Jump to content

Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Major overhaul needed

I came here as it was listed on a BLP-checking experiment, and find many problems. I hope no one will take offense, but I have to call this one as I see it. This article is repetitive, contradictory, and not well-organized. For example, we talk about the crime, referring to the relationship, before we talk about the relationship, and then we repeat details; we talk about her relationship with Steve after we talk about her relationship with Vili, which is chronologically skewed, etc. The contradictions that currently stand in the article regarding Vili's age are particularly egregious - was he 12 or 13 when their intimacy began, and how old was he when the first child was conceived and then born? The way this stands now, I'm sorry to say, is an embarrassment - a major overhaul is needed. I thought some cleanup would help, but then I'd read another section and find further problems. I will try to give it some time if I can, but I hope that editors working here will do some research and verify some of the facts so that a re-organization and re-write can be done properly. We're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia, so I hope others will pick up on this one. Tvoz/talk 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing this article

I am the subject of this article. I am the living person and I have six children living and of Internet-use age. I would like to assist in editing; I see at least 15 factual errors in this article. I understand that the facts noted in articles have to be verifiable. The facts that I correct, I will verify (with references that have merit). Just because material/language is published in the media does not make it "verifiable". As I'm sure you all realize, "published" does not equal ethical journalism. Incidentally, I appreciate the dialog here on the talk page - some very sound minds.

On a personal/professional note regarding editing: I have worked in a law firm as a legal assistant for approximately four years. My primary job related skills/tasks are legal research and to edit legal pleadings and arguments for factual substantiation, also to remove language that is emotionally charged and/or not relevant to the particular part of the document.

For now, I only intend to edit/correct the factual errors of the content already there in the present. As it is presently showing, I see about 15 factual errors. It will be somewhat time consuming to substantiate each of those with references of the highest authority available (or to simply remove statements that have no merited verification. If you all look at the edits I attempted to submit on 1/18, you'll see the areas that I impulsively corrected. I'm sorry I don't have experience, as it appears you all do, in working the technical part of Wikipedia editing. So bear with me on this; I'll try my best to get up to speed on the rules. I hope you all apreciate my intentions for correcting this article. I actually "trust" Wikipedia and refer my children to Wikipedia as a starting point for school research, etc. I moreso trust Wikipedia after now reading some of the notes here on the talk page - the overall integrity of the editors.

So far as me being the subject of the article: I don't think it should matter if you all believe I am who I say I am. When I substantiate the facts, it won't matter.Smmary (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:Verifiablity is one of the core policies here, so if it's a good edit, it doesn't matter who makes it, for the most part. One suggestion I'd make it to only correct one thing at a time, make it clear in the edit summary why you're doing it, and wait a time between edits so you can see if someone is going to object to your work. If you're removing something that's incorrect and not cited, don't just say "incorrect info", say "negative info not supported by reliable source". It's much less likely to get reverted that way. If the source gets it wrong but is otherwise reliable, explain in detail on this talkpage first, and it's more-likely to stand up under scrutiny. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether you are the subject or not is not really important. The primary concern is that the article follows the Wikipedia guidelines and that the text is properly sourced according to those guidelines. If you want to add content that is reliably sourced according to WP:RS. That would be fine. However, I would suggest that before you remove any text that is cited and has a reference to a source, that you discuss it here on the talk page first, before removing it. Wikipedia editing involves many people and so consensus is important. Our personal identities, professions, education etc do not give any one editor more or less authority over what is right or wrong, true or untrue. So discussing significant changes first, and providing solid sources, will facilitate progress. Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say about the subject. Our personal knowledge and experiences are of no concern and carry no weight in the content of a Wikipedia article. All of that said, I welcome you to the article and this talk page and look forward to working together to improve the article. Best Wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to start with two facts in the first paragraph and will have to search for the highest merit of published sources. Vili was 13 years of age; He was a former student at the time the relationship became intimate. Many published sources have simply "copied" initial sensationalized "reportings" of age 12 and placed the word "student" in context intended to shock readers for more viewing/sales. I'm sure that is not what Wikipedia intends to represent. I will look for the verified sources. Smmary (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently fails Notability guidelines for stand-alone article

This is one of a series of four women-teachers-molesting-male-students that first came to the media's attention some years back during a slow news period. Stories provided hours of titillating material to the gullible public who was led to believe that these four were the only women teachers in the world who had ever done this. When it became apparent to the media (if not the public) that this was fairly common, the media moved on to other material and neglected the category entirely except for local reporting, of course.

It currently fails as a standalone article though, because of the huge volume of media attention at the time, it must be retained as a "noteworthy" something or other. These four articles should be merged together under some non-WP:OR title. Something shorter than "Four American women teachers convicted of sex crimes against students from nnnn-nnnn."

