Template:Vital article

Untitled

Sex, a car, and sex in a car

Many NPOV-secondary sources repeat the claim that the subject was found with the victim having sex in a car. It is clear they had sex after the suspended sentence (when any contact was a violation of the plea agreement), and it's clear they were in the car when subject was arrested, and I think it's even concluded that they had sex previously in a car and conceived a child in one. However, here's probably the best source about sex in the car at the time of arrest:

https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html

"Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."

This is another very credible source, that specifies "kissing and thigh touching":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/02/07/parole-revoked-ex-teacher-sent-to-prison-in-teen-sex-case/ed36067d-b2b7-49f6-962e-241b15ff579b/

Across the rest of the sources, you find an unusual pattern: Perhaps half say they were having sex in the car. No RS has indicated a source for the sex claim. If the A.P. account is to be believed, police do no concur with the claim. Instead, they testified against the claim, saying there was no indication they had sex in their last meeting, and the AP relayed that. What does People Magazine know that police didn't mention in this testimony? Why don't they specify a source for this information, which would contradict the police testimony? Did police leave out significant evidence from their testimony, and the NPOV-secondary reliable sources discover it somehow later?

I think it's likely the fact of sex, fact of a car, and the probable fact of sex previously in the car (but not on the night of the arrest), conflated into the claim of an arrest during or right after sex in the car. This seems more plausible given the enormous international attention paid to the subject and incident. The only source with any substance on this point that I've found is the Associated Press account cited above, in which police testimony contradicts the oft-repeated claim. One can make a similar claim that the victim was initially 12 or 13, and I'm surprised to see such wide disagreement on what's probably an easy fact to verify. This article sides with caution, at age 13. It should also side with caution against the oft-repeated claim of sex in the car at time of arrest, especially with this clear report based on police testimony, and with zero evidence (just many press claims) to contradict this Associated Press account of the police testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, there are some issues with your edits. I'm not going to discuss this in two different places, or in two different sections on this talk page. Repeated myself below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the following: In the lede, say they were found together. This fact alone triggered the return to prison. Later, in the detailed discussion, we say something like "Many sources reported the two were found having sex in her car.[cite the best among these] Police said that during a search for a stolen car at 3pm, the two were found together in a car with steamed up windows.[cite AP report day after sentencing] The victim said they had been kissing and he had touched her thigh, but police testified that they saw no evidence the two had been engaged sexually.[WaPo cite]" To me, police testimony that contradicts media accounts is absolutely noteworthy. Either police or mass-media got it wrong, and we can report with cites and let the reader decide. Remember that a stunning 125 reporters were physically present in the hearing where they judge revoked the plea agreement... maybe that's a source of the different appraisals... but the mere two NPOV-secondary sources that include evidence, plus the police, prosecutor, and judge do not agree with oft-reported claim the two were found having sex in a car. This is where I think tabloid rumor-as-fact reporting may be evident. Wikipedia reports divergences like this, with citations, so the reader can evaluate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this is also a detailed account that does not describe "sex in a car" in my view: https://books.google.com/books?id=ij4Wc-5krxYC&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false We must acknowledge that 3 detailed accounts do not describe sex as having occurred, and there is no evidence produced by any reliable source to defend the claim that sex had occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"While many sources claimed they were engaged in sexual relations when found, police testified there was no indication the two had sex that evening in the car." - We can line up a bunch of sources for the first portion, and use https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html for police testimony. I think we can expand this further, but we should be able to agree to this much. I can't imagine suppressing police testimony that contradicts media claims (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that contradict it. Mcfnord (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I addressed your arguments in he #Consensus on substantiated changes section below. I made a suggestion like yours there. It's not helpful for you to jump back up to this section and comment on a matter already thoroughly argued in the section below. But an RfC has been started since I'm not going to spend another week debating you on this myself. And I'm certainly not going to spend months on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please send more people to keep up the quest for truth! Thanks for making those RfCs. Mcfnord (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Not truth. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we state that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car, or add a counter claim to it?

As noted in the Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Consensus on substantiated changes discussion below, many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, state that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car. But this source (a copy of a different Associated Press source) states that "Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."

So what should be done? One suggestion has been to state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred.", or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Per WP:Synthesis, your "the most credible sources dispute this claim" piece would need a WP:Reliable source explicitly stating that. And do try to remember to sign your username. I signed it for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we can examine those NPOV-secondary sources together. You'll see what I mean. Mcfnord (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Consensus on substantiated changes

Hi User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:John from Idegon.

These are germane facts:

These are NPOV-secondary sources that confirm these facts:

Let's pause to thank the Kitsap Sun for providing old articles free-of-charge. Priceless!

The hardest point to address was the sex in the car at the time of arrest. Two well-sourced articles provide substantial evidence this did not happen, while many sources just repeat the claim that they were found by police having sex in a car, with no evidence. My notes about this appear in the last section, above.

Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, there are some issues with your edits. I'm not going to discuss this in two different places. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My edits have nothing to do with a COI issue. I'm going to discuss them here. I'm pretty sure they belong here! Sorry about that!
The best NPOV-primary sources are the police testimony and police report. The AP story cited police testimony, and the Washington Post cited the police report. I know of no other evidence presented in any other source, though yes one could listen to LeTourneau's attorney, or the child, but I don't really bother. Think about this: The subject was not charged with an additional felony rape of a child for events of that night, which means: The police report, the charging document, the King County Prosecutor, the police testimony, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the judge would dispute your claim that sex occurred. The strongest evidence-based articles are those two. I think that's because the AP summarized the testimony, and the Post summarized the police report. Can you find any other source supporting their claim with evidence? I'm concerned that we are looking right at the implications of tabloid journalism but not acknowledging it.
This couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred, which is noteworthy. It's not about what you think, or what the judge thought, but what they think. It's absolutely a noteworthy detail and absolutely required in this BLP. Basically BLPs cover what the subject says about claims about them, proven and unproven. I agree the existing quotes are kinda-ok, but what's wrong with the more precise statement? Not some Bremner celeb attorney's star-talk, but clarity about a two-decade pattern of clear statements? What's wrong with that?
It sounds like we only disagree about whether this BLP should say they were caught having sex in a car. I'd agree to "kissing in a car". Is the rest ok? Do you concur with every claim but the sex-in-car-upon-arrest claim? Mcfnord (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I told you the following at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard... You stated you were "able to substantiate every change made by Smmary, and have added strong citations for each." If we look at this revert by John from Idegon, we see that you added this products.kitsapsun.com source, which is a part of the USA Today network and seems to be reporting on an Associated Press article. You used it, in part, because you stated, "Two highly credible sources dispute the claim in some sources that they were found engaged in sex." The products.kitsapsun.com. source shows that David Gehrke, LeTourneau's attorney, said the two were clothed and merely talking. That's his claim. And this The Washington Post source that you used states, "The next witness, Detective Dane Bean, said the young man told him that there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh. The two were found fully clothed." First, kissing can be sexual, as noted in the Kissing article. Second, that is a witness reporting on Fualaau's claim. Of course, if Fualaau was trying to protect Letourneau, he would state that. Most importantly, per WP:Due weight, two sources do not trump what the literature generally states. Per WP:Due weight, we give most of our weight to what the literature mostly or generally states. We do not give false balance. We don't try to "balance" out every view or aspect with an opposing view or aspect, as if the article is a trial we are involved in with rebuttals for every piece. Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." But not everything is due for inclusion. Per WP:Due weight, minority views are not automatically included. And Fualaau's claim is not a WP:Reliable source; it's just his claim. If reliable sources generally state, or at least often state, that Letourneau was caught "having sex with Fualaau in a car," then we go with that unless the report was proven as false. We certainly don't remove the statement that "Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car," like you did. That is what is misleading nonsense. This Chicago Tribune source clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." This Washington Post source clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." This products.kitsapsun.com source, reporting on an Associated Press report, clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." It's not just People magazine stating it. The most we might add as a counter report is that Fualaau, or both Letourneau and Fualaau, stated that they didn't have sex while in the car.
You argued that "this couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred, which is noteworthy." What? If you are stating that they are claiming that there was no sexual activity between them, all the evidence points to sexual activity having occurred between them. If you are stating that they do not view the sexual activity as a crime, their view contrasts what the law deemed. It was a crime. If one is talking about the "in the car" matter, it was a violation either way. And the products.kitsapsun.com source notes that she "pleaded guilty last August to two counts of second-degree child rape." Their view that it wasn't a crime because they were "in love" could go in the "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau" section if they claim that, but that section already has Fualaau's view that he's not a victim, which, again, is common for boys involved in statutory rape cases where the perpetrator is an adult woman to state. And that section states that "Letourneau considered her relationship with Fualaau to be 'eternal and endless'." As for TruTV, I am familiar with TruTV. That it is reliable for some things does change the fact that it is not reliable for everything, especially when the author of the source is taking a "romance that was a crime" viewpoint, which is a viewpoint the author likely wouldn't have if it was an adult male teacher with a 13-year-old girl.
I stand by all of that. Above, you stated that your "edits have nothing to do with a COI issue." They do. Because you are now proxy editing for Smmary. WP:COI, as noted by JzG, is partly about the COI editor requesting that other editors review their edits and add or change the material they want added or changed. Primary sources are not ideal on Wikipedia. So I'm not going to entertain you on going with or by primary sources for this topic. What I will do is start a WP:RfC and see what other editors think because I'm not going to sit here and extensively debate you on this. I have enough debating to do at other articles. And regarding this, per WP:Canvassing, you should not only be contacting an editor I was in disagreement with above on this talk page. It's obvious why you chose to contact that editor and didn't even bother to ping or otherwise contact others who were involved in the dispute seen higher up on this talk page. You stated, "The police report, the charging document, the King County Prosecutor, the police testimony, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the judge would dispute your claim that sex occurred." It is not my claim. It is a statement by various reliable sources, including the Washington Post and Associated Press. You keep going on about tabloid journalism with no proof of tabloid journalism. Various reliable sources state she was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car. You stated that "It's not about what [I] think, or what the judge thought, but what they think." Re-read what I stated above about following what reliable sources state and due weight. What Letourneau and Fualaau think does not trump what reliable sources state. I'm not going by what I think. But it sure sounds like you are going by what you think by stating "It's absolutely a noteworthy detail and absolutely required in this BLP." Furthermore, I cannot understand what you are talking about when you state "this couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred." What in the world do you mean by "no crime occurred"? This is why I stated