Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old notes

The best way to proceed is to look at, read, absorb and summarize all the information in those many many links and write an article, not just list all the links.Ortolan88

The no-contact order between MKL and her victim has been lifted by a Seattle court. If they wind up living together in short order it wouldn't be too surprising and would merit adding to the article. --Wac 17:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The section on "Mass with Mary" seems to be ripped off from the amazon.com editorial review of same (or vice versa). David Battle

The "Mass with Mary" thing also reads a little bit commercial... is it relevant news or just an ad planted by the publishers? Bsktcase 05:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Is she changing her name after she marries Villi? (Alphaboi867 06:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• Oppose name change. It will be a LONG time before she is better known as anything but "Mary Kay Letourneau". Niteowlneils 06:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• her 15 minutes were over when he became of legal age. Leave the article where it is, Letourneau is the name the public will remember. redirect Fualaau. SchmuckyTheCat 14:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• most common name by which she is known: Mary Kay Letourneau. Her committment to using her former student's surname: non-existent. Leave it where it lies. - Nunh-huh 06:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose name change. Mary Kay Letourneau's case transcends her involvement with Vili Fualaau, as it is relevant to a more general question about the degree the legal system is justified intervening in affaires de coeur. David Cruise 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

--Er, I didn't think there was all that much debate about the acceptability of people in their 30s having sex with sixth graders. I do agree that the name should stay Letourneau, though.24.131.12.228 01:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the Washington State sex offender registry ( http://ml.waspc.org/Accept.aspx ) lists her as "Letourneau, Mary Katherine". Therefore, Oppose. -- 12.116.162.162 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the article title is called Mary Kay Letourneau, the header in the article should read her new name and that she was formerly known as Mary Kay Letourneau. --Mezaco 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Where did that image come from?

Is there any particular reason that this article uses such a badly photoshopped (gimped?) image placing Letourneau in front of a romantic sunset? What a strange choice.Phiwum 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I was just thinking the same thing. It seems highly unlikely that that image really is GFDL. Someone should just upload the mugshot or some other fair use photo from the press.--Pharos 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of birthdate because of privacy concerns and Wiki guidelines

I removed the exact day and month of Mary Kay Letourneau's birth according to the guidelines at BLP which specifically recommend that editors do not include exact birthdates in articles about living people. The reason for this is explained at BLP, but the practice of not including such information is common among reputable publishers. Her exact birthdate is of no relevance to why she is notable, and it is completely unneccesary addition of information that violates her right to privacy. We only need include information about why she is notable. (see BLP for guidance) Vivaldi 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is the gayest thing I've ever heard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.200.136 (talk • contribs) .

Revealing her phone number and/or address would be a violation of privacy. The day she was born is a matter of public record. (Alphaboi867 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Birthdates are not notable. Nobody cares. Tempshill 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's links are broken; he/she probably intended to refer to WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information. —teb728 t c 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the person in question has no objection, and there are reliable sources stating her birth date then there is no reason the birth date should be excluded. Antivenin 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Notability isn't relevant here. A single piece of information is never notable. The question is whether it invades her privacy or if it's already widely known. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Adult public figures often have their birthdates listed. And this lady is about as public as anyone has been. Besides, someone might want to send her a friendly birthday card. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder?

There appear to be numerous reports on the web that she had been diagnosed with, and treated for bipolar disorder, for example [1], [2]. If this is verifiable, it probably belongs in the article. -- The Anome 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reaction of Samoan community?

In the years since this story broke, I've never heard a word from Seattle's large Samoan community or anyone living in Samoa, or elsewhere in Hawaii and the West Coast of the USA. They must have had something to say about it. Not surprisingly, there's nothing here on Wikipedia either. PSVY 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It Happened At My School Too

At my high school, we had a case of a young female teacher becoming romantically involved with a grade 11 student. They never kissed or had sex, but an inappropriate relationship developed between them. At the end of the year, the teacher knew she couldn't continue to see the student and teach there, so she moved to another school. During the student's grade 12 year, they continued thier romantic relationship, and upon graduation he married her. They are still currently married. I think this sort of thing happens far more than we think it does, and that its just kept secret. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

This isn't the place for random comments that have nothing to do with improving the article but I would point out that a grade 11 student would potentially be above the age of consent in some jurisdictions so no statutory rape may be involved if they did have sex. Being a teacher and in a position of power may make a difference in some jurisdictions but not in all. In any case, while their relationship during her time at school was problematic for a number of reason and would likely violate teaching ethic guidelines and school rules after she moved was it's far more questionable particularly since from the sound of it, the age difference was under 10 years, perhaps under 5 years not a 13 year old with a 34 year old. In other words, the case you mention is only minimally comparable to this Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary's original name

Mary was born Mary Katherine Schmitz. Shouldn't that be included in the article somehow? - NGC6254 09:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a source for this? Proxy User (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Classification as an "Incarcerated Celebrity"

Should she really be included in this group? Her sole claim to being a celebrity is for the acts that caused her to be incarcerated, and she has no fame beyond this. My thoughts on this is that to be included in the category of Incarcerated Celebrities, the person should be a celebrity before and/or after the incarceration, for reasons not directly related to the acts resulting in the incarceration.

AgreeManormadman (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder?

There appear to be numerous reports on the web that she had been diagnosed with, and treated for bipolar disorder, for example [3], [4]. If this is verifiable, it probably belongs in the article. -- The Anome 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the correct year?

From this article:

In 2000, Fualaau's family sued the Highline School District and the city of Des Moines, Washington for emotional suffering, lost wages, and the costs of rearing his two children, claiming the school had failed to protect him from Letourneau.[2] The jury ruled against them and no damages were awarded.

From the article about Vili Fualaau:

In 2002, Fualaau's mother filed a civil suit against the Highline School District and the city of Des Moines, Washington for not protecting him from Letourneau. The suit was dismissed.

Cuantar (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

The Filmography section should be renamed. This is not HER filmography, rather these are shows ABOUT her. Objix (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just did it. (Have to remember to be bold!) Objix (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Letourneau and Fualaau "Hot For Teacher" Nights

On what grounds was this repeatedly deleted? It apparently took the editor two days after reading it to decide to delete it on the grounds that it is "unencyclopedic." WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC redirects to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not. That policy states, "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." This is recently verified information from the news. It's stated neutrally and non-judgmentally. I think it should be in the article. Blackworm (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The original link, IIRC, was to a promotion for the event, not a news article about the event, and wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for free advertising. Secondly, what makes this particular event noteworthy vis a vis her biography? We do not discuss every time she goes out to a bar or visits her parole officer. Can anyone explain what makes this one event notable enough to be added to her bio? Wikipedia is neither supposed to be a running journal of a person's life nor the on-line National Enquirer. -- Avi (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So, you're employing the "this is sensationalistic" argument again? The same one you used to block the mention that infant foreskins from male circumcision were ground up and used in anti-wrinkle cream for women (finally restored after a long fight, as "skin-care products" which at least sounds medically necessary, better than "cosmetics")? Is it that this fact, the fact that in the U.S. a convicted child rapist teacher can go on to host (not attend, as you imply, but host) an evening with a child-teacher sex theme, embarrasses you also? Blackworm (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am employing the "encyclopædic" requirement. Not every detail of everyone's life is notable. We have to separate wheat from chaff. I also fail to see what wrinkle cream has to do with Letourneau; is she acting as a corporate spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson? Lastly, you seem to have an emotional reaction to this woman; while her actions are reprehensible, and criminal for that matter, you should be careful not to view Wikipedia as a vehicle by which to crusade, even against the obvious evils of child molestation. We are an encyclopedia; not a soapbox or pulpit, and have to take care that we edit that way, even in in articles which offend our sensibilities, which this one most certainly does, at least for me. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you're suggesting I'm on some crusade? Don't invoke the strawman of an emotional response -- the only emotional response I have here is due to your again countering my edits here, and again for no valid policy reason. This edit is reported fact, not in a "National Enquirer" as you imply but in an Associated Press (AP) story, and not apparently countered or contradicted anywhere else. The news item is important to this article, it informs the reader on the realities of modern society and on the reality of this person's life. It's certainly not "scandal-mongering" as described by WP:SOAP -- whether her actions or that of those around her are scandalous is up to the reader, who reads the neutrally stated facts. On the contrary, editors like you who want to bury facts they may consider unpleasant are in fact the ones responsible for weakening the quality of this encyclopedia; specifically by imposing your POV that this AP story is "unencyclopedic chaff" (to paraphrase) that the reader should be kept in ignorance of (but of course in contradiction to reliable sources, verifiability and other policies). I'm going to put this back in. Please RfC this or follow dispute resolution if you continue to believe consensus will demand the non-inclusion of this AP story about Letourneau in this article. Blackworm (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should put it up for an RfC, but I believe it should stay out in the interim. The fact that it is carried by the AP certainly makes the source reliable; the question is is the fact that they are hosting these events relevant to the article. Wikipedia's purpose in this article is not to "inform the reader about the realities of modern society" We can leave that for preachers and those on a soapbox. We are not even supposed to document every event in this woman's life, only the ones that are notable and help make the article more encyclopedic. On one hand I can see that her participating in these events demonstrates a continued lack of remorse for her actions, on the other, that is amply clear by her marrying the boy. So, let us see what others have to say. Lastly, you are coming off somewhat like a preacher, that may indicate a lack of objectivity, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since two editors apparently want this in, and one want it out, I suggest we leave the reliably sourced story there in the interim. If at worst it's "preacher" material from the AP (in what circles are the AP known for that, Avi?), it can't be that harmful to leave it there while the reader helps decide its appropriateness. I'd suggest some kind of tag on it to help attract readers to the discussion, however -- I'll go ahead and add that. Let's leave others to decide the more objective view. Blackworm (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I won't be the one who takes it out during the RfC. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit relies on a blog, which is not a reliable source, but it's nice to see that several other editors view this as worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Clearly the weight given to this issue does not match the interest of editors, but then we must be careful to reflect the interest of sources, according to my current understanding of Wikipedia policy. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the content to provide strictly factual "non-tabloid" information, referenced from a reliable source (the Seattle Times). Just the facts, as they say. What can be wrong with this? Nothing, of course. Now, this activity of Letourneau and spouse may offend some people. But there is no question that it exists, and is relevent to the article subject. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude it, other than clearly POV reasons. Good grief! Proxy User (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Title -> Mary Kay Fualaau

Suggest the title should change to her legal name, with a redirect from Mary Kay Letourneau. Blackworm (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Her notoriety occurred as Mary Kay Letourneau, and most mention of her is as "Mary Kay Letourneau". A redirect is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Blackworm (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like how the country officially known as Myanmar by that country and the UN is still called "Burma" here. What is it with facing reality? Her name is no longer Letourneau, and she doesn't go by it. Letourneau should redirect to Fualaau, not the other way around. But who am I to stand in the way of Reality According To Wikipedia... Proxy User (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reasons that make her notable occurred when she was Letourneau. The vast majority of media and sources that refer to her do so as Letourneau. So does wiki. We have a redirect and her married name in the first sentence. -- Avi (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the current article title is proper. Supposed she gets divorced or remarries? We can't keep changing the title. We just add it to the body of the article.