See criteria at WP:PERP. Letourneau fails these since the crime is far from exceptional, but rather common. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Could_I_get_help_with_the_wording....Student7 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since Letourneau violated her parole to be with Fualaau, and married him after serving her sentence (remaining married today), I think the case is exceptional. And since Google News shows sustained coverage over time, I think that satisfies Perp#2.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't deny that it is interesting, but most of these heterosexual felonies with teachers are "interesting." "Interest," however, is not the problem, here. The problem is that they fail the guidelines. The victims were not notable. The perpetrators performed standard sexual abuse with minor males. The media wanted us to think that the abuse was unusual. That is, that women teachers had never been the perpetrators and that teen males had never been the victims. It was difficult for the general public (and maybe still is) for uneducated people to perceive male teens as "victims" of sexual assault, in this manner. They (in this case "he") was perceived as "lucky."
The point being, that the abuse, while far less common, female teacher on male teen(s), is common enough that it would now be considered "police blotter' stuff. Wikipedia is not a police blotter.
However, there was too much attention lavished on these several cases, so we must continue to have an article on them. But jointly, not under individual names. Having said that, we will probably need a redirect from the name to the new article.
The main problem, as I see it, is to construct a name for this new article. Student7 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
While I might agree that Debra LaFave and Pamela Rogers Turner no longer merit stand-alone articles, given your criteria, I disagree with putting Letourneau in the same category. Neither of the others continued long-term legal relationships with their victim to the present date, nor had children by him, nor had the victim declare himself was no such thing. This is a notable case and a notable person. Bielle (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You may be correct. A problem is the total lack of presentation to a national audience after these few cases, brought during a "slow news period." I know that teacher sexual molestation is roughly 1000 per year nationally. These are largely not fully prosecuted due to lack of evidence, willing witnesses, and vigorous defense from the accused and help from the teachers unions. "Most" (don't have actual statistic) of these are heterosexual. About 15% involve women perps. Also, about 15% overall, are false accusations! So a little hard getting hard information. I do not know the statistics on "long-term" relationships between accused and victim. I can only guess that there have been several. While the person here was a teen, new victims can have attained their majority, under new laws protecting students generally, including those in college. Not quite as interesting as a teen, I admit.
How many would I have to find at a local level to indicate "routine" case to you? Would they have to be "fully prosecuted"? That is, would the accused have to be convicted in a court of law for these indications? (Not talking "notability" or BLP here! Just a supporting example) This would make it tough in Massachusetts where the media covers up accusations against teachers until an actual conviction is attained. I don't know how many states do that. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The very point is that none of the others (and I would be interested in citations for your numbers and percentages) rose to any level of national (and, in this case, international) prominence. Just because there are others, and perhaps many others, doesn't take away from the significance of this one. There are also, sadly, many murders, rapes, and child abuses, but only a few (for whatever reason, one of which might be an otherwise slow news week as you have suggested) are sufficiently notable to be a Wikipedia article and to be, as it were, the poster child for female teacher-male student abuse. No matter how much evidence you could find for a multitude of similar cases, the facts about this one would not be diminished thereby. (We could use such information, properly sourced, of course, in the article, to give it perspective.) Bielle (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur that none of the ones I might find have risen to the level of pitch that the media put on this one...or the other two or three either. The material would remain. Must remain because of the inordinate publicity they received. Erasure is not a question here. All the material will be retained.
What I was proposing is to merge this together with the others that received this extraordinary publicity since they don't merit specific infamy (by named article) based on their prior fame or anything else under notability at WP:PERP.Student7 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I also question the notability of MKL. The obsessive level of detail in the article is unwarranted. She committed a crime. She got probation. She committed another crime. She went to jail. She married her former student and had two children by him. What else do we need to know?Avocats (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Its a BLP so all aspects of the subjects life belong in the article. If it is determined that she is not notable enough for a stand alone article then her crimes could be incorporated into another appropriate article. However, given the widespread media coverage, I think the subject is notable and the article is valid. However, I would say that this BLP needs to be organized in chronological order and the section on her personal life seems transparent as the whole article is about her personal life as her career has no notabilility.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Not sure of new name of article. "Several woman teachers accused of sexual molesting who received excessive media publicity in the 1990s" seems a tad pov besides being too long! Student7 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The flip side of this is that we don't want (and won't be allowed to) use this new article as a "repository" for teachers newly accused. I actually tried this once with citations and was outvoted.
But I would rather help avoid future "editorial wars" with a new name. So the title would actually have to include some historical pov to avoid addition of hundreds of new ones which received local attention, and were quite similar, but not national attention. Student7 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

number of children

if she had 5 children with her first husband, and 2 with her current husband, isnt that 7 children? has one passed away? there is no real explanation for this on the wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.164.247 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It was changed recently by an anonymous editor but there is no source to back it up. According to the sources given, Letourneau had four children with her first husband. I have corrected the text. Elizium23 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reorganize

Since 2010 there has been a tag asking for a rewrite so I have reformatted the article and removed the tag. What I did was merge the Personal Life and Relationship with Vil F. into the main body of the article. In doing so I removed some duplicate/repetitive content about the crime, pregnancies etc. I also reformatted some of the section titles to give it cohesion. These organizational issues were the main complaint of the editor who placed the rewrite tag in 2010. Although the article could use some additional tweaking, I think at least in terms of format it is in good chronology order and is properly organized. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have some issues with this reference and link, it seems to have nothing to do with the movie.

http://bijumann.insanejournal.com/9866.html

In fact I'm really not sure why it was added. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Name