what I did regarding your "no crime occurred" statement. For example, they can believe that the sexual activity between them was not a crime as much as they want to, but the law (not just a judge, but what the law in the United States says) deems it a crime. Before I start the RfC, you need to clarify what you mean by the "no crime occurred" part. And, no, per above, I don't agree to removing the "she was caught having sex with him in the car" the aspect. Given how widely reported that aspect is, by numerous reliable sources, some form of it should be in the article...even if we state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to listen to User:Smmary, and treat her with respect. The policy is that a COI should suggest changes on Talk, and editors can proceed from there. But if you need to expand the WP:COI claims you've made to include me as a COI-by-proxy, I agree you should pursue that on the WP:COI board. Here we are only seeking consensus on the bullet listed set of claims I've provided. No debate needed for that! It sounds like you agree with all the points Except the sex-in-car-upon-arrest claim. Is that right? (Your suggested language might work... but let's just figure out where we agree first, and then we can tackle the tougher stuff together.) Mcfnord (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. You are editing for Smmary, who still is not verified as Mary Kay Letourneau. I'm not stating that because you are editing for Smmary, this needs to be at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. Why I took the matter to WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard is clear. That you weighed in there and took over editing the article for Smmary does not mean that the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion cannot continue. Given your WP:Neutral views, this discussion clearly needs the opinions of other editors, ones who have been editing this site for years (like me). So even though you still have not clarified what you mean by "no crime occurred," I will be starting an RfC on the "sex in car" matter and it will perhaps include the "no crime occurred" aspect. As for the rest, I'm not the one who reverted you. John from Idegon did. But given the way you prioritize certain sources over others, and that John from Idegon isn't weighing in here on the talk page, I might need to make some of that part of the RfC as well. In the meantime, we can wait and see if John from Idegon or some other experienced editor weighs in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let's give User:John from Idegon (or anyone else) some time to weigh in on the bullet list of claims (minus the sex-in-car-while-arrested claim) and that way we can get the undisputed stuff out of the way and move on to the harder stuff. Mcfnord (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose any content based on either Smmary's, Letourneau's or her victim's assertions. As Flyer22 Reborn is certainly aware, part of the psychopathology of sex offenders is justification. And as far as any assertion that nothing criminal happened, that's just false. She pled guilty to a crime. That's a very good indication that a crime occurred. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've added bold font to seven bullet-point items above. I've also moved two to the bottom, and marked them as outside the scope of this discussion. (I'd use strikethrough text but don't have the skillz for that.) The bolded claims are all derived from reports by the Associated Press, shown in the second bullet list. These seven claims contradict the article as you have left it. Most notably, your revert shows that 3 months of the sentence were suspended, but the Associated Press reports that 84 months of the sentence were suspended. Do you agree that these claims, substantiated by NPOV-secondary sources, more accurately reflect the facts of this subject? Or can you produce other sources that support your own assertions? In other words, can we all agree that the claims presented in the bold text are both accurate and germane to this subject? Look forward to hearing from you. Mcfnord (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer for John from Idegon on this aspect. This AT&T Internet Services source states "Letourneau was sentenced to six months behind bars, with three months suspended, and told to have no contact with Fualaau for life." This Toronto Sun source states, "Letourneau was sentenced to six months in prison with three months suspended for second-degree rape of a child." Our Wikipedia article on the Toronto Sun states, "The Toronto Sun is modeled on British tabloid journalism, even borrowing the name of The Sun newspaper published in London, and sharing some similar features of that paper." But it doesn't have a source for that statement. This People magazine source states "Letourneau was sentenced to six months behind bars, with three months suspended, and told to have no contact with Fualaau for life." This Today.com source states that "her initial sentence, which was six months with three months suspended, for second-degree rape of a child after engaging in a sexual relationship with Fualaau when she was 34 and he was 12 in 1996." This CBS News source states "Letourneau pleaded guilty in exchange for a 3-month jail sentence and probation, reports the station." This USA Today source states that she "received a six-month jail sentence and agreed not to have further contact with Fualaau" and she "was released after three months but got caught having sex with Fualaau soon afterward." This Biography.com source states "After serving 80 days of a seven-year sentence, Letourneau was released on parole and was promptly caught with Fualaau again and sent to prison for her full term." and "After serving 80 days, she was granted a release on the condition that she enter a treatment program for sex offenders and promised not to have any contact with Fualauu. In February 1998, Letourneau violated the terms of her parole when the Seattle police caught her with Fualauu in a parked car."
Also notice that most of the sources that speak of Fualaau's age at the time that Letourneau became sexual with him state that he was 12. This is why I stated that some sources state 12 and others state 13. Perhaps we should state "12 or 13" and support each part (12 and 13) with a reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources say that "6 months, with 3 suspended." I think that was the plea agreement, and underlying that was the larger sentence of seven years. Biography.com says something related, saying she did 80 days of a seven year sentence (which is the 84 months of bullet item 1). How a 6 month sentence, with 3 suspended, ended up as 80 days is not clear to me. Further, while Biography.com says she did 80 days in the first stretch, these two sources add up to 5 months, not 6.7 months (80 days). And this source: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html ... has some real numbers that still don't quite add up (12 weeks ago, she spoke to the judge. She was arrested one month after her release from jail.
Also note the 7.5 year term (renders as 71D2, but presuambly said 7 1/2 at one point). I've heard that figure before. I think we may need to develop a timeline of events that examines the inconsistencies. I've taken the first and third items off the BOLD list, and we can probably roll them into a separate section around "timeline".
I'm familiar with the prevalance of both 12 and 13 as ages. While I prefer 13 as the most substantiated claim, something like "12 or 13" might have a sound basis.
I've migrated (all but one of) the undisputed claims into the article, with citations. I'll roll the unresolved issues into another section soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "6 months, with 3 suspended," we should follow what sources usually state on the matter. If any deviations in reports are likely to cause confusion, we can perhaps clear that up with sourcing and a bit on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally fixed this but you rolled it back! Mcfnord (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