RfC: Should this article mention the "HotForTeacher" nights?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

One sentence mention, reliably sourced, is appropriate for the article

---

Should the article mention the "Hot for teacher" nights hosted by Mary Kay and Vili? -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Include the material, per my comments in the above discussion. Sources other than the cited Associated Press/Seattle Times include:

• Seattle Post Intelligencer
• Chicago Tribune
• Marin Independent Journal

Note also that removal fails the WP:HARM#TEST (essay). Clause 1 may be most disputed, though I would claim it's met; this is discussed in reliable sources from at least Seattle to Chicago, so it's not "local newspapers" or anything less reliable. Clause 2 seems met (no one apparently doubts the facts), and Clause 3 is met (can't get any less weight than one sentence). The essay says, If all of these apply, then it is reasonable for the information to be included. If none of them apply, then it should be removed. I agree, and claim they do all apply, with ample evidence. Blackworm (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what's the point of detailing the first part of her life up to her release from prison and then dropping the article dead? It's entirely relevant to the whole purpose of the article in the first place (i.e. her activities with this person). Plus it's of interest as they're essentially celebrating their story. ~~Matt < Sorry I don't know how to sign these off anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.105.171 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is not "should the article include" this information, but why should it not? Of course it should. It "offends" someone? This is a criteria of what is or is not included? BS, nonsense, hog wash. It's relevant. End of story. Next issue. Proxy User (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and considered notable, why not? If nothing else, it suggests a lot about her character - unrepentent, despite those years in prison. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Include I've thought about it some more, and I think that as long as it is reliably sourced, and not linking to the advertising poster, one sentence is appropriate to show how, post incarceration and post marriage, she and her husband are handling their notoriety. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion mainly per Avi. Handled correctly and without undue weight this seems notable. AniMate^draw 09:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ron Garretson

Allenjr01 has again inserted mention of Letourneau dating Ron Garretson in high school. I believe Allenjr01 may be correct (I too recall hearing or reading this years ago), but can find no reliable source (see WP:Reliable Sources) online for it. The websites that did mention it had just copied and pasted from us here at Wiki, and most of the sites that did so were unseemly "hot-for-teacher" sex-styled sites. Some time ago, I therefore removed mention of it, after I initially added a "citation needed" tag. Allenjr01's reinsertion has raised the issue again. I've added a "citation needed" tag again, and hope he or someone else can find a good source (preferably online) for this. Otherwise, I think we should remove it soon; arguably even now (which is what I did before). I don't know whether Garretson might find this libelous if it's untrue (even though I, like Allenjr01, think it is true). Beansandveggies (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it non-neutral POV to describe the victim of a crime as a "victim"?

In this edit, User:Jakew asserts that the phrase "young victim" when describing a victim of a convicted statutory rapist is "POV," presumably meaning in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. I am dumbfounded by this novel assertion that Wikipedia cannot call the victim of a crime a victim. Indeed, the very text of the law Letourneau was presumably convicted under refers to the "perpetrator" and the "victim."[5] Would anyone else like to comment on this, please? Blackworm (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources call him a "victim", or is that editorializing on the part of wikipedia editors? In any case, from the objective standpoint, it's fairly clear that he has never considered himself to be a victim, so it's just a question of what the law and the reliable sources have to say about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you suggest that it's editorializing to call the victim of a convicted criminal's crime a victim? You say it's a question of what the law has to say, but I linked to the law above. The law she was convicted under says "victim," and as for sources that use the word "victim" referring to the case, obviously there are hundreds]. So do I take it you're in agreement with me that it is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to describe the 13-year old as a victim? Incidentally, whether a person, especially a minor, considers themselves a victim has no bearing on whether we can neutrally say they are a victim. The person may be mentally deranged, or traumatized, or brainwashed, for example. Blackworm (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the bulk of the sources call him a "victim", that's theoretically valid. It's just that in this particular article, it looks like POV-pushing, as she and her so-called "victim" just celebrated their 5th wedding anniversary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There are also plenty of sources using the word "lover" [6] (apparently about twice as many as those that use the word "victim"), but you found that word offensive. Similarly, Vili Fualaau might well find the word "victim" offensive, and since this article is in part a biography about himself, it's particularly important to use neutral terminology with respect to him. Is there an actual problem with describing him as a "boy"? If not, why argue about it? Jakew (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point. The article can neutrally state the facts of the case without using the term "victim", which frankly makes wikipedia look stupid. "Oh, yeh, he was a victim, poor thing, and he himself applied to have the no-contact order rescinded, and now they've been married 5 years." Yeh, quite a victim there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And I would likewise advise against "lover", as that's kind of hammering the obvious. As well as being kind of "icky" (or "TMI"), but that's another story. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and so I'm going to take this to RfC if you maintain your position. Far from making Wikipedia look stupid (did it make the law look stupid? Did it make all the news organizations look stupid?), describing him as a victim in the context of him fathering children while under the age of consent is completely appropriate. Furthermore, to revise the language to whitewash the word "victim," claiming a non-neutral POV, makes Wikipedia look like it condones statutory rape. The "problem" with Jakew's edit is that it reverts an edit with no valid basis, claiming a violation of policy. That is unacceptable and must be undone. There is nothing non-neutral about referring to a convicted criminal as a perpetrator and to their victim as a victim, regardless of whether editors feel the person is a victim or indeed whether the victim felt they were. If the victim didn't and/or doesn't consider himself a victim, that can be separately noted.

As for "lover," the sources Jakew beings include the word "love," which is irrelevant, and also are apparently all from a time frame from after the victim reached legal adulthood and the two could more reasonably be described as lovers. As the sentence in question refers to the time when the children were conceived, when the victim was still under the age of consent, "lover" is inappropriate to describe the victim of the criminal acts leading to the pregnancies. If you can find a good amount of reliable sources referring to the victim as "lover" from the year 1997 or earlier, when the second of the two children fathered by the victim were conceived, I will reverse my position on that, but I doubt any reputable news organization would make such a heinous error; therefore I claim Jakew's argument defending the term "lover" in this case is specious. Blackworm (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not defending the term "lover". I'm simply pointing out that plenty of sources use the term (you are correct that the word "love" is irrelevant; please see this search instead for the exact word, or this for the unambiguous phrase "underage lover"). In light of that fact, what should we make of your argument that "hundreds" of sources use the word "victim" so we should do so too? Applying the same logic, we should use the word "lover". However, the logic is flawed: the fact that sources use a term does not mean that we should use the same term (except, of course, in direct quotes). Wikipedia should use neutral terminology. "Boy", for example, is likely to offend nobody, and is a "piece of information about which there is no serious dispute", so it is preferable to both "victim" and "lover". If you find that unacceptable, by all means file an RfC. Jakew (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (edited 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Re: "lover," it seems you have either ignored or missed my point. No source you bring describes him that way before 1998, when he was made the biological father of Letourneau's children at age 13-14. The sources in the Google search that Google indicates as being from 1997 are in fact from 2004, as a closer inspection reveals. As the disputed sentence revolves around his having children, my point stands: he was not her "lover" at age 13 or 14, he was her victim, and thus it is extremely non-neutral to describe the 14 year old as her "lover." Blackworm (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Blackworm, I specifically addressed your point by including searches for the exact phrase "underage lover", which clearly and unambiguously refers to a lover who is under the statutory age of consent in the applicable jurisdiction. I appreciate that you are convinced of your position that he was not a lover but a victim, and I'm not stating that you're wrong, but I am stating that this is one of several viewpoints, and I strongly suspect that it is not one that is shared by Letourneau or Fualaau. To maintain neutrality, why not avoid asserting either viewpoint? Jakew (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that you bring a page with 10 articles, out of the hundreds or thousands of articles written about this event, and compared to almost 450 using the word "victim,"[7] kind of proves my point about the view being fringe and/or an error. It might have become barely acceptable once the victim reached adulthood to describe him (as a adult) as her "formerly underage lover," as the NYTimes does in one of those 10 instances, but that also isn't applicable here since the sentence refers to Fualaau at age 13-14. The other nine instances seem to mostly come from tabloid newspapers, written after Fualaau became an adult, and in any case are clearly the exception proving the rule. Blackworm (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How would the article be improved by using pointy terms like "victim" and "lover"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a perfect example of a loaded question. The actual question under consideration is why it is improved by removing the term "victim" (no one apparently opposes the removal of the word "lover"). The RFC on this question is below. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Does describing a statutorily raped 14-year old as a "victim" violate NPOV?

Late edit: Actually, the 14-year-old was a 12-year-old. The article had it wrong. This has since been corrected. Blackworm (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen between editors on whether it violates WP:NPOV policy to describe the 14-year old Vili Fualaau, who was statutorily raped by Mary Kay Letourneau, as a "victim" in the context of his fathering of Letourneau's children while under the age of consent. The disputed edits are here and here. Blackworm (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many aspects of the current lead that reflect a strong negative point of view. I do not believe that the current lead is neutral or fairly represents the content of the article in a neutral and encyclopedic (just the facts) tone. She was a teacher and the 14 year old was a student and they should be referred to as such. In my opinion it is POV to call him a 'victim' or a 'boy'. The subject's crime speaks for itself and does not need to be loaded with adjectives to create a more negative point of view.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, it's non-neutral, but if something horrible happened to the victim, then "victim" is fair. In this case, it's ridiculous, as they ended up marrying, and he defended her all along the way. To continue labeling him as a "victim" makes wikipedia look stupid. Wikipedia looking stupid is not a good thing. It happens too often as it is. Let's try not to do it on purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you're saying that the crime of statutory rape isn't horrible, and thus we can't call him a victim, despite what the law she was convicted under says and what the sources say. That, to me, is what makes Wikipedia look stupid. Blackworm (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it horrible in this particular case? What's the urgency for using an emotionally-charged label like "victim", for a guy who married his "victimizer"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, the article should stick with the facts, i.e. what she was charged with and convicted for. The only reason to label him a "victim" is to make a point of some kind. And to do it right, you need to say, "Her victim continued to have a relationship with her while she was in prison ... her victim asked the court to repeal the no-contact order ... her victim has now been married to her for five years ..." Now tell me why that wouldn't make wikipedia look silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was urgent; the question posed here is whether it is urgent to remove the word victim from this article when describing the 13-14 year old Fualaau, despite what the law Letourneau was convicted under says, and what about 450 news articles on Google News say.[8] That is the question you and Keithbob are answering in the positive, without a convincing argument in my opinion. Your examples don't apply because the 13-14 year old referred to in the disputed sentence did not do those things, i.e., did not marry her, did not ask the court, etc. The adult did. Thus your examples are a straw man argument. If Wikipedia can't call the 13-14 victim of statutory rape a victim, which is the whole question being asked here, then yes, that makes Wikipedia look silly in my view. I note that the word "victim" is used without this urgent removal in articles like Paul Shanley, and no less than seven times in the Statutory rape article, which I'm sure has quite a bit more effort put into it and editors watching it than this one. To argue that it's "emotionally charged" is as ridiculous as arguing that we shouldn't use the word "rape" because the latter word is emotionally charged, despite how the crime is called everywhere else. Blackworm (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question about whether it's horrible in this particular case, I have to ask, what makes this particular case special? The whole point of statutory rape laws on the books is that children are impressionable and liable to be coerced by adults, especially adults in positions of power over them, in a way that they would not be with other children their age. The reason it's called statutory rape and not rape is precisely because the victim approves of the situation. In cases where the victim resists, it's called "rape" and is a greater crime with a greater sentence. I really thought that much was obvious. Blackworm (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear that at no time has he ever considered himself a "victim". If you're simply quoting the wording of the law in general, maybe "victim" is OK. If you're calling him a "victim" specifically, that's silly. He was never a "victim". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No victim of statutory rape considers themselves a victim at the time. Despite that, they are recognized by the law, and by mainstream society as victims. You're claiming he was never a victim, and therefore the law is factually incorrect to call him a victim, and the 450 Google News articles are factually incorrect for calling him a victim. I call this claim of yours a completely fringe view, and Wikipedia gives little or no weight to fringe views.