Not a biggie. Her Article title is her well-known name "Mary Kay Letourneau." Per MOS her name she is referred to herslf by is Fualaau and should be the name first stated. Because of the number of Letourneau's and Fualaau's, her first name is the easiest way, per Wikipedia:Surname#People with the same surname. She has multiple children through different surnanmes. Mary Kay and "she" are the easiest identification names to distinguish her from others. --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward is referring to this, this, this and this edit he made, as well as these questions that I asked in the edit history. I pointed to WP:Surname. DHeyward pointed to Wikipedia:Surname#People with the same surname.
DHeyward, I don't see this as "Wikipedia:Surname#People with the same surname" case; Mary Kay Letourneau is the Letourneau mostly focused on in this article, by a vast margin. There is no confusion when it comes to stating "Letourneau" throughout the article. For the part where Steve Letourneau is mentioned, that was cleared up with appropriate language. And is starting a Wikipedia section with "She" good style? Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't care enough to argue. MOS says to use current name. See Chelsea Manning. MOS offers suggestions on disambiguatione. Revert if you wish. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I might ask about this Letourneau matter at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (WP:Surname) talk page. As for the Chelsea Manning case, there was so much disagreement on that naming matter all over Wikipedia...that I barely know what to think of what is correct with regard to that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If we stick with Letourneau (the name of the article), then there is no ambiguity in using the last name "Letourneau" except where there seems to be an ambiguity with Steve.
But look at Marina Oswald Porter and (most famously) Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (No middle name, no "Bouvier"). Married names tend to be cumulative for women. Shouldn't her name be "Mary Letourneau Fualaau?" Student7 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the double Letourneau aspect, yes, I mentioned the no-ambiguity part above, where I stated: "For the part where Steve Letourneau is mentioned, that was cleared up with appropriate language."
As for "Mary Letourneau Fualaau," because of DHeyward's edits, we currently go by that name in the lead and in the infobox. But per WP:Common name, this article shouldn't be titled Mary Letourneau Fualaau. And as for using "Mary Letourneau Fualaau" throughout the article... Per WP:Surname, we shouldn't continue to use the full name. So if you are proposing to use "Fualaau" throughout" the article, I disagree with that because she is not commonly known by that name. WP:Surname advises to go by the common name in some cases, and I feel that this is such a case where we should go by the common name for the general article text. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Conviction, use of that term, and noting Vili Fualaau in the first sentence

Lenore made this edit to the article, changing "former schoolteacher who was imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 for child molestation of her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau." to "former schoolteacher who was convicted two times for child sexual abuse and imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 after the second conviction. Abuses were perpetrated against her 12-year-old student Vili Fualaau."

I changed the wording, stating, "I'm not sure that 'violating the terms of her probation' counts as a second conviction. Added 'sentenced twice' instead. Should mention in first sentence who she molested." To elaborate, I objected to "convicted two times" because conviction is usually associated with a jury, while a sentence is something a judge can decide on even without a jury. I also clearly object to removal of "Vili Fualaau" from the first sentence and unnecessarily breaking up the text with "Abuses were perpetrated against her 12-year-old student Vili Fualaau." It should be "The abuses," not just "Abuses"; the former is not good grammar in this context and disconnects the matter from Mary Kay Letourneau by making it seem like we are randomly naming someone who has been abused.

Lenore reverted me (not even keeping one of my changes), stating, "'violating the terms of her probation' is, of course, a felony itself," and added "due to breach of probation imposed in the first one" and "who Letourneau met again just after the first conviction, violating the terms of her conditional freedom." Lenore also made this followup (date) change, which I don't object to.

