll certainly sue CNN before they'll sue wikipedia. Wahkeenah 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the Ben Ownby article states that he is a kidnapping victim -- not "alleged", but a kidnapping victim. So which is it? Shawn was alleged, but not Ben? Gschrive87 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because I haven't visited that page. But this should not be "my" argument. It's a question of what wikipedia policy is. I'm not trying to defend the scumbag that kidnapped these two kids, I just think that it's risky for wikipedia to be putting itself in the position of judge and jury. And maybe it doesn't matter, because who besides internet geeks would care what wikipedia says anyway? But someone smarter than us needs to answer this question. Wahkeenah 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I care.  :) Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood. My only point is that, whatever is decided by the majority, that the same label (alleged victim or victim) be used in both articles to describe them. Gschrive87 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... provided wikipedia policy (whatever it may be) is the guideline, rather than personal opinions about whether he was kidnapped or not. Wahkeenah 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that whatever is decided by the majority should be used. The majority, AFAICT, believes that Michael Devlin is a kidnapper. This has not been proven, and as WP:BLP and common sense say, we shouldn't be writing as if it's true if there's any legal contention at all. It would be impossible to sue the public at large for libel if they think Devlin kidnapped the kids, but it's incredibly easy to sue a specific group, such as the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia absolutely must err on the side of caution in cases such as this. Voretus 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have requested page protection. Discussion appears to be both in edit summary and this talk page, we want to try to use this talk page for discussing changes rather than reverting. Once consensus is reached, feel free to request unprotection. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The page is protected already. Voretus 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, when I requested it this morning, I forgot to post my action here. So I posted late. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think alleged should be in place until (and if) Michael Devlin is convicted. I understand why people don't want it in the article, but unless something radically unexpected happens, the "alleged" will not be in the article indefinitely. As it stands, the Ben Ownby's article has alleged in it. It's a temporary necessity, but a necessity nonetheless. It is absolutely possible (although ridiculously unlikely) that authorities could find that no crime took place despite the indictments, so until Devlin is found guilty of the crime we cannot state that Hornbeck or Ownby are actual victims of a crime. I've listed this issue over at the BLP Noticeboard. Hopefully we'll get some outside input, advice on policy, achieve consensus, and get the article unprotected.AniMate 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you dot nderstand why some people dont want it in there from what you say. The point is that his being kidnapped or not has nothing at all whatsoever to do (even a little) with the outcome of Michael Devlin's trial. The reason tha alleged is needed on the forcable sodomy charge and nto on the kidnapping victim is that there is no way that a crime has notbeenn committed under missouri (regardless of who was the perpatrator). That is even if no one is ever convicted of kidnapping him, missouri laws does not ponder a situation where an 11 year old boy can go missing from his parrents and be in the company of adults (even if they are only facilatating his running away or allowing it) where a crime has not been comitted. It is like murder, if you find someone stabbed 50 times you don't call them an alleged murder victm, you refer to the person accused as an alleged murder, but the victim is not alleged. Dalf | Talk 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It has not been proven that he went missing without parental consent to Michael Devlin. It doesn't matter what YOU think about this matter, what matters is what courts of law think, and they have not come to the conclusion that he has been kidnapped. Please see WP:BLP. Voretus 19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again with the putting words in my mouth or refusing to listen. Why do you bring up Michael Devlin again? He has NOTHING to do with weather or not from a legal point of view the kid was kidnapped. He MAY be responsile for said kidnapping that remians to be proven, but we do not in any way at all make a claim in the article that Michael Devlin kidnapped him if we say he was a victim of kidnapping. We only say that he was kidnapped by someone, this is the language used by the courts, by every major and minor media outlet, the FBI, and all other law enforcment. I defy you to find a single instance of any reputable soure anywhere who use the word alleged to refer to his kidnapping not in the context of Michale Devlin. Your repeated refrences to WP:BLP are both insulting and total non-sequators, infact the implied implication that Seawn is commiting some sort of fraud that we make by saying alleged in an inapproprate instance is actually a violation of WP:BLP perhaps you should re-read it. Dalf | Talk 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, Dalf appears to be correct. I've been completely unable to find a reliable source that refers to either boys as an "alleged" kidnapping victim. Personally, I still think it's going to come across as more NPOV if we leave the "alleged" in until Devlin is convicted, but that is simply my opinion. I have ZERO objections to unprotecting the article and removing the word "alleged," as all of our RS's do not use that terminology to describe him. AniMate 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture

{{Editprotected}} I want to add a picture or two; I'm not involved in the dispute —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potatomasterr (talk • contribs).

Could you list the pictures here that have been uploaded? Thanks, Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we be adding pictures of victims of sex crimes to Wikipedia? I'm honestly not sure on this one. Typically in cases involving sexually abused minors, the media doesn't print or broadcast personal info or show pictures of the victim. However, these kids have received a lot of media attention. I'm inclined to say keep the pictures out of the article, as policy states: Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. I'm thinking that with a sensitive case like this, we should not include the picture. AniMate 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. Potatomasterr 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request not done per above discussion. Proto ► 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the privacy concerns apply in this case. Shawn's picture was all over the news, not to mention the Shawn Hornbeck website that's run by his parents. I'd think that if there was a major concern about privacy, they wouldn't have his face on that site. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Shawn's picture has been plastered all over the media. Any sort of concern for privacy has long been over. Wjhonson 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with posting a picture, as stated before they have been everywhere in the media.--piper108 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'd like to see a picture provided under WP:FU, which I would guess is not available. Calwatch 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Any objections to adding Category:Pederasty to the article, as the boy was the victim of a pederastic crime? Haiduc 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The category is described as including "either general topics pertaining to the practice or culture of pederasty." I don't think this article directly pertains to the practice or culture, so I think it should be left off.--piper108 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that, the category is not really approprate. Dalf | Talk 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will go along with that, but the fact remains that sexual contact between an adult and a teen falls within the scope of pederasty (it IS the "practice" of pederasty even in the absence of culture) and here two people are involved - a boy who is the victim of pederastic rape, and an adult perpetrator. But as the Devlin article is already linked to that category, it seems that the readership is sufficiently served. Haiduc 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I am aware that there have been allegations made of sexual impropriety on the part of Michael Devlin, I was not aware that there has been a conviction. Did I miss something? The last thing I heard was that Devlin's counsel entered a not guilty plea on his behalf and the matter is proceeding to trial. In the event Devlin ends up prevailing in the criminal proceedings, will there be an added category of "people who sued Wikipedia for libel and won"? 67.149.103.119 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)