The other clearly fringe view above is from Keithbob, namely that it's POV to call a 13-14 year old male a "boy." Utter nonsense is being used to defend this inappropriate removal. Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no basis for claiming that no underage victim ever considers him/herself a victim at the time. Where the verbiage of the law is being cited, "victim" is valid if it's in the law as written. Labelling this guy specifically a victim is POV-pushing. "Boy" and "lover" are not appropriate either, as they are also terms that are trying to prove a point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the above again: The reason it's called statutory rape and not rape is precisely because the victim approves of the situation. Blackworm (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No. As noted in Statutory rape, the underage person is not legally capable of giving consent. That does not imply either approval or disapproval. As we know from the priest thing, adults sometimes use their authority to have their way with kids of various ages. Many of the kids know immediately that something's wrong, and hate what's happened, but are shamed into not reporting it. Compliance does not imply approval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Compliance may not imply approval, but the issue is whether consent does. Consent does imply approval, contrary to your implied claim. See the dictionary definition of "consent:" [9] Compliance is something else, it can be given under duress and without consent; and your conflation of the two terms is problematic. As an example, read the law of Letourneau's state regarding the definition of consent: "Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.[10] That doesn't apply to your example, and thus in that case, the victim is a victim of rape, sexual assault, or child molestation, not merely statutory rape. As the statutory rape article says, "most jurisdictions have separate provisions for child molestation or forcible rape which can be applied to juveniles..." and also "The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime." Blackworm (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The underage are not competent to give consent, which is the whole point of these laws. The particular age level defines the seriousness of the crime for reasons that should be fairly obvious. Giving in to an authority figure does not imply consent, it merely implies compliance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, but you've dodged the point; statutory rape implies that consent is there, it's just not legally recognized. So my point stands: all victims of statutory rape (who aren't victims of something worse) approve of the statutory rape. Thus, that a victim of statutory rape doesn't view themselves as a victim isn't a special case, it's the general case. It's not enough for other articles, mainstream sources, and the law to stop referring to them as "victims," and therefore it's against Wikipedia policy for us to impose your fringe POV in this matter by removing the word "victim" merely because you personally disagree with all those sources' characterization in this instance. Blackworm (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious that "victim" has POV connotations, but it hadn't occurred to me that "boy" might be perceived as POV. What term would you suggest instead? Jakew (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since his name is well-known, use his last name in place of "the boy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad all three others here agree that the word "boy" used in Wikipedia to describe a 13-14 year old male is non-neutral enough to prevent its use. That view is so obviously nonsensical and fringe that it only reinforces my position. Blackworm (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually agree that it's non-neutral, but I'm quite happy to find use an alternative if that helps to avoid perceived connotations. Jakew (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But your position is inconsistent; for example you vehemently resist any alternative to the term "uncircumcised" in all circumcision-related articles, despite editors pointing out its documented pejorative meaning ("heathen") and its negative connotations. That you accept the removal of the term "boy" as non-neutral is the key point here. Blackworm (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to debate the content of circumcision-related articles here. This talk page — and this RfC — is about this article. Jakew (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That you accept the removal of the term "boy" to describe a 13-14 year old male as non-neutral POV is the key point here. Blackworm (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, the underage object of the woman's affections is clearly, by law, no matter how he might feel about it, a victim. Ceteris paribus (a cool phrase I just learned from another Wikipedian), the word "victim" is appropriate. However, as is clear from this discussion, it is an emotionally charged word. Its use is valid, but inflammatory to at least some people. I find it distracting and disturbing in this context, precisely because it raises the issues discussed above, and I would find the article more informative (via being less distracting) if the victim's name were used, rather than the legally valid but loaded label.

Same goes for the use of the word "boy." Even the law has trouble sorting out what's a boy and what's a man, when a teenager has done something nefarious, for instance; the dilemma reflects our society's confusion about how much autonomy and responsibility to attribute to youngish males in sticky situations. Ergo, it's a complicated word, when applied to a teenaged male who is a victim or a perpetrator of a major offense.

I think this is one of those cases where the solution is not in what is infallibly correct, but in what is most helpful. I think referring to the victim by his name would not stir controversy, except from those who wish to press the point of his being a victim. Therefore, I think he should be referred to by name, wherever possible, and not by the words "victim" and "boy," despite their validity. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Best to use neutral and encyclopedic terms like student and teacher.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that in this particular case the using the names of the involved parties is preferable to using words that have a deeper meaning attached to them. I understand that some may feel this is not the strictest interpretation of WP policy, but in some specific cases policy can be safely bent or even ignored for the greater good of the article. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of Keithbob's suggestion of "student" and "teacher," for, as he pointed out, their neutrality; you can't use names every time. I'd have proposed those words, if I'd thought of it. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that so many people here are implicitly invoking WP:IAR, I suppose this is a case where Wikipedia policy gets thrown out the window simply because several editors feel like it. Fine, so noted. I've always said true WP:CONSENSUS just means "the POV of editors" anyway. Blackworm (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see why IAR is applicable. No rule that I know of requires us to describe him as a "victim". As I understood it, your argument was that we could describe him as such without violating policy. Now you seem to be making a stronger argument: that we must. What policy is violated, in your opinion, by describing him as a "student"? Jakew (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see how WP:IAR applies. In my opinion we are following one of Wiki major policies ie WP:BLP which states: "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.". The word "victim" is a courtroom/police term. It is appropriate in those settings. In an encyclopedia we use more neutral terms. If you look at the news sources for this Wiki article, the word victim is not used. Instead the student is referred to by his last name. There are many adjectives we could use to refer to him in the lead ie. boy, victim, student, son, child, teen, young man, lover, future husband or father to be. But this is an encyclopedia so we must use simple, neutral and professional language, especially in the lead and especially on a BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated assertions that "victim" to describe the victim of a crime is non-neutral POV does not stand up to reason, especially since it is freely used elsewhere in this encyclopedia, as well as in the sources we reference in this article. Removing it on that basis is a perversion of WP:NPOV policy, and is in fact non-neutral in itself since it gives undue weight to a fringe view (i.e. that the victim is not really a victim). That is the violation of policy here, and that is why one can only invoke WP:IAR to justify it. Blackworm (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how using the victim's name creates POV. We describe the crime and use a neutral word (his name) to refer to the victim/boy/lover/child who is now her adult husband. The subject of the article is Mary Kay. It's a BLP, not a crime journal.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Describing him as a victim is accurate and appropriate to the fact that this is an article about criminal case. The article also includes his own statements about not considering him a victim. I don't see where there is a violation. I also changed one heading in the article from "Sex Offender" to "Trial and Conviction" so as to be more neutral. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not he ended up marrying his teacher when he became an adult is irrelevent to the fact that when he was a 14 year-old minor he was legally incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship with an adult, much less his teacher. Without question, the 14 year-old was a "victim". By law in fact. I fail to see any question here other than the fact that some seem to believe that if a young boy is seduced by an attractive adult woman that somehow this is a "good" thing. There is a reason the law is on the books folks. Rapier (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have no opinion about the subject of whether it is good or bad, and I find that remark less than civil. Legally speaking, I agree that he is a victim. But the law isn't the only valid perspective, and the important point is that he is not a victim from every point of view. There exist viewpoints (including, presumably, his own, as well as Letourneau's) in which he's not a victim. Jakew (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. There exist viewpoints (which are POV) in which he is not a victim. He was a kid. She was an adult. It was illegal. He's a victim. Any other way of presenting this is by definition a point of view. Your personal opinion of whether or not something is "good" or "bad" is not the issue, though if you actually have no opinion on whether or not 14 year-olds should be having sexual relations with adults then I really don't care whether or not you find my remark "civil" or not. Rapier (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the position that he is a victim is not a point of view? Of course it is. It's a POV just as the position that he isn't a victim is a point of view. To claim otherwise is absurd. The purpose of NPOV writing is to document points of view without endorsing them. That is, we could say (hypothetically) that the judge described him as a victim, but we should not use such language ourselves.

I remind you that policy applies whether or not you personally care about civility. Jakew (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously stating that according to United States and Washington state criminal code, any 14 year-old that has sex with an adult is by definition a victim of a crime. Nobody else's opinion can change that documented fact, and therefore it does not violate Wikipedia's policy of neutrality to refer to the individual in question in that manner. Is it required that he be referred to that way? Of course not, but that wasn't the original question. Does it violate WP:NPOV to refer to him as a "victim"? No. Rapier (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In the eyes of the law, yes, he is a victim, and if this were a courtroom there would be no argument. But this is not a courtroom and other viewpoints are no more or less valid than a legal perspective. Referring to him as a "victim" endorses one point of view at the expense of others, thus violating NPOV. Jakew (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bring sources stating that he is not a victim; i.e. stating that it is non-neutral to describe him as such. I will even accept that your and Baseball Bugs' view on isn't complete fringe if you produce sources stating that victims of statutory rape aren't really victims, or shouldn't be called victims, or anything along those lines. Until then, your edit replacing "victim" with "boy" (and later, "student") does not have consensus. Blackworm (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As there seems to be no consensus, I have posted regarding this issue on the NPOV noticeboard diff. Blackworm (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am late to the party here, but my opinion is as follows: (1) The word "victim" is incontestably applicable from a purely descriptive standpoint. (2) It is true that in some circumstances, the word "victim" may carry emotional overtones that are undesirable. (3) It is not the case that any use of the term "victim" is by definition non-neutral.

For purely stylistic reasons, it is never going to be appropriate to search-and-replace every use of the term "victim" with "boy" (or vice-versa). Rather, each usage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Regarding Baseball Bugs' point that the word "victim" doesn't make sense when you're talking about him later marrying her, that's perfectly fine: one can use the term "victim" (for example) when talking about their contact at the time the crimes were committed, and then shift terms later when discussing their later life. One size does not fit all. Nandesuka (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Revise the Lead

WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."

• Current Lead: Mary Kay Letourneau (born Mary Katherine Schmitz; January 30, 1962), is an American former schoolteacher convicted in 1997 of the statutory rape of one of her students, a 13-year old boy, with whom the then-married mother of four had a longtime extramarital affair during the boy's teenage years.[2] She gave birth to two children by the boy, Vili Fualaau. The two married in 2005, after he reached adulthood and she had spent several years in prison and divorced her first husband.[3] Her notoriety has turned her into a touchstone cultural reference and has spawned a number of television specials about her. She is also the daughter of a former prominent conservative political figure, John G. Schmitz, whose political career effectively ended due to his own teacher-student sex scandal.