I will alert WP:Law to this matter in the hopes that one or more members from there weighs in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the rb without keeping previous change, but then I explained better the facts. I think it's important to higlight that there were two conviction: if in the first conviction court let you to stay out of prison with some conditions, and you deliberately break these conditions, it's very different than a single prison conviction. Formally, a violation of probation IS a felony because you are violating contractual duties between you and the State. --Lenore (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the changes by Lenore in this edit (though made with the best of intentions)are not productive and the change should be reverted. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Lenore, you are at least somewhat correct in that being found guilty of a probation violation can be characterized as a conviction (this source uses that language), but that does not mean it is necessarily proper to use that characterization in this instance. Your explanation sounds like you may have arrived at this through WP:OR personal interpretation rather than a careful read of what the sources actually say about this subject. Just use the same language the reliable sources do in reporting the matter. And if sources do support the use of the word "conviction" here, make it clear that you're talking about a conviction for violating her probation rather than lumping all the convictions (the substantive criminal offense(s) and the parole violation) together. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well. But is this really important? Was she convicted two times or not? Is it important to cite it in the lede? I think it's important to cite in the lede she was convicted twice, one for the felony and one for the breach of probation, because she spent the period 1998-2004 only because this violation. Her case is notable only for this. --Lenore (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Not convicted two times when it comes to the way the word convicted is usually used in law. And, like Postdlf stated, we should stick to what the sources state...per WP:Verifiability. Do they state that she was convicted twice? And even if they do, are they the majority of WP:Reliable sources? Per WP:Due weight, we should go by what the majority of WP:Reliable sources state; if it's only a small majority, that's a completely different matter. I can't see that the way you have the convicted material worded is best for this article, and it's now three editors who feel that it's not best. If WP:Consensus is against you on this, we are supposed to defer to that WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed the article according to your objections. --Lenore (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Lenore. I obviously know that the word conviction can refer to a person being sentenced by a judge for violation of probation; dictionaries even state "made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law" for the word conviction. But I definitely think that the term is usually, or at least most commonly, used in reference to the first of those two definitions. Anyway, I am satisfied with your changes (seen here and here) with regard to what has been stated above. Are you fine with these changes I made, which includes in the lead that she was convicted in 1997? That's an important fact that should be in the lead, and it shows how long it was between her conviction and the violation of her probation. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine --Lenore (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, she was not "convicted," rather she plead guilty (which has the same legal ramifications). She was sentenced to 7 years and released on probation after serving 80 days. For violating probation, the prosecutor presented evidence of probation violation to a judge. She was found guilty of probation violation by the judge and was resentenced to serve the full 7 years in custody on the original crime. She was still afforded a trial for the probation violation though the burden of proof is lower. She was not charged with a crime when found again so her only criminal "conviction" involving the victim was the original crime she plead guilty to. She still only has the single felony child rape conviction. Really, there were two parts of the probation violation: the first was a hearing to revoke probation, the second would have been a new set of child rape charges. The prosecutor chose not to file new charges I believe because of a lack of cooperation from the victim. They had plenty of time to file if the victim changed his mind as the statute of limitation clock doesn't start until the victim is an adult. Now it's moot. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you and the others above weighing in on this, DHeyward. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote some of the lead. Added detail I thought was relevant in the lead and cleaned up some ambiguity (i.e. she plead guilty to a single count so "abuses" should be singular, etc). I couldn't find a reference as to why the prosecutor didn't file additional charges of child sex abuse. He may have been older making it less severe and he of course would be unwilling to testify. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I added Vili Fualaau back to the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I also made this minor but important tweak to the lead -- that it was Fualaau who impregnated her a second time. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Lenore for yielding to consensus. In spite of our different views on this specific issue concerning the lead, I/we appreciate your good faith efforts to improve this article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, with regard to this edit you made to the lead, I feel that "child sexual abuse" (also known as child molestation or child rape) should be added back, since the sources usually state "child molestation" or "child rape" on this matter; that's what she pled guilty to. Also, given what the Child sexual abuse article details, that's another reason that I don't think "sexual abuse" should be substituted for "child sexual abuse" in this instance. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I felt the words 'child' and '12 year old' were redundant and forgot that this sentence had just been amended per talk page discussion (duh!). So I've changed it back at your request. Thanks for the reminder :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Late to the discussion. I think the lead looks okay. The violation of probation on the first charge was really the only issue. I did not realize the court made these decisions, but it makes sense for a felony. I think for misdemeanors, the probation officer just jails the individual without additional process! Or maybe it always "goes before a judge" which makes sense, but not really a "guilty or not guilty" issue but was the probation violated? I am surprised at the "re-sentencing" statement. It would make sense that the sentence had already been issued, that she violated her probation was adjudged (and legally recorded), and the remainder of the sentence served in prison. What the judge might have an option of doing is determining when the probation was first violated and let her jail sentence run additionally instead of from the time she was caught (i.e. longer). Student7 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I've made a bunch of changes to the lead. It was jumbled and confusing and gave undue weight to the crime history which is only one third of the content in the article. I'm sure others will tweak it and I'm open to discussion and consensus here on the talk page if there are any significant issues. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the lead summarize the entire article or only include a summary of her crimes?

Crime history is her entire notability and the lead should be a summary of those events. The article is too long if 2/3 of it are about things other than her crime. Adding pablum about her brothers and Bush in the lead is arguably a BLP violation and definitely needs to be removed. Other things seem contradictory to sources. I've reverted per WP:BRD. --DHeyward (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Everything in the article is sourced. The 60% of the article that is not about the crime is sourced content. If a source tells her life story including the crime, we don't cherry pick only information about the crime and leave out other items reported by the sources. Another way to look at it is an author or actor who became famous for one book or one movie. If other parts of their career or life are covered in reliable sources then we include them in the BLP and we summarize them in the lead. To only allow details of her crimes in the lead creates undue weight and violates NPOV. Also WP:LEAD says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a BLP. In fact, it's really an event that has the same name as the person, whence the common name title. Regardless of sources, salacious and unnecessary details should not be in the article and definitely not in the lead. Yes, we absolutely do cherrypick items to place in a biography as harm is included in the evaluation. It's salacious that her brothers and father are/were politicians but this article doesn't exist without the crime she committed. Nearly all biographies of people that are known for an accomplishment or deed summarize the accomplishment and deed in the lead, not their life story. Albert Einstein's lead, as a random example, doesn't mention his family or his early life or his jobs or anything other than his notable discoveries and contributions that made him notable. His early life and family actually has an entire article, separate from the biography and it still doesn't warrant a mention in the lead. This person is notable for a series of events related to committing rape of a child. To the extent we tie other people to her and to the extent that we cover salacious details is governed by WP:BLP. For that reason, the lead should be limited to the evolution of her notability with a concise and condensed version. We should limit naming uninvolved people (like her brother, her children, etc) as it is a false light implication. We should trim non-notable events that are only titillating such as her traffic ticket (yes, we can source it, but it is not notable and does not belong in her biography despite whatever gossipy news coverage it received). The concise overview is of the events that made her notable - namely the first arrest to her marriage to the victim. That's t. The reader would know everything that is notable about her with the current lead as it stands alone. --DHeyward (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, we clearly have different interpretations of WP:LEAD and WP:BLP. Let's see what other editors have to say. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Since no other editors have joined the conversation after 10 days and we obviously need some outside input to settle the dispute, I'm going to initiate and RfC to attact opinios form outside editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback to old version of the lead