judge statement at original sentencing tell the court's position helpfully

This article is exceptionally useful resolving some complexity: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html

Our current lede is unhelpful when it repeats the sentence was six months with three suspended, because the judge says, "Any violation, Lau said, would result in her being imprisoned for up to 7 1/2 years -- the top end of the sentencing range for the crime." We know in hindsight that she served 5 months. This lede is distracted by the "six months with three suspended" especially because we know the judge essentially suspended 7 years, not 3 months. I see this all the time in Wikipedia coverage of legal matters. First, most people aren't experts in that area, and Wikipedia often compounds that fact with tangential details, like this distracting "six months, with three suspended". I suggest this lede:

"Her plea agreement called for up to six months in jail, but any contact with Fualaau would result in up to 7 1/2 years."

So we know that the subject knew the 7+ figure. Currently in this article it suggests the judge just re-sentenced, and perhaps just made up the seven year figure. That's untrue. The judge said up front that contact would trigger the long stretch.

Mcfnord (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should retain the material, but be clearer about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally did that, but you rolled it back! Mcfnord (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

statements by criminals

It's an error to suppress statements by criminals about their crimes, and inconsistent with BLP principles, of course subject to limitations implied by WP:UNDUE. We fail as an encyclopedia when we omit these characterizations by criminals about their crimes. Criminals who have been convicted or even pleaded guilty are frequently quoted in a BLP about the subject or crime. Here I've started a list of BLPs that include statements about crimes by both alleged and convicted criminals. I will grow this list as a way to show that BLPs include subject explanations, subject to WP:UNDUE limitations.

I will add examples as our collaboration continues to help illustrate that we cover subject claims about claims that involve them, subject to WP:UNDUE limitations. This applies to all living subjects presented on Wikipedia, including those convicted as well as those awaiting trial. I will grow this list to illustrate the clear Wikipedia BLP principle at issue here: this subject's statements, and those of her husband, have an appropriate place in this BLP, subject to WP:UNDUE standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also quote from the top of this page: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks. For disputes, seek dispute resolution."
I'll get back to this and the above later. Soon, but later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "In the first sentencing, the subject told the court illicit engagement 'wouldn't happen again'. But across two decades following that statement, the subject has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery." What are you talking about? If statutory rape happened, so did the adultery. Plus, adultery requires sexual activity to have occurred. We state in the article that "Letourneau pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child." Are you stating that Letourneau has said that she didn't engage in sexual activity with Fualaau? Are you stating that she claims she did not engage in sexual activity with Fualaau in the car? Are you stating that she doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime? If you are stating that Letourneau has said that she didn't engage in sexual activity with Fualaau, despite pleading to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child, what reliable sources do you have for that? And what reason did she give for pleading to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child if she says the activity didn't happen? If you are stating that she claims she did not engage in sexual activity with Fualaau in the car, I already stated above that given how widely reported it is, by numerous reliable sources, that she engaged in sexual activity with Fualaau in the car, some form of it should be in the article...even if we state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred." If you are stating that Letourneau doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime, I'm not opposed to the statement being added to the article (even though the law clearly disagrees with her). But if you are stating that she has said that she didn't engage in sexual activity with Fualaau, despite the fact that she pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child, and that we should include the statement, that is definitely something I will start an RfC on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Letourneau doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime". The victim has also expressed this view. I will look for the right way to cover this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Since her first sentencing, she has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery." Mcfnord (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vague. No context. RfC on it below as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sentence we could add to help complete this BLP. Mcfnord (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we state that Letourneau doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime, or something similar?