• Revised Lead: Mary Kay Letourneau (born Mary Katherine Schmitz; January 30, 1962), is an American sex offender, former schoolteacher and daughter of congressman, John G. Schmitz. In 1997 Letourneau was convicted of the child rape of 12 year old student, Vili Fualaau. Letourneau served two prison terms for her crime and gave birth to two of Fualaau's children while incarcerated. After her release from prison, Letourneau and Fualaau married in 2005. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jakew (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We could add to the last sentence that she became Mary Kay Fualaau when she got married. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"An American sex offender"? Still trying to prove some point, it seems. The original version covers it sufficiently. No need to drive a nail in with a sledgehammer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. There's no need to say "sex offender" — the following sentence makes that clear enough. Jakew (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem removing "sex offender" from my proposed lead. Any other suggestions? If not, I'll go ahead and make the changes per consensus here on this talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

She's only notable because she's a sex offender. Remove it and the first sentence makes no sense; the reader is led to believe she is notable as the daughter of the congressman. "The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: 'What (or who) is the subject?' and 'Why is this subject notable?'" WP:LEAD. And it was not just a student, it was her 12 year old "student" (since you have all decided to violate WP:V and WP:NPOV by de-emphasizing his victimhood, contrary to sources). That he was her student is quite relevant, especially since child rape laws often emphasize that a position of authority over the victim is particularly reprehensible. Blackworm (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you've struck on the crux of the issue here. I was aiming for it, but I missed in my argument with Jake, above. The only reason this woman has an article on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). That being the case, the article needs to follow that blueprint regardless of anybody else's "point of view". Letourneau = criminal, student = victim. Rapier (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography and being a criminal doesn't negate all other aspects of the person's life. WP:LEAD says that the lead should ID the subject, it's notability and summarize the main points of the article. I think that is pretty well accomplished in the current lead. The current lead also clearly states, in the second sentence that she was "convicted of the child rape of a 12 yr old student". So nothing is being played down or hidden. Also keep in mind that being the daughter of a presidential candidate is notable and she is widely known, not only for the crime but for the many subsequent events including her trial, her pregnancies, her marriage to the student, their wedding and their Hot For Teacher club dates etc. So it's not just about the one act of rape. It's her entire life since her arrest that is widely notable. That said, my original text above called her an American sex offender, but two editors objected and so I changed it since the consensus at that time was two to one. At present I'm neutral on that point and am OK having the words 'sex offender' either in or out of the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography, yes, but being related to a notable individual does not make one notable according to Wiki guidelines. Her activities after her conviction are only notable because of her conviction. Therefore I have to Disagree with the current version. I can, however, Agree with your original edit where she is discribed as a sex offender. Rapier (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone finally addressed this problem.[11] I support the spirit of that edit, correcting (perhaps overcorrecting) a clear non-neutral bias. But I think it can be phrased better. Any suggestions? Blackworm (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported Text

I removed the following unsupported text from the lead and body of the article per WP:BLP. The text may be place back in the article if reliable sources are found.

• She now lives in Normandy Park Washington and works at the All-Star sports bar in Des Moines Washington.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And this text also needs citations to justify being in the article:

• Her husband became aware of the situation in February 1997, after discovering letters sent between his wife and her student; her husband shared this knowledge with family members.His brother then reported the relationship to local child protection services.(These sentences have been tagged since Jan 2009)

And these cultural references also need citations, please keep in mind that text should not be copied word from word from other sources and that the IMDB web site is user edited and therefore not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia.

• All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story, a 2000 TV movie starring Penelope Ann Miller in the title role
• Mary Kay Latourneau: Forbidden Desire - a Court TV documentary
• "Mary Kay Letourneau: The E! True Hollywood Story" - an E! THS episode
• "Mary Kay Letourneau: Out of Bounds" - an A&E Biography episode
• Singer/songwriter Jill Sobule wrote a song about Letourneau, "Mary Kay", appearing on her album Pink Pearl.
• On the seventh episode of the second season of 30 Rock Liz Lemon compares her relationship with a 20 year old Jaime to Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau.
• Mary Kay Letourneau was referenced by Lorelai in the twentieth episode of the first season of Gilmore Girls when she and Rory are playing a game they made up, called "One, Two, Three."
• In a season four episode of Without a Trace, Letourneau is referenced by Special Agent Vivian Johnson, who is investigating the disappearance of a school teacher, suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with a student.
• In the Gossip Girl episode, "Carrnal Knowledge", Blair refers to Mary Kay Letourneau as she sends a text message to Gossip Girl on seeing Dan Humphrey and a teacher, starting a rumor that they're having an affair.
• In the Nip/Tuck episode "Ricky Wells," an 18-year-old boy asks for surgery to make him look older. He recently married his second grade teacher, convicted sex offender "Kerri May." She was arrested for statutory rape, released on good behavior, then caught in a car having sex with him again and sent back to prison for the full term. After released, the no-contact ban was lifted and they were married a week later.
• Mary Kay Letourneau is spoofed in a season ten episode of South Park. Ike Broflovski begins a relationship with his kindergarten teacher, Ms. Stephenson. As with the case of Mary Kay Letourneau, the student's brother goes to the authorities.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rearrangement of Sections

I think it makes more logical sense (to me) if the section on the 'Relationship' comes before the 'Trial & Conviction'—this would require some re-writing to make the text flow a little better, but I think it would add to the overall quality of the article. Thoughts? Assembled (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it mesh chronologically? How about if we broke the 'Relationship" section up and merged it with the rest of the article placing each item in Chronological order? Is that doable?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking we might want to keep 'Relationship' as its own section since that seems to be something of particular significance in this bio. I would think that it makes more chronological sense if 'Relationship' came before 'Trial' since the relationship had to begin prior to the trial/conviction. I suppose the problem is that there is also post-relationship info in the 'Relationship' section... What do you think about breaking it up, similar to what you suggested, except having a Relationship section (before Trial) and Second Marriage section (after Trial)? We can play with the names of the sections... What are your thoughts? Assembled (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a step in the right direction of more chronology in the article. Why don't you go ahead?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose those steps. Biographies are not timelines. Interleaving the story of their relationship and the criminal case seems a matter for a TV miniseries, not Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment: "Biographies are not timelines". Of course they are. They are the story of a person's life as it progresses in time. So chronology is a natural part of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on looking at a few biographical articles here, I'll concede that biographies have a strong chronological component, if not a strict timeline format. I don't mind if "early life" comes first, but I think "Relationship" is a somewhat non-neutral section title once it starts discussing her crime. If the section ended there, then a new section began (perhaps entitled "Crime" or "Child rape"), and continued until the time of the trial (i.e. the stuff that happened with Fualauu after the trial would be moved to a later section), that would correct the problem. So yes, let's do it chronologically, but let's be neutral in the process; and that would also allow the reader to read sooner about what made Letourneau notable. Blackworm (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Child rape not statutory rape

Re: this edit and my partial reversion, please see the law of Letourneau's state she was presumably found guilty under,[12] as well as the sources cited for the statement which clearly say "child rape." Blackworm (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are 1,440 sources using the exact phrase "child rape" in articles discussing Letourneau, compared with 2,370 sources using the phrase "statutory rape". I'm restoring the latter. Jakew (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Google is not Wikipedia. Do not restore your disputed change. Blackworm (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted your change. Random sources on the web may be discussing statutory rape cases and may be discussing Letourneau as a particularly reprehensible example, it's clear those focussing on Letourneau rather than statutory rape in general are more likely going to use the phrase "child rape." In light of the official name of the offense in the state it was committed in ("what was she convicted of?"), and in light of the already-referenced sources confirming that the phrase "child rape" is what the offense Letourneau was convicted of is called, the numbers you present (which are only slightly weighted in your favour) providing one source of answers on some other only indirectly related question ("how many web pages talk about use the exact phrases "statutory rape" and Mary Kay Letourneau", and how many talk about child rape use the exact phrase "child rape" instead) are seemingly rendered meaningless. Blackworm (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the phrase "child rape" is used less frequently in this context than "statutory rape". And since "child rape" is a more emotive term, I suggest that we avoid it in favour of "statutory rape", which describes a legal situation. Jakew (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the less emotive stat rape and imo it is actually more reflective of what happened. Although I will say, that there are differences of legality and expression between the UK and USA around these issues.Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting that when discussing her conviction, "what happened" is not what offense she was convicted under, but something else. I don't accept that. We can be neutral about it by describing exactly what child rape means according to the law of the state she was convicted in. Blackworm (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, no, it is not clear that it is used less frequently in the context of discussing Letourneau's conviction. "Child rape" is a more emotive term, but that is not a valid reason to replace it a term that is less precise. Had the victim been 17, and not 12, it still would have been "statutory rape" (actually "Sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree"[13]) but not "child rape," for example. "Child rape" is also clearly a "legal situation" as my original link to the actual law shows. Blackworm (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you editwarring your change into this article, Jakew? Blackworm (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Statutory. (of an offence) a. recognized by statute b. subject to a punishment or penalty prescribed by statute"[14] Hence, statutory rape is an act that is, according to statute, rape. The trouble is that the phrase "child rape" brings to mind an adult forcing themselves on a protesting young child. That's why it is so emotive. But when an older child participates willingly (as may be presumed to be the case here, based on later events — though he can't legally consent, of course), the phrase "child rape" creates an impression that could be misleading. Statutory rape is hence a much more descriptive term. Jakew (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jakew: Take it up with the State of Washington if you think they are non-neutral or if you don't feel the names of their offenses evoke the proper emotions. The sources we cite are accurate for the statement. You have no basis for this change, other than to impose a term that is less accurate when one that is more accurate and readily available. The names of offenses are not obscene, they are not non-neutral, and they are not inappropriate for this article. If you feel that strongly about it, write a sentence later in the article that explains the difference between child rape (Letourneau's crime) and statutory rape in general. Further, what misleading impression could possibly be made when the age of the victim is clearly stated in the same sentence? Is it the emotive response to the word "child" that is misleading? Is the misleading part the suggestion that a 12-year-old is a child? And by the way, Jakew, the word "uncircumcised" "brings to mind" uncleanliness, yet you insist on its use over all other terms. The latter view is reliably sourced; where are you sources for your "emotive" arguments? Here, why don't we write "child rape (a form of statutory rape)" instead, that would make the "not protesting" part clear to the reader if indeed it makes that much difference to them for a 12-year-old, and would leave the statement as precise as it is now.

By he way, anyone accepting Jakew's somewhat WP:OR Google based argument should view an analogous (and also flawed, for the same reason) one: Searches for "Mary Kay Letourneau" statutory return 995 search results[15] while "Mary Kay Letourneau" rape returns 12,000 results[16]. Thus, clearly the statement should simply say Letourneau was convicted of rape, not statutory rape. Oh, and by the way, "Mary Kay Letourneau" child returns 95,000 results...[17] Blackworm (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, to address your "statute" argument, which I believe is invalid: I claim that anything that is rape by statute is rape. Statutory rape is a form of rape, just like child rape according to the sources is a form of statutory rape. Rape means: 2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape[18]Click 3Rape(noun). The state of Washington didn't seem to get it so wrong, so let's not blur it here, please. Blackworm (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The State of Washington isn't bound by NPOV, Blackworm. We are. There's a difference.

I don't think the word "child" is particularly misleading. As I explained, what's misleading is that "rape", without the "statutory" qualifier, connotes a violent act in which a person forces herself on an unwilling and (often) protesting victim. But what we're actually describing is sex with a person who cannot give legal consent. If we used the term "child rape" it would be unclear which meaning was meant (and no, mentioning his age doesn't resolve this ambiguity). Using the term "statutory rape" helps to reduce ambiguity.