Hi DHeyward, your rollback of my edits from yesterday reversed many valuable and time consuming changes to the body of the article (based on my research of the sources and WP guidelines). I see no reason to undo those edits since while are discussing the lead. So......... I rolled back to the way I left the article yesterday AND..... then I replaced the lead with your preferred version until we have a consensus on the talk page as to whether or not we should expand the lead to include all aspects of her life as reported by reliable sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Consensus appears to be against including content unrelated to her crimes in the lead. Number 57 14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The subject of this article is notable only because she has committed a crime(s) and received extensive media coverage. However, many newspapers and magazines that have reported on her crimes have also given significant amounts of information about other aspects of her life such as her childhood, family history, notable siblings, her marriages etc. This non-crime related information has been included in the article with proper citations. The question for this RfC is:

  • Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No - The version of the lede which mentions who her brothers worked for (what??) has absolutely no relevance to the article subject Nobody cares who her brothers worked for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - If it was information that the average reader would have no interest in reading, I'd vote to delete it. I don't feel that the information detracts from the article, it fleshes out her family life, and the average reader might find it to be interesting biographical information. Plenty of articles have information on family members and what their jobs are as well as point out notable family members Bali88 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: wait, I was thinking we were discussing whether to include it in the article as a whole. Are we just talking about the first part of the article? Can anyone point out which revision we're discussing so I know what to look at? The information doesn't belong in the lead, but it does belong in the article Bali88 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes see WP:BALANCE. Take a look at Hitler for balanced coverage of a vilified figure, note how both the article and lede summarise his complete life from birth to death, not just the last two decades in which he rose to prominance and led a genecide. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No. She is WP:NOTABLE for the crime she committed and so this is the information that belongs in the lead. If some RS were to link events in her life to her crimes then that would be a reason to include them in the lead. She is not as notable as Hitler and her article is not as long, so there is no reason to include as much information or length in this article as that one. Ca2james (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, subject to limited exceptions. For example, birth month is okay in lead, though irrelevant to her legal problems. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important aspects, and that pretty much rules out stuff that's unrelated to the legal problems.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, Anythingyouwant echoes my own thoughts on the matter. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No Standard personal identity (name, DOB, etc) is okay but associations unrelated to the crime is particularly problematic. Tangential associations, including family, that aren't relevant to her infamous crime should be left out. False light associations are not allowed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes As long as this article is titled as a biography it should be treated as a biography. AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, biographies require balance, per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Only covering crime-related information in the lead creates a very skewed POV. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one bit I would include something about her being married and then getting divorced to be with Falau. Other than that, I wouldn't include anything. Useitorloseit (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2014 (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.

Discussion of RfC closure

I believe that the most accurate closure of this RfC would have been 'no consensus'. There were equal numbers of yes's and no's. Most of the yes's cited guidelines and gave good reasons for their opinion so I see no good reason for this RfC to be closed a clear consensus for 'No'. With that in mind I've asked the closing party to provide a further explanation here on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In response to the request for further clarification of the close, I should point out that there were not equal numbers of yes's and no's. If you read the debate closely, there were seven no's and four yes's. I presume you are counting Bali88 as a "yes", but if you read their second comment, it is clear that they were actually on the "no" side, and their first response was a misunderstanding of the question. The comment of Useitorloseit is also effectively a "no", as they are basically stating that only things related to the crime (the ongoing relationship with Falau) should be mentioned. However, this of course is irrelevant - RFCs are WP:NOTAVOTE - it's the strength of argument that matters, and even if there was a minority commenting with a stronger argument, the result would go their way.
Looking at the arguments put forward, I felt that the "no" camp presented a better argument in favour of material not related to the crime being excluded. The comments of Anythingyouwant were probably the strongest case put forward, and also the most in line with WP:LEAD. Number 57 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I agree that consensus is not a vote, however even the comments characterized as 'no', contained comments that would allow some aspects of the body of the article to be summarized in the lead. Remember the question asked in the RfC was:
Should the lead include a summary of the reliably sourced content in the article that is not related to her crime(s)?
Also, WP:LEAD says: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. I don't see anything in WP:LEAD that says only items related to a person's crime should be in the lead. I'd like to ask that you consider a second opinion from another neutral administrator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) editing

As seen here, I reverted Smmary, who claims to be Mary Kay Letourneau (or rather Mary Kay Fualaau); I reverted because of an obvious, very serious WP:COI.