It's not clear to me what is being proposed by giving Letourneau's view on the matter, but she did plead guilty to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child. An editor has proposed that we add "Since her first sentencing, she has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey 2

I see that you pinged Smmary. But per her COI, she should not participate in these RfCs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this RfC is not about the "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred." aspect. We already have an RfC on that above. Also, "no sex in the car" with the boy does not negate the fact that the law found her guilty of two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child. She pleaded guilty to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She pleaded guilty to "1) sexual intercourse happened, 2) victim is between 12 & 14 years of age, and 3) we were not married." You have distilled that into an inflammatory descriptor, and seem reluctant to clarify key details. A biography of a living person cannot shy away from the clarity you oppose here. Mcfnord (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight, something you need to learn to do. Again, I'm not going to keep debating you on all of this. You are seemingly on this site 24-7 with no break. It might look like you are not logged on. But as soon as I reply, there you are to reply. I have too many articles to look after. And I'm not going to spend hours debating you, especially when you think you know more about BLP than the significantly experienced editors. The RfCs have been started. Wait and see what others state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might need to roll back some of your rollbacks from today, if I feel they are libelous, but understand this is the proper abundance of caution a BLP requires, and not a settled matter. Instead, we will continue examining what the most substantiated claims here are. I'll do that with you and anyone else who gets up to speed. Mcfnord (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel that material is libelous all you want to, but Wikipedia does not go by your flawed BLP opinions. We have rules we must follow. And a number of your edits keep trying to discard rules or pit rules against each other. That you think I, someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and has been involved in numerous BLP matters, need to "get up to speed" when it comes to BLP issues (or just the BLP matters concerning this article) is silliness. See those BLP warnings on your talk page? Yeah, I have never gotten those. Never. And WP:3RRNO is clear that "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will present the matter again to the BLP noticeboard, though thankfully I can revert as necessary with this exemption. That makes sense; thanks for letting me know. I've carefully reviewed your changes across Wikipedia and find few examples of you writing in BLPs. I've also received your (in my view) misappraisals of core BLP principles. Most concerning is your abandonment of conservative writing in the name of WP:UNDUE. I imagine it will take some time to see who is mistaken (perhaps we both are!) and in that time I will act in good faith to keep libelous statements off Wikipedia, taking advantage of both the BLP noticeboard and the exemption carved for BLPs. Mcfnord (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can present whatever there, but we already have one editor there disagreeing with you and echoing what I stated. And, no, you have no exemption, which is why I pointed you to the fact that WP:3RRNO states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." You have your opinions on BLP, and they have time and time again proven to be out of step with what the community states. Editors thinking they have a BLP exemption for reverting and edit warring over it have been taken to WP:ANI and reprimanded. Given your lack of experience and faulty rationales, even though you think you know better than experienced editors for some reason, I do not care what you consider "most concerning" about my arguments. You stated, "I've carefully reviewed your changes across Wikipedia and find few examples of you writing in BLPs." LOL. You've reviewed all of my edits from 2007 to 2019? Doubtful. I mainly patrol these days (such as using WP:Huggle), but I've been involved with a number of BLPs and am involved with a lot of BLPs per session because of my patrolling, as my recent edit history clearly shows. I watch a number of BLPs and revert vandalism and oher problematic edits made to them, and I help build BLPs every now and then (weighing in on the talk page and sometimes adding material). And I'm not inclined to point you to examples just so you can follow and WP:HOUND me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't majority rule. I look forward to understanding how BLP rules apply here. You, of course, don't have anything to learn, right? Perhaps a WP:3RRNO review will eventually help us resolve this dispute. I have written on BLPs exclusively since December, and this one has unique characteristics that require we get to the brass tacks of what it means to "GET IT RIGHT" using "CONSERVATIVE WRITING". You think WP:UNDUE sort of washes that away, or muddles it. If just a minority of credible sources report a more conservative set of details, in the matter involving a tabloid sensation and serious crime, we report the more conservative details. If specific details favor no-sex in the car on arrest, we report those specific details (police testimony, charges and not-charges), along with the oft-repeated contrary claims. And concision isn't a cudgel! As I said yesterday, I will prepare a detailed BLP noticeboard consideration, but I'm going to put some time into getting it right. (Yay it's the weekend soon!) Mcfnord (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "Consensus isn't majority rule." Well, unless you are trying to state that WP:Consensus is not about unanimity. And, no, I don't have anything else to learn when it comes to Wikipedia editing. Again, I've been with this site since 2007, and I am thoroughly familiar with all of its rules. You would do well to actually listen to those who have a number of years experience on you when it comes to editing this site and following its rules. I'm not stating that you have to listen to me. But you doing whatever you want to do despite what the rules state and what other experienced editors try to educate you on with regard to those rules is not a good course of action. Regarding other RfCs on this talk page, other editors have disagreed with your "conservative writing" viewpoint in one RfC. And we are still waiting to see if any other editors weigh in on this RfC. It's also best that you don't state what I think when it's just your opinion about what I think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2