I don't think it would be a little confusing to say that child rape is a form of statutory rape. The term "child rape" can refer to a form of statutory rape, but it can also refer to forced sex with an unwilling child (ie., what would be called rape regardless of the victim's age). Jakew (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not an objection to my compromise solution, "child rape (statutory)" which makes clear we are discussing the statutory form of child rape here. So I must ask, if it's not the word "child," precisely what is the problem with it? Blackworm (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As I explained (though I accidentally included the word "don't"): "I think it would be a little confusing to say that child rape is a form of statutory rape", which would be the implication of your suggestion "child rape (a form of statutory rape)", I think. Jakew (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please address the statements made; to do otherwise is incivil behaviour. I specifically ask above what issue you have with my current suggestion, which is not "child rape (a form of statutory rape)" but "child rape (statutory)," the latter not carrying any such confusion. Blackworm (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say "That is not an objection to my compromise solution...", I think it is fair to take that to mean what you had proposed at the time of my post, since the alternative would suggest that you expect me to comment on your later proposal before you had actually made it, which seems a little unreasonable. I therefore assumed that "child rape (statutory)" was intended as shorthand for "child rape (a form of statutory rape)", rather than a new proposal. If you had said "OK, what about...", your intentions would have been clearer. Regarding "child rape (statutory)", I think it's a lot better than "child rape", but it still seems more emotive than necessary. "statutory child rape" might be more acceptable. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Note Re: "you expect me to comment on your later proposal before you had actually made it, which seems a little unreasonable." My post making the later proposal is dated 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC) -- Jakew's post ignoring that proposal and repeating the same objection immediately follows it and is dated 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC). I invite Jakew to strike out the factually incorrect implication. Blackworm (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, your post dated 08:19, 7 August 2010 was in response to my post dated 09:12, 6 August 2010, and it (your post) began "That is not an objection to my compromise solution". By "that", you presumably mean the content of the post to which you were replying. Your words suggested that you expected me to state an objection to your "compromise solution". So since you acknowledge that your later proposal was dated 08:19, 7 August 2010, what compromise proposal existed at that time? Jakew (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not acknowledge that, as it is provably false; my compromise proposal at the time was "child rape (statutory)", in my post of 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC), below. I can understand now that you hadn't read it yet, but please understand that there was nothing "unreasonable" about my presumption that you would take my words literally and verbatim. It was thus provably not a "[...] later proposal before you had actually made it, [...]," and I ask you again to please strike out that remark. In any case, I understand your confusion, but besides this confusion, do you have any remaining arguments? Blackworm (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read my above arguments, and the relevant timestamps, carefully, I think you'll see that I'm correct. Nevertheless, to be frank I'm long past the point of caring whether you see that or not, and I'm inclined to disengage from this extremely pointless discussion. Jakew (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly presented the requested proof, referencing comments with timestamps as asked, that your statements regarding my actions are misleading, and again ask that you strike them out in consequence. Above, I should probably have specified "My post again making the later proposal is dated 08:19, 7 August" instead of "My post making the later proposal is dated [...]." Perhaps that would have been less confusing, and I apologize for that; however my point still stands that I did not expect you to comment on a proposal before having made the proposal, as you state above. Blackworm (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would "statutory child rape" be less emotive than "child rape (statutory)?" In any case, are you suggesting that "statutory child rape" is acceptable? I could abide by that. Blackworm (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My preference remains for "statutory rape", but I'm willing to agree to "statutory child rape" if it is acceptable to the other editors who've commented in this discussion. Jakew (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (Edited 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Note here that Jakew has struck out the above because the other editors disagree with his feeling that it is a reasonable compromise. This is an example of groupthink that is unacceptable as a means to edit Wikipedia articles, in my opinion. What mechanism exists in Wikipedia to stop it? I am at a complete loss. Blackworm (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Goodness, an editor adjusted his position as a result of arguments made by another editor. We can't have that, can we?</sarcasm> Jakew (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the "arguments" made by another editor you are referring to, with diff links. The only post I saw was one below by an editor disagreeing with the compromise, with the statement that we must remove "child rape" because "most of the reliable sources that I have seen do not use the term." Can you confirm that that argument is the basis on which you reject the compromise, and that it is not the mere fact of someone continuing to disagree that you have rescinded your agreement on the inclusion of the compromise phrase (precisely as you said you would do in the struck out statement)? It seems thoroughly disingenuous to claim that the mere fact of anyone opposing this edit will cause you to rescind your support for it, then claim that their actual arguments convinced you to do so; especially when the argument brought has specifically been rejected in prior discussion, with sources and your silence on that specific argument indicates your consent with its rejection. Blackworm (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud — now you want diff links to show why I changed my mind? [expletive] Okay, Here is the diff. (As an aside, "most of the reliable sources that I have seen do not use the term" appears in a post by Keithbob dated 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC). The edit in which I changed my mind was dated 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC), and had the edit summary "Off2riorob has a point". Either of these facts should really have been a clue that I didn't mean Keithbob's post. On another note, I would tend to agree that more sources use the term "statutory rape" than "child rape", as is evidenced by the Google searches I presented at the start of this discussion. Please do not interpret my silence to mean agreement with an argument; often it simply means that I cannot be bothered to continue a long, pointless and irritating debate.) Jakew (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I want diffs because I intend to show you are behaving in a disruptive manner. You have made this easy: you are still forwarding the argument that more sources say "statutory rape" than "child rape" when I have already debunked that argument as misleading, incomplete WP:OR, proven trivially by the fact that you did not include the phrase "rape of a child" as equivalent to "child rape" in the Google searches you ineptly constructed and then misinterpreted, and from which you stated your dubious conclusions as fact. Blackworm (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that including another, different phrase would invalidate the comparison. Consequently I compared the frequency of use of the exact term which you favoured with the frequency of use of the exact term which I favoured. Jakew (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you firmly believe "child rape" and "rape of a child" have too differing a meaning to be considered as interchangeable for the purposes of assessing which terms the sources use to discuss this topic? Can you accept that a newspaper or author in a reliable journal might refer to a crime listed as "rape of a child" as "child rape," without interjecting any bias, opinion, or interpretation into the journal article as a result? Blackworm (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Blackworm, what I'm saying is that a) using the sum of frequencies of "similar" phrases will obviously skew the comparison, thus invalidating the results, and b) given that we're already comparing vaguely similar phrases, it seems too arbitrary to decide what is "similar" enough regard as interchangeable and what is not. Jakew (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your (a) is only true if one accepts your (b), which I flatly reject as an arbitrary decision to ignore a clear source of bias in your results. Blackworm (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the term statutory rape and is the term most often used by the sources in the article. Wiki is based on reliable sources, rather editor conclusions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that four editors have expressed their preference for statutory rape, I think we have a clear consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob, How odd that you mention reliable sources, that is entirely what my argument against this change has been based on from the beginning. Not constructed Google Searches and their somewhat WP:OR interpretations, nor WP:OR conclusions that terms used in reliable sources are "emotive". If there is something wrong with the sources I brought, then please expand; but do not imply that none have been brought, as that seems to be incivil behaviour (failure to address arguments brought based on reliable sources). As for consensus, there certainly seems to be a lot of opposition, but I'm reasonably confident that wider input will demonstrate no consensus for this change. I propose the phrase "child rape (a form of statutory rape)" and if that's opposed, I propose an RfC. Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the term most often used by the sources in the article" When discussing Letourneau and statutory rape in a wider context, perhaps; but both of the cited sources for the statement under dispute say "child rapist" and "child rape" multiple times, and neither of them say "statutory rape." WP:V is still policy to my understanding. Blackworm (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability isn't a problem. We can easily cite [19] or [20] or [21], all of which state that she was found guilty of statutory rape. Jakew (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless the State of Washington convicted her with the charge of "Child Rape", there is no point in this even being discussed. While "Child Rape" may be a more accurate description of her act, it is not what she was convicted of. The same legal hair-splitting occurs when a person is found "not guilty". The law is not claiming they are innocent, merely that the prosecuter failed to prove that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rapier (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, incorrect; please strike out your statement above. As said many times, precisely, the state of Washington convicted her of "second degree rape of a child,"[22] which means the same thing as "child rape" like the sources say. The link for that law is posted at the top of this discussion. Blackworm (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The State of Washington convicted Letourneau on a charge of "child rape". This is what the statute reads, this is what should be here. There is no POV argument, just the facts. Trying to modify this is by nature trying to interject a POV where is does not belong. Thank you Blackworm for pointing this out. Rapier (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, you bring two UK newspapers far from the event and a seemingly unreliable source (puggal.com? What is that?)? Those are weak sources. In any case, the point isn't that you can find sources, the point is that the statement already uses some of the best sources, and there is no valid reason to change anything about it. It doesn't need changing; thus suggesting you have sources that use other wording is a non-issue. Blackworm (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Blackworm, neither newspaper is UK-based. "Daily News" is apparently published in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and St Petersburg Times is published in St Petersburg, Florida. And these were selected for convenience rather than as a result of an exhaustive search. Other sources include Tennessee Medicine and CNN. Jakew (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My point still stands. Blackworm (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your original argument was that "statutory rape" failed WP:V; now that I've addressed that by showing that it is verifiable, your point seems to have mutated to a simple preference what's stated in one set of sources. To be blunt, that's a very weak point in comparison to its original form. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, your original argument for making the change is that the Google search you constructed proves we must use it instead. I dismiss that argument out of hand, for the reasons I provide above, and below. My original and consistent argument is that there is no valid basis for your change. She was convicted, specifically, of "second degree rape of a child,"[23] a boy 12 years old when she was, I believe, 35. "Child rape" is a better summary for that than "statutory rape," and even though I'd accept "child rape (statutory)" it seems for some reason that is not good enough for you; you insist on removing "child," apparently arguing that it "brings to mind" something bad and thus is non-neutral. No, it's non-neutral for you and the editors supporting you with one-line statements of approval to attempt to suggest that the mainstream doesn't consider her crime something bad. You're attempting to do this, I add, completely without sources supporting that view. This fringe view will not dominate this article. Please stop. Blackworm (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for favouring "statutory rape" have been explained at length, Blackworm, regardless of whether you agree or not. Substituting strawman arguments does not help your case. Jakew (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Your repeated misrepresentations require incessant and extensive clarification, that's all. Blackworm (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is scope for a possible compromise here: as an alternative to using the terms "statutory rape" or "child rape", we could describe the offence that led to her imprisonment. For example: "... is an American former schoolteacher who served two prison terms for having sexual intercourse with her 12 year old student, Vili Fualaau." Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Describe the offense? I'd prefer to use the template established elsewhere, of specifying the crime that the person was convicted of. I'm sad that you reject my compromise. I believe that the prior consensus text is more precise, more reflective of sources, and has no overriding non-neutrality. It's not the intercourse that is notable, it's her arrest and conviction. Your version provides no more information, in fact it provides less, and is an overreaching bow to the non-neutral, fringe view that the offense was trivial or that the conviction was improper; the fact that the intercourse was with a child and is called "child rape" in Letourneau's jurisdiction both by the news sources and the law is relevant, as reflected by sources. I can't support your attempt at compromise. I'll propose another version of my suggestion, "child rape (statutory)," if you prefer it for brevity's sake.

I want to emphasize that my suggestion is already quite a compromise. It isn't clear that an adult having sex with a 12 year old (we're talking ages people at NAMBLA are interested in, here[24]) is merely considered "statutory rape" by the mainstream. But then it seems the arguments used in this discussion are related to the discussion where some editors including yourself agreed with the removal of "boy" as non-neutral when describing this person at that time, so perhaps we should consider the disputes linked. Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you reject my proposed compromise. Jakew (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since we have rejected each others' suggestions, I suggest you should attempt to gain wider input for your proposed change to the article in the form of an RfC. Or perhaps a post to the NPOV noticeboard would be more appropriate at this time? Blackworm (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Keithbob's assessment that there is a rough consensus for "statutory rape"; if you wish to take it to RfC or noticeboards that's entirely up to you. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, lest anyone be confused which is the existing consensus text and which is the new text changed by those who claim the old text must be removed because it's non-neutral, I will be again reverting this change. However, I will take it to the NPOV noticeboard as you appear to disagree that the onus is on you to present your case that the existing consensus text is non-neutral. Perhaps had this discussion actively involved editors discussing the suggestions, rather than brief confirmation of support for your position from those who have supported you in the past, I would be less committed to seeing this dispute resolved with wider input. Blackworm (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. Jakew (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I made this edit in light of your suggestion above. Blackworm (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the edit at all, there is no such thing as stat child rape, the stat bit infers child so adding child is pointy. Off2riorob (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the sources brought? We're not "adding" child, the edit you are desiring removes the phrase "child rape," that has been there for some time, as specified by the sources and by the laws of Letourneau's state, and replaces that sourced offense with the weaker and less precise "statutory rape" which could just as well have meant a 17-year-old. You have yet to show a valid basis for that change. Blackworm (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, it's not very accurate to claim, as you did, that "child rape" is "as specified by the sources" — that term is used by some sources, but others, as I've shown above, use the term "statutory rape". Jakew (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a sourced statement? How strange of you to suggest such a thing. Please strike out your statement that my claim that the sources say child rape isn't accurate. It was perfectly accurate, your addition notwithstanding. Yes, some other sources say so. So what? Why must we use those sources and mask out completely the existing sources, that is the ones that match the text of the actual offense she was convicted under? Because the number of sources discussing Letourneau in the context of statutory rape is slightly higher than the number of sources discussing Letourneau in the context of child rape? On Google Scholar there are 4-5 times as many mentions of "statutory rape" as there are of "child rape," it's a much more discussed subject so it's not at all surprising that Letourneau's name appears in more articles referencing "statutory rape" than "child rape." Also, your incomplete, misleading WP:OR argument using Google searches omitted the results from searching for the actual full name of the offense, namely "rape of a child" "mary kay letourneau". Add those to your totals in the appropriate column and see where your WP:OR stands afterwards. These arguments have no merit, you have no basis for this change; and considering the other disputed edit you defend also rests on highly dubious assumptions (that "boy" to describe a 12-year-old male is to be removed as "non-neutral"), I feel quite comfortable in opposing it. Blackworm (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Blackworm, I won't strike out my statement, because it is quite correct. It is not true to say that "the" sources say "child rape". It is true to say that some sources say "child rape". Clearly, it is relatively trivial to find sources to support either term, so verifiability is not an issue. Jakew (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources say "child rape," as I stated. They also say "statutory rape," as you insist. But stop this misleading implication that something I said was factually incorrect, or inaccurate, merely because you believe it incomplete to make your point. Blackworm (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I state for the record that Jakew making his agreement with a suggested consensus contingent on the acceptance of other editors "on his side" is decidedly incivil, as it amounts to meat puppetry and "testing the waters" while those supporting him continue to attack with one line expressions of opposition. It is like an editor saying, "would you accept "[article text]?" Then we the answer is no, the editor can accuse the other of being stubborn, but when the answer is yes, they can say "oh, I didn't say I was suggesting that, I just wanted to see if you'd accept it." It's totally dishonest and incivil. Blackworm (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Post that was here moved as more appropriate to User Talk.[25]

You might want to review WP:AGF, Blackworm. Rarely have I seen a more urgent need. Jakew (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I claim your actions, notably your following me here to an article I edit but you had never edited, from an unrelated set of articles where we have had multiple disputes over years, with your first edit reverting a trivial, uncontroversial edit of mine with a new, WP:OR-based objection (Google searches) that I had to double-check think about for a moment Blackworm (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC) and show to be worthless, then repeated, continued argument on other bases and flip-flopping on your acceptance of suggested edits, are specific evidence of disruption, malice, and (harassment) on your part; your blatant grinning sarcasm above and solemn claims here notwithstanding. Blackworm (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As discussed, I have posted regarding this issue on the NPOV noticeboard diff. Blackworm (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Blackworm. Given that the statute in question is "Second degree rape of a child," referring to that as "statutory rape" amounts to softening the name; kind of like describing 'rape' as 'unlawful touching'. On the other hand, rephrasing that as "child rape" seems too informal to me. I would prefer to strictly use the language from the statute, "Rape of a child in the second degree", rather than "child rape."

On another note, Blackworm, you really do need to turn down the dial on the paranoia meter here. Even though I agree with you on the underlying issue, you're being extremely rude to Jakew in a way that is completely unwarranted. Disagreements over content do not warrant personal attacks and accusations. Please stop. Nandesuka (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still opposed to the term "child rape" in the lead as most of the reliable sources that I have seen do not use the term. I don't mind it being stated in the body of the article that MKL was convicted of child rape by the court. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So far I see that Jakew, Keithbob, Off2riorob and Baseball Bugs are opposed to the term child rape in the lead. This is and has been a consensus and I'm not sure why a single editor is continuing to beat the bushes and create a battleground, even though we have had consensus as I noted on August 4th. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nandesuka is also apparently opposed to the term "child rape," apparently anywhere in the article, despite claiming to concur with me. Very confusing situation, but one I am optimistic will be resolved. "Child rape" is apparently well-sourced, and the only seeming objections brought are on grounds that it is too informal (c.f. "statutory rape," "sexual intercourse") or too emotive (c.f. "rape of a child", preferred in the lead by Nandesuka). However that fails to address that the terms do not appear to mean the same thing, and we should present all notable views WP:NPOV. What policy is claimed as a basis for your common wish to remove the sourced "child rape" from this article? Blackworm (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I'm sorry, you appear to have misunderstood my position. You do not apparently concur with me, since you seem to, like some others here, also find fault with the existing phrase "child rape," as described verbatim in the reliable sources cited, which seems reasonable and expected considering the literal language from the statute ("rape of a child"). We are not "rephrasing" it as you claim, we are repeating what the sources say verbatim, i.e., "child rapist" and "child rape," using the text of the law and the predominance of such sources in defending the material against the claim brought here that it is non-neutral for us to use those terms. My argument is that the sources say "child rape," and that it's entirely reasonable for them to considering she was convicted of "rape of a child," and thus it's inappropriate to remove "child rape" from this article on the basis of WP:NPOV. (But I will, like Jakew, accept "statutory child rape" or "child rape (statutory)" since sources also describe the rape as statutory, and some feel that must be emphasized.) Your argument against "child rape" seems unclear to me, and you too fail to cite any sources validating your argument against "child rape." Is it that you feel "child rape" and "rape of a child" refer to two different things and one is more neutral than the other?

I am therefore concerned about your statement "I concur with Blackworm" in case anyone get confused about what I was arguing and on what basis. Please clarify your reasoning, citing relevant policy, for agreeing with Jakew, Baseball Bugs, Keithbob, and Off2riorob for the removal of the phrase "child rape." Do you agree that that phrase is neutral and sourced? If you agree it is neutral and sourced, we may then agree that the more formal form "rape of a child" or even "rape of a child in the second degree" or even "rape of a child in the second degree in Washington State (U.S.)" is more appropriate in this instance (I would agree), but the form "statutory child rape" is perfectly appropriate and possibly preferred over the longer forms when referring again later to the crime. Is that the position of mine with which you concur? If so, I apologize for requiring a clarification.

I think the verbatim language from the law you suggest is much better than "statutory rape," and I could abide by it, but I don't understand how it is any different the verbatim language used in many (most?) other sources, "child rape"; and I'm concerned about the implications of you and I accepting the phrase "rape of a child" here for completely different reasons. For example, an editor might misconstrue that as a consensus against the well-sourced and neutral phrase "child rape" in this context and in this article, which in my view would be a grave error.

Finally Nandesuka: I feel I should emphasize that I believe Jakew's behaviour here warrants your scrutiny more than mine, and that I consider your personal attack ("turn down the dial on the paranoia meter") to also be incivil, and possibly even harassment considering our prior history of heated disputes where you have similarly supported Jakew. (Our several less-than-friendly interactions have always involved Jakew, to my knowledge.)

Keithbob, in light of Rapier, Nandesuka, and Jakew's comments in this discussion, would you mind again summarizing your argument against the suggested compromise, "statutory child rape," listing the editors you believe endorse that argument? I do not believe any standing argument has been made supporting your opposition. Could you also please urgently clarify precisely who you are referring to with the phrase "a single editor?" Blackworm (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a pause in the discussion. Perhaps it's because not many suggestions are being made. So I will attempt to reverse the trend and suggest, statutory rape of a child. That seems to blend the two terms nicely with appropriate weight to their preponderance in the sources, and it also has a formality that suggests it is highly influenced by the actual legal language used. We can cite the text of the law if editors feel it appropriate, and perhaps also a couple of sources presenting it as being statutory (as, if I'm not mistaken, for teens, and in some cases late teens). Later in the article, we could use language more descriptive of the acts rather than the crime, such as Jakew suggests, which also highlights the apparent view of some editors that this article is also about Fualauu, and that a different tone is appropriate considering he is married to Letourneau. Thoughts? Blackworm (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason it has gone quiet is that it is unworthy of fixated endless circular discussion, people have commented and moved on, what we have is totally fine. Off2riorob (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a mild personal attack ("unworthy of fixated endless circular discussion") a dubious assertion ("people have commented and moved on") and a non sequitur and a failure to answer good faith questions ("what we have is totally fine"). Do you have anything to add, or should I just go ahead and make the edit I suggest above? I assure you, it will be neutral and sourced, as evidenced from this discussion. Blackworm (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:Jakew has again reverted without basis[26] to his apparently still preferred version, without discussion, without responding to arguments, and thus continuing the pattern of incivility and harassment he has displayed throughout this discussion. Blackworm (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the repeated attempts to portray good faith users in a bad light, you are the one stuffing in your POV when there are clear objections to it here on the talkpage, please stop it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there is still no standing argument in support of this new edit you support, and wider input has shown that the change does not have consensus. If you continue to believe that the new edit must be made, or that the words "child rape" or "rape of a child" must be removed on sight from this article, I suggest you follow dispute resolution. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:Jakew has yet again reverted[27] without discussion or any standing argument, against consensus. Blackworm (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand Jake's obsession with this, but as per the actual charges that Letourneau was convicted of according to the sources I have restored "second degree rape of a child". If this is reverted again, I suggest escalating this to ANI. Rapier (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't pretend that other editors have "obsessions", Rapier.

In this section 4 editors — myself, Off2riorob, Baseball Bugs, and Keithbob — have all expressed a preference for using the phrase "statutory rape" in the lead. Two editors — Blackworm and Rapier — have favoured "child rape". Including Nandesuka, those editors also apparently accept "second degree rape of a child". I cannot see any justification for repeatedly edit-warring in "second degree rape of a child", and it seems to me that Blackworm and Rapier lack the "consensus" which Blackworm claims above and which both mysteriously refer to in their edit summaries. Jakew (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a vote, Jakew. Discuss content, not editors. The objection that "child rape" may be misinterpreted to mean forcible rape has been addressed by having the article state that the rape was statutory. Support your objection to the proposed suggestion based in policy and guideline. It violates Wikipedia policy to do otherwise (WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR). You apparently rest on Off2riorob's argument that "there is no such thing as stat child rape" (are you sure, Jakew?), and that "stat bit infers child so adding child is pointy," an argument easily countered by the sources brought, which show that such are the terms used in many reliable sources, and also specifically that statutory rape of an older adolescent is not referred to in the law as "rape of a child"[[28]] and would thus presumably not be referred to as "child rape" in the sources. You say I "have favoured 'child rape,'" but that's seemingly beside the point; in my latest edit you'll notice both points of view used in sources being mentioned (statutory "second degree rape of a child"). This is a direct result of your valid argument that some may misinterpret "child rape" as forcible rape. All that remains is to source the "statutory" part, which as you said should not be difficult. Do you have anything to add? Blackworm (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In order to assess consensus (an issue which you raised above) it's necessary to at least mention editors, so I think your demand that I avoid doing so is a little unreasonable.

The issues regarding "child rape" have been discussed at length above, and it seems unnecessary to go over those again. It seems slightly more productive to discuss the phrase that you're now trying to include, 'statutory "second degree rape of a child"'. I agree that this is better than previous proposals, but several troubling issues remain.