Calling on SarekOfVulcan, who, judging from Smmary's very short edit history, has interacted with Smmary. Also calling on other editors who recently edited the Mary Kay Letourneau article during the #Changes to the lead discussion above, or simply recently weighed in on the lead debates: DHeyward, Keithbob, Student7, NorthBySouthBaranof, Bali88, Stuartyeates, Ca2james, Anythingyouwant, Aircorn, DavidLeighEllis, and Number 57 (closer of the above lead WP:RfC). Out of the editors who participated in that WP:RfC, Useitorloseit (talk · contribs), looking at his contributions, was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Going through the important (in my eyes) changes (a) the names and DOB for the children should not be listed, as per WP:VICTIM (b) the 12/13 year old issue is probably a question of when we're measuring from, which needs to be checked in the sources and clarified. There's nothing else there I'd quibble about. If in doubt, post a notice to WP:BLP/N. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think your revert was a good edit because the changes were not based on information in the cited sources as best as I can remember. I think your emphasis and accusations of COI, however, are misplaced. If you feel an editor has a COI please follow the guidelines and discuss it with them on their user talk page. If there is a continuing problem then take it to WP:COIN. Article talk pages are for the discussion of content only not behavioral allegations by an editor who disagrees with an edit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob, you are incorrect regarding my actions concerning WP:COI, and I am certain that editors at the WP:COI talk page would state the same. Smmary has stated that she is Mary Kay, which makes reverting her edits on the basis of WP:COI very valid since WP:COI editing is highly discouraged by the WP:COI guideline. I saw a bit of a bias in Smmary's edits (for example, changing the child sexual abuse link) because of that WP:COI that she has, whether she is Mary Kay or not. And a WP:COI matter can be stated on the article talk page, especially since the WP:COI editor may propose changes on the article talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, but this is not the place for such a discussion about WP guidelines. Be happy to discuss further on my user talk page if you so desire. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I was already well aware that WP:COI suggests that suspected WP:COI cases be discussed with the editor in question first on their talk page (that is as far as I see you being accurate on this matter), but there have been recent disagreements about that aspect of the WP:COI guideline. And there is obviously a lot more at that guideline to take into consideration when dealing with a potential or actual WP:COI case. I agree to disagree with you on this matter (again, except for the "discuss at the editor's talk page" aspect). Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd add that it is probably necessary to review the custody order of the 4 children with first husband to ascertain whether she voluntarily relinquished custody (as our article now says) or if it was ordered by the court. Other details about when abuse in the marriage occurred or the cause of her parents separation seem beyond the scope. I'd argue that it be removed outright as being too much private detail about uninvolved parties. Names and DOBs of anyone not directly related to the criminal charges are largely beyond the scope. Names of all children should be suppressed. DOB and impregnation dates that have evidentiary value for the crime is usable. I suspect 2nd degree rape of child is a strict liability statute but it wasn't used in that manner for her conviction. It comes into play when the defendant uses the lack of knowledge of the age of the victim as a defense as they lack the necessary culpable mental state for a crime. Her knowledge of the victims age being below the age of consent and her knowledge of the no contact order was never challenged and it would be misleading to present it as if she did not have a culpable mental state when the crime was committed. Not sure if the COI route is necessary as there is nothing added that isn't covered by other policies much more easily enforced. --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that I agree with DHeyward changing "child sexual abuse" to "statutory rape" (for reasons explained in the lead of the Statutory rape article). The latter had been there before, and so had "child molestation," but, as you can see from this and this edit, those other terms were changed. During the aforementioned lead debate above, DHeyward changed "child sexual abuse" to "second degree rape of a child"; that latter wording, which is supported by sources in the article, is still used, except now it is WP:Pipelinked with "statutory rape." Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Mental health diagnoses

Flyer22 Reborn I took out the mention of bipolar disorder because it was just a passing mention of private health information that is not widely publicized, so it's an issue of weight and erring on privacy on a BLP. EGRS might technically be about categories, but more importantly it's about privacy of BLPs and the things that fall under EGRS, which includes disabilities, should be self-disclosures that are commonly mentioned in mainstream, reliable sources. —PermStrump(talk) 04:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the matter to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Bipolar disorder. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
To repeat what I wrote at the WT:BLP discussion, I'm not clear that the source even verifies the content. Are editors drawing upon other sources maybe? --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In pop culture

The "In pop culture" section was looking exactly how it's not supposed to look, so I removed it and I'm pasting it below. The pop culture mentions should only go back in if secondary sources connect them to Mary Kay Letourneau. (See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Synthesis of published material, WP:Primary sources, and the essay WP:In popular culture.)

Extended content

In the 2001 Gilmore Girls episode "P.S. I Lo...," Lorelai rejects the prospect of marrying a passing young man on a skateboard, explaining, "I'm not Mary Kay Letourneau."[1]

In the Gossip Girl episode "Carrnal Knowledge," Blair suspects her teacher, Ms. Carr, of having an affair with a student. She sends a tip to Gossip Girl that reads, "Lonely Boy and Ms. Carr? Mary Kay Letourneau alert!"[2]

In the Friends episode "The One in Vegas: Part 1," Ross references the Letourneau case when he tries to embarrass Rachel by telling a stranger that she is "that teacher that had a baby with her student".[3]

J. H. Trumble's 2012 novel Where You Are tells the story of the romantic relationship between high-school teacher Andrew McNellis and senior student Robert Westfall. Andrew mentions Letourneau in the first chapter of the book when a fellow female teacher hints interest in Robert, and again in the seventeenth chapter when he fears being arrested if he engages in a relationship with his student.

In Nancy Ohlin's 2015 young adult novel, Consent, senior Bea Kim begins an affair with her substitute music history teacher, Dane Rossi. After the police begin to investigate their relationship, she is forbidden to contact him. Late one night and unable to sleep, Bea searches online for news about cases involving other student-teacher relationships. One of the search results is yields a story about, “a thirty-five year old teacher [who] becomes pregnant by her seventh grade student,"[4] presumably referencing Mary Kay Letourneau, although both Letourneau and Fualaau have been aged up one year.

In the 30 Rock episode "Cougars," Liz Lemon, herself being 37 years old, dates a 20-year old and says, "This just went from a senior dating a freshman to Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau."

In the film God Bless America, the protagonist Frank says "Fuck Mary Kay Letourneau" along with several other figures in popular culture associated with pedophilia such as Woody Allen and Vladimir Nabokov.

In the third part of the book "Loitering" (anthology of essays) written by the great and worlwide known american short stories writer, Charles D'Ambrosio, appears an essay against the popular culture which criminalized - reguardless to love - Mary Kay Letourneau (Loitering by Charles D'Ambrosio, 2014) - the essay is a perfect example of the power and the influence of the highest literature (the essay contains many quotations from poets and writers such as P.B. Shelley or Gustave Flaubert) versus the poor popular journalism.

References

  1. ^ "P.S. I Lo....". Gilmore Girls. May 3, 2001. The WB.
  2. ^ "Carrnal Knowledge". Gossip Girl. February 2, 2009. The CW.
  3. ^ "The One in Vegas: Part 1". Friends. May 20, 1999. NBC.
  4. ^ Ohlin, Nancy (2015). Consent. Simon Pulse. p. 66.

—PermStrump(talk) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Per the outcome of this discussion, I've been meaning to re-add this with more detail, and I will get around to doing so if no one beats me to it first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Biased lead

Flyer22 Reborn, you have not substantiated your concerns. I looked at the discussion you referenced and found no mention of the phrase "romantic relationship". So I am uncertain what you are referring to. Having the first sentence simply state the conviction without even mentioning that the two were married is a deliberate attack. It is rather like starting the Richard Nixon article with "Richard Nixon was a politician who was disgraced by involvement in the Watergate scandal." It does not matter if it is factually accurate. That is an attack.

Please be aware that WP:NPOV is not a vehicle for allowing personal bias into articles. The policy explicitly states a preference for "nonjudgmental language". Perhaps more to the point, WP:BLP states regarding "Attack pages" that "Pages that are ... negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once ...". No matter how unseemly the subject of an article is, WP must always strive to treat the subject in an unbiased manner. Turning the lead sentence into an attack is not consistent with this philosophy.

Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.

-- MC, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs)

You added "romantic relationship." And your interpretation of the rules is incorrect in this case. For example, the lead already mentions that the two were married; they were not, however, married when she committed statutory rape. She is famous for statutory rape. I replied on my talk page.
And do sign your posts with four tildes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nixon is famous for the Watergate scandal. Slapping the reader in the face with the most salacious detail and burying the rest of the facts later is not the way to be neutral.
--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Take your case to some form of WP:Dispute resolution then, and see if editors agree that stating "is an American former schoolteacher who pleaded guilty to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child, her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau" is a WP:NPOV and/or WP:BLP violation, and/or that beginning the lead with "romantic relationship" to frame the relationship is appropriate. Nixon has a lot of other things to state about him, such as the fact that he was the 37th President of the United States. Letourneau is only known as the female teacher who committed statutory rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that you already took the matter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Radar online

Is there a Wikipedia policy that bans references to Radar Online in WP:BLP articles as was done in this edit? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, our own article on Radar Online describes it as "an American entertainment and gossip website ". Does that give you a clue? EEng 22:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Radar Online and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185#Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated?. Or look in the archives from the WP:BLP noticeboard. Editors often remove this source or state that it should be used with caution. So I decided to revert the addition to avoid all of that; I did read the source, which is how I saw "According to Radar Online."
Also, regarding your reverts of EEng's comment, see WP:TALK. He is completely in the right to let his comment stand; the comment is not attacking the subjects (not truly) or any editor here. And I'm sure that he didn't mean to revert your edit; it was a mistake via intermediate editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Flyer. I do have to admit it wasn't all that funny. EEng 22:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, not one of your better comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I see nothing absolute about Radar Online being an unreliable source. Yes, it's gossip, so we don't want to quote gossip. However, in this particular case, Radar Online is claiming that "Fualaau confirmed the news to Radar". Therefore, unless Fualaau (or a representative of his) denies it, I think it can be taken as truth. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Your grasp of source reliability seems as masterful as your command of talk page etiquette. When a gossip rag says "X has confirmed to us that...", it's code language for "We totally made this up." EEng 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of "Fualaau"

Sometimes the sky is blue, regarding this, this, this and this, why do you think readers are going to be confused when we state "Letourneau" for her and "Fualaau" for him throughout the article? Maybe you were confused because you jumped straight to the section in question, but I don't think readers will be confused by the matter. The section title quite clearly states "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau," and, like the other sections, separates the two by using "Letourneau" for her and "Fualaau" for him. So why would readers think that we have suddenly changed over to "Fualaau" for her? Your use of "her husband" in place of "Fualaau" is unnecessary and somewhat unencyclopedic; I changed it to "Fualaau filed for separation from Letourneau." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Although a little awkward (because they are both surnamed "Fualaau"), this version certainly makes it clear who filed for separation from whom. I liked my proposal better because it's more concise, but since your latest attempt removes any ambiguity, it's acceptable.
I'm not sure what the policy is, but I think the surname Letourneau should be used for the time period before she married Vili (in 2005), and Fualaau for the time period afterwards. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't do mismatching like that; it only serves to confuse the reader. See, for example, this discussion that took place at the Katherine Johnson talk page; it partly concerns the idea of referring to her by a different surname for one phase of her life and another for a different phase of her life. Letourneau is known as Letourneau, not as Fualaau, and the title of the article is Mary Kay Letourneau; so it's best to simply call her Letourneau throughout. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
She is known publicly as Letourneau because that was her name at the time of the scandal that made her notable. However, she has since married, and did take on the name Fualaau. You'll note that the article begins with the name Mary Kay Fualaau. As for people who changed their names, you'll note that the article for Metta World Peace, who used to be called Ron Artest (and used to be known by that name) refers to him by the name Artest prior to the name change, and World Peace for post-name change. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I know why she is commonly known as Letourneau. The point is that "Letourneau" is her WP:Common name, which is why the title of this article is "Mary Kay Letourneau" and why we use that WP:Surname throughout the article. The point is that we don't mismatch, except for maybe in MOS:IDENTITY cases (the gender identity aspect of it), where the subject has requested a mismatch. The only reason that we mention Letourneau's married name in the lead is per what MOS:FULLNAME states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:Common name is irrelevant because the article's title is not in dispute. A few paragraphs down from MOS:SURNAME, you will find MOS:SAMESURNAME which states that it is OK to use the first name when there are two people with the same last name. Since you referenced MOS:IDENTITY, there is a sentence there that says "If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." I don't think there is any question that she has chosen to use the surname Fualaau. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The WP:Common name policy is not all that I was speaking of when noting that Letourneau is her common name. MOS:SURNAME states nothing about it being okay to mismatch in the article. The quote you reference for MOS:IDENTITY is not suggesting that it is okay to mismatch in the article either; it is speaking of cases where which name is the common name is debatable, and it is stating that we should then use the name that the subject uses; it surely means "consistently use", not mismatching. There is no question that "Letourneau" is the common name for the subject of this article. Mismatching in this article is a bad idea for reasons I noted above. You went on about being confused, and now you want to confuse readers by using "Fualaau" for some parts of the article in reference to Letourneau when we are also noting Fualaau himself in the article? Since you want to keep debating this, I will alert the WP:BLP, the WP:Common name, the MOS:SURNAME and MOS:IDENTITY pages to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with using "Letourneau" to refer to her throughout. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not change the article's title. If that is her actual name (whether the one with which she became famous or not), that is the one we should use. WP should offer facts not out-of-date rubbish, which has been selected because some editor has decided that that is her common name. There is not very far this can go unless the title is changed. We are supposed to have the page name and a person's name in the main body the same. So, if it stays as Letourneau, the article should be reflective of this. Otherwise, use the other one throughout the article. –Sb2001 talk page 19:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Although she took on the surname Fualaau when she got married, she is still publicly known as Mary Kay Letourneau. All I am saying is because she is also known by the name Mary Kay Fualaau, using the surname Fualaau in the article in sentences that involve both her and her husband w/o also using a given name is confusing. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Sb2001, the article is not titled "Mary Kay Letourneau" because an editor decided that it's her common name. It is her common name. It is the name she is widely known by, as shown in the preponderance of sources on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Either way there's way, way too many vowels. EEng 3:23 pm, Today (UTC−4) Sorry about this [1]. The confusion you've caused by repeatedly, intentionally, removing my post caused me to accidentally remove yours. If you'd mind your own business things like this wouldn't happen. Oh, and your edit summary here [2] is amusingly ironic. EEng 22:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want to use Fualaau for her, may I suggest "Letourneau Fualaau" to distinguish from her husband? What, we have no RS'es which use it? (I'm guessing; I haven't actually checked) Well, then sticking with Letourneau throughout seems appropriate to me. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
"Letourneau Fualaau"? That's like something you'd get if your cat walked across your keyboard. EEng 02:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that you would use 'Fualaau' for her, and 'her husband' for the other bloke. But, the title should be consistent with the article. Either move the page, or use the L name. –Sb2001 talk page 01:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessary for an article to use the title of the article for the subject throughout, but in this case, it really does make the most sense that the article be titled "Mary Kay Letourneau" to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, and to have "Letoruneau" used for her throughout, as using "Fualaau" would be confusing, and we simply don't make up stuff like "Letourneau Fualaau" if no one ever uses it, just for our own convenience. We're an encyclopedia, not a blog. We reflect reality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Flyer 22 Reborn and Beyond My Ken. It is not the purpose of encyclopedic prose to browbeat the reader with what's "technically correct" according to someone. That said, having a heading of "Marriage to Letourneau" is confusing to anyone skimming; use the first and last names of the husbands in the two headings. Using only the surname is headlinese anyway, and WP is not written in news style as a matter policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau/Archive_2&oldid=1136995431"