A BLP includes concise subject statements about their deeds, especially including crimes. Every single time! Mcfnord (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

age of victim

It's incredibly unclear whether the victim was 12 or 13 years old on the first offense. The sources offer no clarity. This must happen from time to time on Wikipedia. I could imagine writing "12 or 13" or I can imagine writing 13. I think the fundamentals of BLP would favor 13, as it's the more conservative, most fully substantiated claim. Is there an obligation here to favor the more conservative claim when sources disagree (about equally)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, like I stated, that "13 is the more substantiated claim" needs to be shown on the talk page. I mentioned above that "Also notice that most of the sources [I pointed to] that speak of Fualaau's age at the time that Letourneau became sexual with him state that he was 12. This is why I stated that some sources state 12 and others state 13. Perhaps we should state '12 or 13' and support each part (12 and 13) with a reliable source." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/887192136 Nobody has replied. By substantiated, I mean that people who claim 12 also claim 13... in other words, ALL sources claim unlawful acts occurred at age 13, while SOME also say 12. The younger age is the more sensationalistic. I have some support for "12 or 13" but believe the rules of BLP writing to be conservative about claims favors 13. A BLP expert is going to just know the answer here. Mcfnord (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reply. And I don't understand what you mean by "ALL sources claim unlawful acts occurred at age 13, while SOME also say 12." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By ALL sources, I mean this: Those that claim 13 are not claiming 12. Those that claim 12 also claim 13. So 13 is the most conservative choice. basically all sources agree that at age 13, this unlawful relationship was occuring. I often return to this well-written page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons The most significant thing it says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively." The conservative choice is 13, because 13 is what we know most certainly. Conservative prose, as I understand it, only includes the most substantiated words. This is an interesting test case for me to understand if I am understanding this critical rule correctly. That paragraph goes on in key ways: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." So the opposite of tabloid claims is conservative claims. This subject is a super-interesting opportunity for me to learn what Wikipedia means by these key passages. There are certain key legal reasons why this policy exists, but it's also at the core of encyclopedia writing. "12 or 13" is, to me, not the conservative presentation. It's something like the comprehensive presentation, I guess, but it denies that these aren't numbers, but ages. It's a really interesting test case for how I need to handle competing claims about a living person on Wikipedia. I've specialized in BLP since December but have a career in writing technical claims like these. At work I guess I write internally in a comprensive way, but for external audiences, I write conservatively. (Customers probably deserve conservative prose! Meaning claims that are the most clearly established.) What's appropriate here, and why? "12 or 13" seems to avoid considering these key passages of the BLP introduction. Mcfnord (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "Those that claim 13 are not claiming 12. Those that claim 12 also claim 13." What sources that call Fualaau 12 also state that he was 13? What do you mean by sources simultaneously calling him 12 and 13? Why would sources do that? We know why Wikipedia would do that, but I haven't seen any sources that simultaneously call him 12 and 13. Or do you mean that the publications that call him 12 have also called him 13 at the time, and that publications that called him 13 at the time stuck with age 13? What sources do you have showing any of this? You stated "because 13 is what we know most certainly." Are you speaking of math on that? And WP:BLP speaking of writing conservatively does not mean that we forgo WP:Due weight. If most sources state 12, we should state 12. If sources equally or almost equally state 13 as much as they state 12, we should likely add "12 or 13." We do similar regarding birth dates, just like we do at the Mariah Carey article. We shouldn't put 13 over 12 simply because 13 sounds slightly better because age 13 is a teenager and there is a better indication that Fualaau was pubescent at that age. Most boys are pubescent by age 12 as well. Reliable sources, not just tabloid sources, reported age 12. I don't see any proof that sources reported age 12 to be titillating. Reporting age 13 is just as "titillating" anyway. But, really, given what "titillating" can mean, I don't think it's the right word to use. I highly doubt that most people were "[aroused by] mild sexual excitement or [sexual] interest" when hearing of this story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

The publications that said the relations began at 12 are implying they continued into 13... so 13 is the age All Sources concur is true. Conservative writing seeks that status of truth, the undisputed truth. It's quite different to do this for age of victim than for birthdates, as little rides on birthdates. Presumably the younger the victim, the more opprobrium accompanies the crime. Nobody feels that way about birthdays. Your statements about what's titillating in sources seems to miss the point, and I'm not sure you agree this article is about both a sex crime and a tabloid scandal. I don't think you said anything about the central importance that BLPs are written conservatively, and the term does not refer to pragmatic rationale accompanying disputes about birthdays. The possibility that a birthday on Wikipedia might diverge from the truth is different from the possibility that a sex crime did. The difference between 12 and 13 is much larger than the difference between the 1st and the 31st. Conservative writing traffics in the most substantiated claims and doesn't swerve. A RS majority rule-of-thumb for birthdays can't work for crimes. Mcfnord (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying WP:UNDUE is how to represent a divergence in coverage, manifesting as "12 or 13". I'm saying conservative writing is bound to the most substantiated claims. We certainly have a dispute, so let's continue seeking assistance. One thing is clear to me: Figuring out what conservative writing is is hard! Because it's not about the political ideology. So I'm hitting the dictionaries! Interesting clues.