First, the source cited appears to be an opinion piece in a (presumably peer-reviewed) journal. It's a reasonably high-quality source, but it lacks absolute authority. It seems to me that it is inappropriate (in an NPOV sense) to act as though the conviction claimed in that source is correct and those named in others are incorrect. (I'm not arguing that it's incorrect, but I think we need something stronger than WP:SYNTH arguments based on a source that doesn't mention Letourneau.) In the absence of an authoritative source, it seems to me that the exact offence could be any of "second degree rape of a child", "statutory rape", or "child rape", any of which are equally verifiable, so the argument "let's say what she was actually charged with" holds no water.

Overlooking the first point, a couple of other issues:

Second, I think it is inappropriate to include too much detail in the lead. Readers cannot be expected to be familiar with Washington law. I see no problem with including the detailed offence that she was convicted for in the body, but the lead needs to be accessible. "Statutory rape" is simple to understand. "Having sex with her 12-year old student" is even simpler still.

Third, as I understand the law (and I'm no lawyer), "second degree rape of a child" is inherently statutory, so the redundancy raised by Off2riorob is still a problem. Jakew (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually "trying to include" the word statutory, argued by you to be necessary. The article said "child rape" before your disputed edit, and says rape of a child or child rape in two other places (the latter phrasing you presumably also wish to remove). There is no SYNTH argument; "child rape" is amply supported by sources including the two sources that were cited for the statement; the official text of the law merely confirms the accuracy of the statement (if one accepts that "child rape" and "rape of a child" are equivalent; I understand that you do not, but I must firmly disagree). Your argument above sidesteps the actual edit made, which includes all views reasonably (WP:NPOV), while your supported edit favours one view (that sex with a child of 12 under one's care is merely "statutory," like sex with a 17 year old), and excludes the sourced view that it was an offense worthy to be called something more precise and lacking the exculpatory overtones of "statutory rape." Violating WP:NPOV in the name of supposed accessibility is not allowed. You apparently continue to oppose all use of the phrase "child rape," in opposition to sources. That cannot be allowed, as it violates the same Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV). Blackworm (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As for your argument that one of the statement's sources "lacks absolute authority," it seems you are grasping at straws, as obviously that standard is unachievable (and IMO, undesirable). What policy does that objection fall under? Also, I interpret your further comments as you attacking the phrase "rape of a child" on WP:V grounds, apparently not being satisfied with the existing sources saying specifically that in Letourneau's case -- for example, this source, which says, "At the centencing[sic], the court clerk announced, 'The crime of rape of a child in the 2nd degree is classified as the most serious offense.' As she pleaded guilty to child rape, LeTourneau appeared remorseful.". Do you perhaps require a copy of the court documents specifically convicting Letourneau of rape of a child in the second degree, in order to satisfy your apparently WP:V-based objections for the statement in this instance? And by the way, and this is for Nandesuka as well: as sources indicate (if common sense did not already suggest), child rape and rape of a child are the same thing. Blackworm (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've now addressed my actual argument. Since you acknowledge that the source asserting that Letourneau was charged with "second degree rape of a child" lacks absolute authority, what justification is there for making such an assertion in the lead but not asserting that she was charged with "statutory rape" (or indeed "child rape")? I can't see how one can make a consistent argument for it from your perspective. Since your argument is that "statutory rape" is not the same thing as "second degree rape of a child" (your actual argument effectively being that "statutory rape" is unsuitable as a summary), quoting the latter in the lead surely violates WP:NPOV by asserting as fact a statement about which there is a dispute? From my perspective, in this context, "statutory rape" and "second degree rape of a child" describe the same thing, but the former is a) less emotive (and hence more neutral and appropriate for a WP:BLP), and b) less confusing (since, as noted, readers cannot be espected to be familiar with Washington law). Jakew (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first question: the edit under consideration says "statutory second degree rape of a child" and thus does in fact assert that she was convicted of statutory rape. Statutory rape and rape of a child are indeed not the same thing, but they are not mutually exclusive, which they would have to be for your argument ("quoting the latter in the lead surely violates WP:NPOV") to hold water. As you seem to agree, in common understanding the rape of a child may be "statutory" in the sense of being non-forcible, or forcible; and "statutory rape" may apply to both children and adolescents. In this context, both the sourced views that it was statutory rape and child rape are relevant for the complete picture to be presented to the reader; and as it happens, sources are split as to which aspect to emphasize, making the solution seem evident. Thus, the edit directly addresses your (b), and is not confusing at all especially considering the age of the victim is clearly stated. As for your (a), I've already dismissed your "emotive" arguments as baseless, and indeed actually running counter to WP:NPOV, and you present no new evidence supporting that opinion with your comment above. Blackworm (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have indeed dismissed my argument as "baseless", though oddly enough that hasn't convinced me... Jakew (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The William Shatner interview show AFTERMATH was on TV last night, the guests being the now famous married couple. Interestingly, Vili stated that he had originally come on strong to Mary Kay, and that the affair would not have happened otherwise, so that she became his "victim". Trouble comes when we confer meaning to lives by what is written into the law. Here is a perfect example where interpretations of human behavior should not be confined to the law, if we ever hope to achieve understanding, a major goal of WP. Did the law let them down? Should the judge have been asked whether she brought her own prejudices to bear? The law should have simply removed her from the scene until the kid came of age, a much lesser time than 7 years. This article should avoid legal references, unless accompanied by the words "according to the law". It has been said with some truth that "The law is an ass." JohnClarknew (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I dismiss this WP:OR and non-WP:RS based argument as just more WP:IAR. Why would this article be treated any differently from other articles? "Hey, she was asking for it! The little 12 year old girl practically begged that guy to f**k her." Yeah, right. Can you possibly imagine that argument being brought in a content dispute anywhere else in Wikipedia? Get your WP:FRINGE activism and ignorance of the facts[misinterpreted, see below -BW] out of Wikipedia. (Start by reading the article and noticing that Letourneau was only sent to prison for the full term after having foiled precisely such an attempt to "remove her from the scene.") Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a reflection of discrimination that is widely held in society and is reinforced by partisan mass media that tells people what they want to hear, ignores facts they don't want people to hear (like the one you apparently missed), and makes ignorant people feel better about their own prejudices. Blackworm (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't misquote me or the facts. From the article: Letourneau pled guilty and was convicted of two counts of second degree child rape. Her sentence was six months in the county jail and three years of treatment.[23] She was not required to register as a sex offender.[24] As part of the plea agreement she was to avoid contact with Fualaau for the rest of her life .[25]. She was NOT removed to jail until the boy became of age. She got 6 months, and a promise to stay away from him the rest of her life. 5 years initially would have done it, and no punitive extra time, ever. When he became of age, they could then exercise their right to belong to each other forever, which is what (hopefully) will happen. Happy ending. The law IS an ass! However, you're right, WP does not want speculation in articles, but on a discussion page, a little more freedom... JohnClarknew (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't interpret you saying "removed her from the scene" as meaning jail time. She served six months in jail immediately, and was told by the court to stay away or go to prison (she apparently chose sex with the boy, and prison). Mea culpa. I suppose to child rapists, the law is an ass indeed! But this is getting off-topic. Blackworm (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on this source (Crimes and Trials of the Century: From the Black Sox scandal to the Attica ... By Steven M. Chermak, Frankie Y. Bailey) I suggest this version: "convicted in 1997 of rape of a child (commonly called "statutory rape")." I think this is slightly better than the current "convicted in 1997 of the statutory "second degree rape of a child"" although that is also acceptable. I think that "rape of a child" (or, not quite as precise, "child rape") needs to be included because we're supposed to be precise and accurate and use the most reliable sources; that's the name of the crime she was actually convicted of. However, saying only "child rape" or "rape of a child" would be misleading because it seems to mean violence or force, so the bit about statutory needs to be added. I don't like having statutory added as an adjective to the name of the crime: it seems to unduly soften the crime, and putting the name of the crime in quotation marks further unduly softens it. One way or another, though, I think for NPOV and clarity both "child" and "statutory" need to be in there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

• Sandbox For Sources 2
• Obselete Link {{subst:unsignedKeithbob|20:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)}}

BLP

(repost from NPOV Noticeboard.)

I think you might be better off taking this to the BLP Noticeboard. The editors there should have more experience dealing with the sticky situations that come up when dealing with these kinds of articles. Granted that page has less traffic but that might be a good thing considering the nature of BLPs and the fact that cool heads are often more important than numbers in those disputes. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. To the extent this is disputed, this is a neutrality issue, and comments on the neutrality are those sought. We are all aware of the WP:BLP policy, and nowhere is that policy cited in support of arguments on either side, to my memory. If anything, it supports the need to "get the article right,"(WP:BLP) which I believe is done by using the exact terminology used by the courts, which the article currently reflects. It additionally uses a term used by some other sources who think a 35-year old having intercourse with a 12 year old can be "statutory." I have a problem with that logically, since it doesn't follow from what we know about statutory rape, but hey, I don't object to its presence in the article because that is what some editors prefer, and that is what some sources say. If someone has a WP:BLP with us labeling this rape merely "statutory," I could understand that, since that is an opinion, not a fact like her being convicted of rape of a child in the second degree. Blackworm (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Even though technically you're right, to insist on that term in light of what's happened since makes us look rather silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems illogical. We are reporting on what happened in 1997. Are you suggesting we change our reporting on what's happened in light of what has happened since? That is the definition of revisionism and is not WP:NPOV. Please make your case in terms of policy. Blackworm (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just think this continual insistance on using the term "rape" amounts to "trying to prove a point" and makes wikipedia look stupid. Ironically, it is Mary Kay and that kid who proved the point, making a mockery of that law in their continual defiance of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the dispute has been between "child rape" and "statutory rape," your first sentence seems absurdly unfounded. (personal attack redacted)Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, you have no argument backed by policy, and you have no sources backing up these fringe views. Blackworm (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you were writing this article a week after her conviction, I would agree (except for the highly offensive statement putting me and NAMBLA in the same sentence, which I would ask you to retract as a personal attack). But we're not writing this a week after her conviction, we're writing it some years down the road, with knowledge of how that all worked out. Unless you still consider the now-adult kid a "victim", sticking with the letter of the conviction and calling her a "rapist" makes Wikipedia look stupid and out of touch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Every source calls her a rapist. Bring ANY source saying she is not a rapist. ANYTHING. Blackworm (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that says it's OK to make Wikipedia look stupid. AND, retract your insinuation about me and that organized group of perverts called NAMBLA, or I'll report you for making a vile personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(personal attack redacted)Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for this point of view you are forwarding, and shall not reflect it, because (a) it flies in the face of cited sources, and (b) you cannot provide ANY sources espousing this point of view. You are the one being incivil here by continuing to argue without sources after a demand for sources has been made. I invite any administrative option you choose, since the discussions here make clear the decision on the content. If you wish to engage in a discussion of how the laws are wrong, or stupid, or whatever, you can try my talk page. Blackworm (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(personal attack redacted)Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I will remove "NAMBLA" from my sentence above. Blackworm (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to make things clear, I'm a straight male adult who is only interested in adult females. I am not trying to push a point of view about the law, nor about those two as such. Their personal story is rather bizarre, if you ask me. I'm only trying to avoid making Wikipedia look like it's oblivious to subsequent events. Or is it your view that the now-adult kid continues to be a victim after all this time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether he "continues to be a victim" is irrelevant to the edit. He was a victim of the crime at the time of the crime, which is what the edit we are discussing is about. I'll also note it doesn't currently say "victim" there despite the fact that it should -- but that is a different dispute (see discussion on this Talk page). I made clear in my discussion post here that I am sensitive to what you are discussing. Blackworm (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's refocus this discussion. The issue is not the advisability of statutory rape laws, editors purported sexual orientations, or whether the person legally designated as the victim of Letourneau's crime is or is not to be considered a victim by some unarticulated moral standard. Rather, per WP:VER and WP:BLP, we are relating the facts concerning the Letourneau case, as WP:RS provide them to us, and in a manner that's clear and comprehensible to the average reader having no special legal expertise. To convey the crime of which Letourneau was convicted, the term "statutory rape" is accurate, and sufficient for the purpose. To add language such as "rape of a child" as an out-of-context quotation can only suggest, to the reader unfamiliar with Washington state law, that Letourneau was convicted of forcible rape. We are not bound to use the exact words of sources; the art of writing Wikipedia articles is to restate the facts provided by references in our own words, in a manner faithful to the original meaning. Misleading quotations injurious to the reputations of articles subjects violate WP:BLP, notwithstanding that the language of sources is repeated verbatim. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE to weaken the terms used in reliable sources when discussing a topic. If someone was convicted of murder, you say, "so-and-so was convicted of murder." You don't say "so-and-so caused the accelerated passing on of so-and-so" -- that is, unless one has a comment about the advisability of certain laws or the victimhood of certain individuals in certain instances. You cannot remove the phrase "child rape" or "rape of a child" from this article on the basis you posit. If you want, and as I suggest elsewhere,[29] you can bring sources, and add "non-forcible" to the statement to make that point clear, if you feel it isn't already. But I repeat the claim that if one states the (presumably worst) crime as statutory rape, in common usage, this generally implies the consent (if not legal consent) of the victim, per the sources in statutory rape. But I'm willing to accept adding "non-forcible" if you bring the sources stating it was non-forcible at first time of sexual activity. Blackworm (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found any suggestions in sources that Fualaau refused consent. It seems reasonable to assume, based on subsequent events, that he was entirely willing. Jakew (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So there should be sources stating such. Bring them, since Peter believes (and you now seem to agree) that "statutory" alone does not imply that. Blackworm (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Peter, the phrase "statutory rape" is entirely sufficient in the lead. I would suggest, however, that it would be reasonable to go into more detail in the body of the article. Jakew (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your one-line agreement without addressing opposing points ("child rape" is sourced many times over, for example) continues your constant incivility in this discussion. Blackworm (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument has been repeatedly made and addressed at length in the discussion above. As your claim does not gain strength through the sheer force of repetition, it is unreasonable to expect editors to continue to refute the same assertion. To summarize the consensus here, many editors believe that the use of the term "statutory rape" to describe the crime of which Letourneau was convicted is accurate, comprehensible to the average reader, and consistent with WP:VER and WP:BLP. Moreover, quite a few editors oppose the use of the phrase "rape of a child" in the lead paragraph, regarding the out-of-context quotation as misleading to the typical reader, and contrary to WP:VER and WP:BLP. You appear to be alone in your disagreement with this consensus. Therefore, I am removing the WP:BLP violation. Nonetheless, I, and I believe other editors as well, are willing to discuss the issue further, but only on the condition that your comments are responsive to the points that we have already made. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You may not change it, as it is disputed, and it is the standing consensus and has been without incident for months, and often through the article, to refer to the crime Letourneau was convicted of both as "statutory rape" and "child rape," per the reliable sources cited in this article. This has been discussed at length above, and several editors have shown their agreement, especially with "rape of a child," including the one admin who came from the discussion at NPOVN. The edits made since this dispute started have clearly addressed all valid concerns (until someone suggested that saying "statutory rape" doesn't imply non-force). Please, if you haven't already, carefully read the discussions in the section above without prejudice.

My arguments have been entirely responsive, addressing every point made in every case. YOU are engaging in repetition, as was Baseball Bugs when he went full circle suggesting that we are making Wikipedia "look silly." The latest argument is that one might incorrectly infer forcible rape. I addressed this argument, suggesting that (a) there is NO evidence that in common parlance, referring to a rape as "statutory rape" means anything other than non-forcible rape of a minor, and (b) I'd gladly additionally accept "non-forcible," dispelling all doubt, if the claim that the first intercourse was non-forcible can be sourced. You have not addressed these suggestions. You are being incivil through your repetition of arguments already addressed, and your failure to respond to the arguments of opposing editors. Blackworm (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "there is NO evidence that in common parlance, referring to a rape as 'statutory rape' means anything other than non-forcible rape of a minor". However, your comment implicitly misrepresents the actual language you seek to include in the article, namely, "statutory 'rape of a child'", with the term "statutory" linguistically disjoint from "rape", which is most immediately construed in conjunction with the other words in the quotation. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, do you wish to address my suggestion (b)? Or must I only make one suggestion at a time? Regarding your objection on the structure of the sentence, would you accept convicted in 1997 of "second degree rape of a child"[sources] (or "statutory rape"[sources]).  ? That seems to address your concern. Blackworm (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Convicted in 1997 of 'second degree rape of a child'[sources]" is a misleading quotation, as I've previously explained, since most people associate the term "rape" (when not immediately preceded by, and linguistically joined to, "statutory" or a similar adjective) with a forcible sexual act. "'statutory rape'[sources]" is fine -- it's actually the text that I and other editors have supported, with the addition of quotation marks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My suggested edit is all of the italicized text, from "...convicted in" all the way to "statutory rape[1,2,3])." Both statements are sourced, and it seems the best we can do, unless you wish to replace "statutory" with "non-forcible," in which case I must insist you find sources stating such. Blackworm (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that you're proposing the misleading quotation "second degree rape of a child", I object, for the reasons previously explained by myself and other editors. "Statutory rape", on the other hand, is accurate, not misleading, and supported by reliable sources, as has likewise been previously explained. As this discussion has become increasing circular and repetitious, my patience with it is quickly evaporating. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I've specifically addressed the part about it being "misleading" by the inclusion of "statutory rape," you have no standing argument; and your "reasons previously explained" are merely the reasons I have addressed, and you refuse to acknowledge. Sorry, if you wish to dispute this further, I suggest we follow formal mediation, or whatever resolution you choose; but you cannot continue to avoid others' arguments and suggestions addressing your concerns. Blackworm (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't claimed that "statutory rape" is "misleading" -- it's the term I favor for characterizing Letourneau's crime, consistent with WP:BLP. Simply reversing the substance of my comments, then arguing against the inverted meaning, isn't particularly helpful. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you claimed "statutory rape" is misleading, I said you claim "second degree rape of a child" misleads one into thinking it was a forcible rape, [late edits] first when the word "statutory" appears in the statement. And later after my suggestion addressing your (dubious) objection, you assert the same reasoning ("rape" being linguistically disjoint from "statutory")(00:44, 8 September) despite my suggestion clearly fixing that issue since it read, quote, "statutory rape." That seems absurd. However, I *agree* with making clear it was non-forcible, if you really believe that is not already implied by "statutory," if ONE source is found making that clear and which you bring. You have yet to address this suggestion at least 5 comments later. I cannot accept your current edit which uses the phrase "statutory rape" not shown to be in the source cited for the statement. Blackworm (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your favoured term is sourced, and I favour its inclusion for the reason you stated. The term you do not favour must also appear, as a reflection of the law in Letourneau's state, and the terminology used in many reliable sources. No valid argument for its removal has been made. If you disagree, take it to WP:BLP as was suggested at the discussion I started on WP:NPOVN, or other WP:DR. Since, in your latest comment, you do not address the changes made in the edit under dispute, i.e., your latest removal of "second degree rape of a child"[[30], I conclude that you accept that both the terms appear. Note that this now makes at least three times you have avoided direct discussion and repeated arguments already addressed. I may not further address repetitions of your arguments until you put forward a policy-based argument for the removal of the terms you seek to remove, and comment on all proposed suggestions. Blackworm (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what sort of comment do you want on your suggestion that the WP:BLP violation associated with the use of the term "second degree rape of a child" can only be avoided if I can find a source to support the phrasing "non-forcible"? The BLP policy isn't a game whose rules you can write... Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it "can only be avoided," I said it is avoided. And it is. If you disagree, tell me why. And please, for the umpteenth time, bring sources backing your claims. Blackworm (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To demand that I provide sources for the linguistic claims that I and other editors who support the BLP policy have made, while simultaneously arguing for the inclusion of language in the article, "non-forcible" for which you cannot provide a source -- at least not one meeting your own ad-hoc misinterpretation of WP:VER which requires the source to use the exact words included in the article -- is quite disruptive. Then again, disruption seems characteristic of most of your recent editing: for instance, you argue that you are justified in making severe personal attacks against editors because of a comment that an administrator made over a year ago. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blackworm&oldid=383545570#Warning_on_WP:NPA make for some very interesting reading... Peter Karlsen (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence implies I don't support the BLP policy, which is personal attack. Please strike it out and this conversation may continue on the content. In the meantime, you have again not addressed my good faith suggestions other than to dismiss them without rationale. Blackworm (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple descriptions of users editorial practices are not personal attacks. To claim that I have "not addressed" your "good faith suggestions other than to dismiss them without rationale" is puzzling, since your proposed wording has already been discussed thoroughly and repeatedly earlier in this thread. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that is the case, go seek WP:DR and see if a wider consensus agrees. For now your edit does not have consensus. Blackworm (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Reference for Discussion

How the Subject is Characterized by the Sources Currently Cited in the Article

• PEOPLE MAGAZINE
  • "Teacher Mary Kay Letourneau Had Sex with Vili Fualaau, 12—and Bore Him Two Children." [31]
• LA TIMES
  • “Ex-Schoolteacher Jailed for Having Sex With an Adolescent”[32]
  • “Twenty-five years later, Mary Kay Schmitz Letourneau, married with four young children, went to a Washington state prison for the rape of a 13-year-old boy”[33]
• BOOKS
  • “Mary Kay Letourneau serves her seven and a half year sentence for child rape in a prison…”[34]
  • "Mary Kay Letourneau, a thirty five year old Seattle schoolteacher who was impregnated by her thirteen year old sixth grade student” [35]
• CBS NEWS
  • She's the former schoolteacher who had an affair with a student, Vili Fualaau, a relationship that began when the boy was just 12 years old.It resulted in two pregnancies, and for LeTourneau, a seven-year jail sentence for child rape. The big question: what happens next?”[36]
• NY ISSUES
  • “Mary Kay was a Washington teacher who began an affair with a 12 year student in the 1990s.”[37]
• FOX NEWS
  • “A teacher who became notorious in the 1990s for having an affair with a sixth-grader”[38]
  • “Letourneau, now 47, served 7 ½ years in prison after she was convicted of raping Vili Fualaau, now 26”[39]
• SEATTLE PI
  • “Convicted child rapist” [40]
  • “Letourneau, now 43, is a convicted sex offender.” “[41]
  • “She was sent to prison in Washington state for having sex with a 13-year-old student, later conceiving two children by him.”[42]
  • “Mary K. Letourneau registered as a Level 2 sex offender with the King County Sheriff's Office yesterday, hours after her child-rape victim, Vili Fualaau, petitioned a judge to let the pair reunite.”[43]
  • “A judge agreed yesterday to lift a court order forbidding former teacher Mary K. Letourneau from seeing Vili Fualaau, the former student she was convicted of raping.”[44]
  • “The former Highline School District teacher, now 47, spent more than seven years in prison for raping her former student, Vili Fualaau”[45]
• HEINONLINE
  • “A thirty-five year old sixth grade teacher had sexual intercourse with a thirteen year old male student who attended the same school.” MKL pled guilty to two counts of second degree rape of a child…”[46]

← While you're all busily debating whether it should be "had sex", "rape", "statutory rape" or some other euphemism, you might also look into what age Fualaau was when the sex began, when the first child was conceived, when the child was born - because this article has several different ages, as apparently do the sources. Accuracy would be nice here. Tvoz/talk 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)