You stated, "The publications that said the relations began at 12 are implying they continued into 13... so 13 is the age All Sources concur is true. Conservative writing seeks that status of truth, the undisputed truth. Conservative writing seeks that status of truth, the undisputed truth." Eh? No reliable source states that age 12 is not true. So age 12 is not disputed by any reliable source. It's just that some sources state age 12 and others state age 13. You still haven't shown that most state age 13. It would be good to compile a list showing just how many state age 12 vs. how many state age 13. And with regard to "[age] 12 [is] implying they continued into 13," then those sources are perhaps more accurate. I did address your "conservatively" argument. And in the case that you didn't mean we should go with age 13 because it's one year older, I also noted that age 12 is not disputed.
I've started an RfC on this below. I'm not going to keep debating you on this. One other RfC is above, and other RfCs are below. I think that you are making arguments that most experienced Wikipedians would dispute you on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help you had to offer. Mcfnord (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Survey 3
Discussion 3

Pinging Spintendo, GreenMeansGo, John from Idegon and JzG, who also recently weighed in at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Also pinging Govindaharihari and A Quest For Knowledge, who recently weighed in at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as seen here and here. Other RfCs relating to the COI and BLP reports are on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Nosebagbear Bbb23 Xymmax Galobtter Otro500 BLP meets MKL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you ping those editors? I was clear about why I pinged the ones I pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They have helped me tremendously to understand BLP concepts and standards. Mcfnord (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean you should be randomly pinging them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should you be saying to any editor, "you need to watch your WP:COI" ? Should you say in a disagreement "... you ridiculously refer to as...", "... your typical personal attack garbage", and "stop wasting my time with nonsense." ? Should I take advice from you? This article screams for people who understand BLP and conservative writing to come down clearly on behalf of conservative writing. It's about a tabloid sensation and includes sensational claims. The truth of these claims is incredibly important, and Wikipedia must err on the side of conservative claims (or get sued, rightly). Mcfnord (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you want to bring an off-topic discussion from your talk page to this talk page. I couldn't care less if you take advice from me. What I do know is that, just like on your talk page, your WP:BLP rationales here on this talk page show just how inexperienced you are as an editor and that you are prone to engage in WP:Advocacy editing. And as for Wikipedia getting sued, see WP:Legal threat. That policy is the page an editor is pointed to any time they talk about suing Wikipedia. And when it comes to wasting time, you (just like the other editor) are wasting my time. "Includes sensational claims"? Come off of it already. It includes "claims" supported by numerous reliable sources. And I've already pointed you to WP:Truth. What the essay states is exactly how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we follow this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Mcfnord (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And your understanding of it is flawed. And to repeat: WP:3RRNO is clear that "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to use both tools. I want a comprehensive solution to the problems on this topic. Either you or I misunderstand BLP principles. You seem to know it's me! ;) Mcfnord (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that you didn't bother to ping BullRangifer, who tried to help you understand WP:BLP on your talk page. But then again, you concluded that BullRangifer, a significantly more experienced editor than you are, had "some confusion about BLP." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for including him. He's also most welcome, even if we sometimes disagree. Mcfnord (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

statutory child rape

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=378125273&oldid=378116132#Mary_Kay_Letourneau:_Edits_made_arguing_that_some_text_is_non-neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=next&oldid=377790084

In 2010, Wikipedia decided to call subject crimes statutory rape. It has been noted that child rape, while the title of the criminal code, is misleading to some readers.

And here's Wikipedia on the crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Alright, let me get this straight: child rape is the crime because the Washington criminal code decides to title it thusly? And we don't consider the reader in the Wikipedia entry about the crime? Yet we have a page that describes the crime to our readers as one of statutory rape ? I suspect the commonly used term for this crime is statutory rape, and not child rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The state didn't assert that sexual abuse was intended in the charges. This further suggests "child rape" is misleading. Mcfnord (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To stick with the Washington State legalese, the correct presentation would be "felony second degree rape of a child without intending sexual abuse". If you want to play legalese, that would be the proper legalese. Or "Statutory rape" is Wikipedia's preferred language. Mcfnord (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start an RfC on this, or if I do at all, I need to be sure what you are stating. Fact is...Letourneau pleaded to "second-degree rape of a child." That is the wording the sources use. They don't use "statutory rape," not typically anyway. But given the circumstances, editors have felt that WP:Pipelinking to the Statutory rape article is more accurate than WP:Pipelinking to the Child sexual abuse article. And I agree. The lead of the Statutory rape article indicates why this link is more accurate, and it states that "rape of a child (ROAC)" is sometimes the term used for statutory rape cases. We should continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is: Some terms mislead. Even if the lede retained your preferred concision, the description of the crime in the body should accurately reflect the crime, based on facts of the crime, as charged by the state and reported in the best sources. This is especially true for a tabloid sensation! "felony second degree statutory rape of a child without intending sexual abuse" is a different crime than your concise preference, at least to me, and it's also the actual crime. The fact it exists in the state's charging documents means we must stretch to understand and communicate the full depth and even nuance of the crime. Concision isn't a necessity, and mustn't be the enemy of being complete. Sometimes a term can well mislead or misinform many or even most readers, and we aren't in the encyclopedia business to do that. Mcfnord (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Seems I need to start an RfC on this as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no alternative view present to be offered undue weight. But there is depth and clarity, core goals of the encyclopedia. Mcfnord (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

student or former student

The strongest sources say the student-teacher relationship had ended when the sexual relationship began. As is common in tabloid scandals, an oft-repeated claim that the sex started while the student-teacher relationship was ongoing may not be accurate. Simple majority rule in resolving ambiguity might work for birthdays and cities in Iceland, but BLPs are conservatively written. This matter deserves some study. I'm not convinced "former student" is dramatically different than "student" but it is different, and the stronger claim requires stronger evidence. Repeating it over and over isn't evidence. Those sources that dig deep universally report that the student-teacher relationship had ended before the sexual relationship began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are arguing on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject did not have sex with a student, according to the state, because their illicit relationship began after school had ended. The charges reflect this conclusion of law. But we are saying otherwise, a libelous claim. When mass-media goes mad, as it did here, false claims are repeated, because they excite. We are on the side of truth, not of press accounts by volume. If I can make sound arguments why mass-media got things wrong on two serious claims on this page, you should respect that, hear that out, recognize that it's not just about taking a vote on what differing sources say, and in the interest of the important nature of conservative writing, as mandated clearly by BLP policy, you should support removal of these dubious and damaging claims. The solution is, "While many sources reported they initiated sexual relations while she was his teacher, she was not charged with abusing teacher authority because the state determined the school year had ended." Mcfnord (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear why sources state "student." What sources state "former student"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The good ones. The one article in the Washington Post is among the greatest reporting about the crimes I've found. But the claim is substantiated by the fact the subject was not charged by the state with abusing the student-teacher relationship, just the adult-child one. Mcfnord (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a crime as "abusing the student-teacher relationship"? Not in most jurisdictions where the crime is abusing "the adult-child one", compounded by the abuse of trust/unprofessional conduct element. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the state where the crime occurred, yes, a teacher-student relationship would be a separate crime that was not charged here. Mcfnord (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it that a teacher-student sexual relationship is a distinct crime there, partly because, even if it is distinct, not charging MKL doesn't really prove anything, especially when plea bargains are involved. We go by what RS say, though of course we try to present a comprehensive and accurate picture. I can see an argument that says that any teacher employed in a school has a teacher-student relationship with any student in that school, especially if 'teaching contact' had previously occurred and regardless of whether such contact was ongoing. Anyone who has ever met a former teacher or student in innocent social circumstances knows that the former relationship is difficult to get past - even when one is an adult. The body presents the whole picture, which is that two years of 'teaching contact' had very recently occurred. I'm less happy with the lead describing the boy as 'her student', but would be almost as unhappy with 'former student', which would imply that one or other had ceased to be at the school. Perhaps a form of words could be found that concisely and accurately reflects the fuller picture. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your point that a plea bargain can hide crimes is well-taken. The COI reports there was actually [no plea bargain], so that's another possible problem in the article. Many sources confirm the school year had concluded and child matriculated from the school when the the relationship began, and certainly when the arrest occurred. No article presents evidence to contradict the former student status. I consider 'student' false and 'former student' accurate. Here's a source that explains the child had left the school itself before the sexual relationship commenced. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13106958/ns/dateline_nbc/t/love-no-other/#.XI9bhNJlDmF Mcfnord (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not helping much here, but what exactly do you see as differentiating between student and former student. What it was, and is, is still an adult had sex with a child. That's all. It's rape and it's rape in every state in the US and every province in Canada. Its singularly the most heinous crime, even more so than murder, in today's society. Why should what Ms. Letourneau's wishes as to how she is portrayed have any bearing on it? I'm sorry, Mcfnord, but you are beginning to sound like a pedophilia apologist, and we've site banned numerous people for that over the years. She pled guilty to child rape. End of story. It would matter not a whit if the pervert screwed with my son while he still was in the building she worked in or whether she waited until he'd been promoted out. She raped him. There is no need to soften our approach to covering this. And don't you dare attempt to revert my portrayal of her as a pervert. Pedophilia is recognized as a deviant sexual desire (ie, a perversion) in all the mainstream literature. She pled guilty to it. Again, end of story. Shall we justify John Wayne Gacy next? John from Idegon (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article state that Fualaau was "12 or 13" at the time that Letourneau was sexual with him, or should it choose an age? If choosing an age, which one?

One view is that since many or most reliable sources state that Fualaau was 12 at the time, while other sources state that he was 13, we should either go with age 12 or state "12 or 13." This view argues that we should do either per WP:Due weight. The other view is that going with age 12 is more "titillating" and that we should go with age 13 because it is being "conservative." This argument is made per WP:BLP stating that "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." A counterargument regarding the interpretation of "conservative" was also made.

For those seeing this from the RfC page, see Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#age of victim for more discussion on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories