Jump to content

Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 5

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

former student

At the time of the unlawful conduct, the victim had left both the classroom and school where he met the subject. Yet we still claim a teacher committed a crime against a current student. In fact, the subject pled guilty to a crime against a former student. The punishment would have been worse if our claim was true. It's therefore not a trivial difference. Insisting that the subject was found with a current student is inaccurate, and disparaging to the subject.

  • In the prior discussion, Pincrete wrote "I'm less happy with the lead describing the boy as 'her student', but would be almost as unhappy with 'former student', which would imply that one or other had ceased to be at the school. In fact, the child had ceased to be at the school.
  • "[Mary said] as soon as the school year ended, she and Vili did cross that line."
  • "In all of his interviews and even in a book he wrote for a French publisher, he had always claimed their relationship turned physical after his sixth grade year ended and he had moved on to another school." - CNN
  • "LeTourneau and the boy began having sex in 1996 after he had advanced to middle school and her marriage was disintegrating." - Kitsap Sun
  • "LeTourneau found in car with former student" - Kitsap Sun
  • "Mary Kay Letourneau sleeps with her former student." - Brad Abramson, executive producer of A&E Biography special titled “Mary Kay Letourneau: Autobiography,” as quoted by Fox News

And the BLP subject wrote, "at the time of our 'intimate' relationship, he was a FORMER student." This subject has earned my trust through a long pattern of accuracy about this topic.

So I've tried to fix this error over some time. One reverter, John from Ideogon, argued that it doesn't matter whether the child was a student or not. He talks about not "softening" our approach, and goes on to say "I'm sorry, Mcfnord, but you are beginning to sound like a pedophilia apologist." Regardless of his bloodlust and troubling aspersions, we are not in the business of providing false, salacious claims about living people, and are obligated to provide conservative prose supported by the evidence found in the strongest sources. We are not tasked with being "hard" or "soft" on anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs)

What do you think use of "former student" proves? I mean, really? It's clear why some sources state "former student." They state this because they were or are speaking in the past tense. To enough of them, it obviously didn't make sense to state "student" when Letourneau was a former teacher/didn't have her job anymore. In that case, "former student" goes with "former teacher." For that second Kitsap Sun source you pointed to, "former student" is only in the title. Lower, it says "former teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau tearfully told a judge she was wrong to have had sex with a sixth-grade boy and to bear his child." The Fox News source says, "Mary Kay Letourneau, the Seattle elementary school teacher who was convicted in 1997 of raping her sixth-grade student, is ready to share her side of the story." And, of course, now that Fualaau is an adult, sources refer to him as her "former student." Regardless, numerous reliable sources state "her student" when speaking of the crime that occurred.
Pinging Pincrete and John from Ideogon in case they have anything more to state. I know that Zaereth is watching. So no need to ping Zaereth. But maybe BullRangifer needs a ping? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Changed to "and had been her sixth-grade student" as a compromise. Readers can take the "had been" aspect however they want to (meaning in whatever past tense sense they think we are using it in). Like I stated in the edit summary, regardless of what the subjects say or what we think, many reliable sources say "her student" or "her sixth-grade student." A simple Google search shows this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the choice is between saying 'her student' (which is supported by RS) and alternatively being precise about the (very brief) interval between 'teaching contact' ceasing and the consummation of the relationship (that would be more precise and, is just about justified by what RS say). I am not wholly persuaded that 'former' is accurate,(most of the sources above are NOT saying 'former' at the time the offences began). Even if it is technically (just about) accurate that he was no longer a student - it is obvious that a relationship had been 'set up' while he was her student: "as soon as the school year ended, she and Vili did cross that line", by his own testimony - it is arguable anyway that a 'pastoral' relationship and responsibility still exists a few days or weeks after the end of term. Flyer22 Reborn's compromise, IMO has the same problems as 'former', it implies that the teacher-pupil relationship may have been in the distant past, at the point that sexual activity began. Whether one looks on this story as a Macron-like true love story, or as a disgusting weakness/abuse/folly by Letourneau, accurately representing the facts as far as possible - as shown in RS - is important. Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree to some extent. The original was better than both the change and the compromise. However, the problem with this approach of only using words found in the RSs is that the RSs are usually written in a totally different style than an encyclopedia. Newspapers write their articles in a first-person narrative with a present temporal-perspective. (This involves more than just verb tense but also the use of adverbs, adjectives, and tense within context.) In a newspaper this is perfectly fine. In fact, it's encouraged, to let the read know that the information found within in not permanent but changes on a daily basis.
In contrast, an encyclopedia is written in the third-person objective, and you have to be very careful to stick to the objective and not omniscient or limited because then we're straying into the realm of pure fiction. In the third-person, we're speaking in a "God-like" voice, but in the objective this is more of just a "God" using the same five senses as a mortal (no reading minds or internal emotions). This voice doesn't take sides nor make any judgments about the story. It also speaks as if outside of time looking in, in what is called a perfect temporal-perspective. It's not stuck in one spot in time but can jump around from place to place effortlessly.
A perfect (timeless) perspective is how books or other things are written which are meant to last. Even though Wikipedia changes constantly, it should still be written in this encyclopedic format, as if what we put in here is meant to last forever. Words like "former" are like using adverbs such as "today", "yesterday", "tomorrow", "now", "then", etc... We're suddenly jumping out of that perfect perspective and into a present perspective, and what this does is turn it into first person. Idiomatically, that's why it looks out of place here. We should be writing as if we're Scrooge and the ghosts, looking in on the moments as they occurred, but from outside the bounds of our particular place in time. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete and Zaereth, thanks for weighing in. What wording do you suggest we use in place of "and had been her sixth-grade student"? Should we just state "student"? "Student" needs to be relayed in some way. And, again, many reliable sources say "her student" or "her sixth-grade student." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What you changed it to is fine. "Had been" is past-perfect tense, but it seems a little wordy, when "student" combined with the date that's already there works to the same effect. For instance, we wouldn't call Julius Caesar the former emperor or Rome, but simply say he was the emperor between such and such a date. Zaereth (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I think both 'former' and 'had been' are equally problematic since they give no indication of the (very narrow) time frame between end of term and consummation. 'Student' is supported by most RS and could be used in the lead, using body to characterise the time frame more precisely if people feel it is justified to do so. Being very kind to both parties, we might be able to justify 'recently ex-student' or some such in the lead. Certain categories of people, including teachers, doctors, priests etc. are deemed to be governed by 'pastoral' responsibilities and professional standards of behaviour. In law, and in common expectation, that doesn't cease to apply 2 minutes after one walks out of the doctor's surgery or the millisecond the professional contact finishes - if indeed it is absolutely clear that both parties would not have been returning to the school in the autumn in this instance.
One regional detail, in the UK education system, 6th form is the final two years of secondary education, immediately before university, when one is probably already 16-19 years of age (ie over the UK age of consent). Pincrete (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Zaereth, given that we currently state "who was 12 or 13 at the time" (instead of going with age 12 like the vast majority of reliable sources do) and that a person can be 13 in the seventh grade or got moved up a grade, I think retaining "sixth-grade student" is best (if we are not going to leave it at "her student").
Pincrete (not sure if you want me to keep pinging you when I reply), I do think that "had been" is better than "former" (per what I stated above) and that they aren't equally problematic, but I do agree with you that simply going with "student" (like the vast majority of reliable sources do) is best. Clarification of the time frame can go lower in the article, if supported by more than one reliable source and not simply based on what Letourneau and Fualaau stated. I don't think we should use "recently ex-student." WP:Dated advises against "recently." And it's not what reliable sources state when reporting on the story, although they may (like a Kitsap Sun source) state "after he had advanced to middle school." But using "after he had advanced to middle school" to support "their relationship turned physical after his sixth grade year ended" is odd to me because sixth grade is a part of middle school in the United States. But then again, like our Middle school article relays of the United States, "Elementary school includes kindergarten through to sixth grade, or kindergarten through to fifth grade." Given all of our objections to "former" and your objection to "had been," I'm not sure what should be done now. There have been enough recent RfCs at this talk page, but I don't mind starting another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You make some good points about the sixth-grade. If it helps clarify the matter then why not? I do not think the child's exact age is that important. I can't see that it makes a single difference one way or the other. I could see that if he was borderline consenting-age, but we're not even close. So, if I were to leave it at sixth-grade then the age itself seems redundant. Beyond that, I think we're starting to over-conceptualize the linguistics here. We have that very narrow time-frame already established at the beginning of the sentence, in the way that makes the most sense, "In 1997...". Upon reading that, we know we're talking about a time within the span of a year. If it were longer, then we'd likely give a span of years. but we don't. The actual time-frame satisfies this need to establish a time frame in the way an encyclopedia should. Beyond that, it's like quibbling over "Apples are red" vs. "An apple is red." They both say the same thing.
One thing I'll note, though, is that we're coming dangerously close to a run-on sentence here, so I would personally recommend splitting that into two sentences. (ie: What, followed by when and who, would put it into the order that the human mind finds easiest to comprehend.) And, yes, "former" just looks weird for the reasons given. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As you know, we had that RfC about the age. And reliable sources usually mention his age. So I think we should retain the age. It's more important than stating "sixth-grade" since statutory rape is based on age, but I'd still rather retain "sixth-grade" as well per above. I was about to split up "who was 12 or 13 at the time" and "had been her sixth-grade student," but then I thought about how the fact that he was her student is so prominent with regard to the case. So it then just felt strange to me to have the piece come second in a separate sentence like, "And, oh yeah, he was her student." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree very much with anything said by Flyer. Specifically age is paramount, grade is detail - I imagine even US readers don't latch on to grade as immediately as age, whilst to non-US readers grade may be vague or misleading. Age defines legal constraints and also how we ordinarily see 'state of maturity'. Use plain 'her student' in lead if being more exact is too complicated, which it seems to be - starting an affair shortly into the summer break is hardly stud/teach 'duty of care' ceasing to exist and I've yet to see a source that explicitly states he had even left the school - probably he had, but .... So common sense as well as RS says he was in almost all respects her student.
Ping if you want input - but I don't substantially disagree with any of your judgements. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Subject's middle name

I've been fishing around for clarity about the subject's name.

  • We say now "She was known as Mary Kay to her family," so we know it was a nickname.
  • Verified BLP subject wrote: "in my adult life I have not ever used Mary Kay... nobody calls me Mary Kay, except the media, and my mother, and I was called Mary Kay as a child because my mother and her mother both also have the name Mary, it was to distinguish us at family gatherings. ... My 'stage name' in the tabloid media is Mary Kay Letourneau, when someone calls out Mary Kay, I know they’ve read tabloids and they don’t know me at all. Even the court documents do not say Mary Kay." (She says more about the name, good reading on the subject.)
  • Reliable sources get explicit about name:
  • "now goes by the name Mary Fualaau."
  • "Mary to her friends..."
  • The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a reliable source local to subject, apparently specifies subject's name as "Mary K. Letourneau" in "Mary+K.+Letourneau" all self-produced headlines. (You will need to enter her name at that website. Some headlines from other sources use the popularized Kay. Subject's middle name is Katherine.)
  • In 2001, the Court TV (now TruTV) television series Mugshots released an episode about Letourneau's case titled "Mary K. Letourneau and Vili Fualaau"

From these clues, it would appear that Kay as the middle name is a pseudonym. Ok, MOS:LEGALNAME says subject's name should appear first in article, and "for people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article."

I think we can reasonably conclude the media used a nickname of the subject, a pseudonym. Subject has reported as much. Subject has verified with Wikimedia so I suspect they would, if asked, confirm that subject's middle name is Katherine, and not Kay. Subject is popularly known as Mary Kay Letourneau, so the title is appropriate, but first presentation of name should not include Kay, and I guess should include Katherine ("the legal name"). We might also explain that she is popularly known by this pseudonym, though I think that might be clear when people read that it is a family nickname. Mcfnord (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we cannot reasonably conclude anything except that sources refer to her as Mary Kay Letourneau. How she got the name is WP:OR and irrelevant. This isn't a biographical article, but even if it were, better reasons would be needed to use another name. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete, yes, "we cannot reasonably conclude anything except that sources refer to her as Mary Kay Letourneau" is how I edit. I didn't object to the removal of "Kay" from the lead sentence, though, because it seemed like there was no need to do so. But, per WP:Alternative title, one may argue that it should be bolded in the lead. What do you mean by "This isn't a biographical article"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Only that, because this isn't a biog article, there is no point in pursuing how Letourneau got her name. We wouldn't pursue how an actor got his name on an article about a specific film, only any names used to describe him in the context of that film + perhaps name now used by him. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
But it is a biography article. It falls under WP:BIO and WP:BLP. That's why I asked what you meant by "This isn't a biographical article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh apologies, I stupidly thought the article was about the case. I think I would still come to the same conclusions about the name, that the reason she acquired it is too esoteric to be relevant. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

BRD discussion

So... I made this bold edit with an edit summary explaining exactly why it was made. User:Jebcubed removed it , pretty much in one minute. User:Flyer22 Reborn also commented on my talk page about this edit.

For that reason I would like to get permission on this page to add back my edit. First, I realize that on articles with living people, we have to be careful, no problem, I totally get that. However, because we're pretty much the first source people go to read up on pretty much anything, we also owe it to our readers to print the whole truth about whatever article we have, even if it's ugly.

My answer to that was to add in "pedophile and" to make the lead sentence read:

Mary Katherine Schmitz (formerly Letourneau; January 30, 1962) is pedophile and an American former schoolteacher

Per my edit summary, it's obvious that she is, anyone that looks to a minor for sex is a pedophile as a non-pedophile won't do that. Now since Wikipedia needs reliable sources, here's mine: a dictionary definition of pedophile.

The dictionary is reliable, it describes perfectly what she did, it's just as obvious as the sky is blue and the ocean is wet, so with that. DO we include this or not ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  1. Support -- as proposer Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Medical definitions of pedophilia (see article for reference to diagnostic criteria) specify attraction to prepubescent children, so your "sky is blue" comparison is false. While it is true that any adult attracted to a minor child is liable to be called a pedophile, implying a broader colloquial definition, they would not be so diagnosed, and a BLP would never give a person a psychiatric diagnosis they did not receive. Furthermore, even if you could source that she was diagnosed with pedophilia, it would be questionable to lead the article with this, as it is not her attraction to a child that made her notable, but the fact she raped one. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually User:Someguy1221 your definition still fits this case. Yes, it does give an age rage, but it also says:

A person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia

She's at least 5 years older than the boy she raped, and she raped him because she was attracted to him. SHe did what she did because she is a pedophile, by both your definition and mine (both of which use reliable sources). Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You are referring to a statement of necessity, not sufficiency. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Wekeepwhatwekill, like I relayed on your talk page, "You can disagree as much as you want to. But like I stated in the BLP discussion I pointed you to, 'Pedophilia is about a sexual attraction to prepubescents, specifically a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to that age group. A person with that attraction is pedophilic. Child sexual abuse is a different topic because a pedophile may or may not be a child sexual abuser, there are child sexual abusers who are not pedophiles, and the term child sexual abuse can cover pubescents and post-pubescents.' If you keep trying to label Letourneau or any other BLP subject a pedophile when they haven't been diagnosed as one, you will find yourself blocked for a BLP violation." If you want to keep pushing this via discussion, I suggest you take your case to the WP:BLP noticeboard for wider opinions.
I will state this right now, though: Your understanding of pedophilia is inaccurate. It's common for laypeople to have such a misunderstanding of this topic. First, medical sources stress "sexual preference" or "primary or exclusive sexual attraction," or similar, for reasons it seems you will not understand. There are different types of offenders, such as opportunistic offenders who might use a child as a sexual substitute for an adult, and not all of those types are pedophiles. One or more may be sexually attracted to a prepubescent child on some level, but because they do not have a strong and persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children, they are not considered pedophiles by medical authorities. Second, pedophilia in women is extremely rare. And by that, I mean the psychological condition rather than the act of child sexual abuse. Third, we don't use dictionary sources for this topic in our articles that discuss the disorder. Dictionary sources are basic and are not sufficient for such a topic. We stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for medical material. By "we stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for medical material," I'm not speaking of news sources about a BLP subject that call someone a pedophile. But either way, the media commonly misuses the term pedophilia (even applying it to sexual attraction to a post-pubescent) and we shouldn't use such sources to state that Letourneau is a pedophile. Fourth, yes, Fualaau, was 12 (13 going by some sources) when Letourneau was first sexual with him, but most people these days, especially girls, are pubescent by age 12 or 13. Boys more often than girls reach puberty at age 12; girls reach puberty before that age more commonly than they do. But a lot of, or most, boys reach puberty at age 11 these days. Some at age 10. And even when a minor of age 10, 11, 12 or 13 doesn't look pubescent, there is still the "primary or exclusive sexual attraction" aspect of pedophilia. Fifth, there is no indication whatsoever that Letourneau has a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. As far as we know, she was only with one minor in a sexual way. And most people who have studied her case do not consider her a pedophile in the technical sense. They don't think that Letourneau was with Fualaau because she is sexually attracted to that age group. A true pedophile would not have wanted to stay with Fualaau as he aged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Flyer22 Reborn So I took the time to read over what you directed me to. Just to prove it (not prove my point mind you), I'll summarize:
You disagree that we should refer to Ms.LeTourneau as a pedophile because she doesn't meet the criteria specified by medical sources. Those sources are precise , whereas my dictionary source gave a general overview , but it wasn't specific enough to differentiate pedopohillia from other forms of child sexual abuse.
User:Someguy1221 I did read the article you pointed me to , I have to admit, it didn't make much sense, but I think I get the gist of it, essentially, if someone steals, yes we can call them a thief, but we can't say either "some one steals therefore they're a kleptomaniac", or "someone's a thief, therefore they're a kleptomaniac", as stealing doesn't equate to kelptomania.
User:Flyer22 Reborn You make a good argument for excluding the word "pedophila" from this article. Your definition is more precise and because we're talking about a medical diagnosis, MEDRS sources would be better than a general reliable source. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Wekeepwhatwekill, thanks for having taken the time to listen. Some people can be dismissive because they don't understand pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a form of child sexual abuse. It's a psychological/psychiatric condition. A pedophile may commit child sexual abuse, but pedophilia and child sexual abuse are two different things, although the general public commonly uses the terms interchangeably. I disagree with calling Letourneau a pedophile in the article or elsewhere on Wikipedia because this is a BLP and the BLP policy applies across Wikipedia. We shouldn't label her a pedophile when she has not been diagnosed as one. She doesn't seem to be one in the technical sense. It's not about WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in the case of this BLP article. That's why I stated, "By 'we stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for medical material,' I'm not speaking of news sources about a BLP subject that call someone a pedophile. But either way, the media commonly misuses the term 'pedophilia' (even applying it to sexual attraction to a post-pubescent) and we shouldn't use such sources to state that Letourneau is a pedophile." I pointed to WP:MEDRS to contrast your use of a dictionary source for the definition. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to listen. There is no need to ping me when replying on this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Flyer22 Reborn. As of right now, I drop my request to label Mary L as a pedophile. Per your discussion, she doesn't meet the criteria. Is it ok for me to close this discussion, or will someone else have to ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
We can just leave it as is. It doesn't need a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

suspended prison term

Subject received a suspended sentence, and not parole. I'm disappointed that the otherwise-great Washington Post article got this detail wrong. Here are good sources:

You can find the April 17, 2000 appeals court summary of the case on leagle.com. Though I won't link directly to it, it's appropriate use of a verdict to clarify when NPOV-secondary sources conflict. It says, "[the] trial court sentenced her to 89 months of total confinement suspended on various conditions."

It's important to note that the judge told the subject at the first sentencing: "Any violation would result in her being imprisoned for up to 7 1/2 years". That's what a suspended sentence is about: Suspended IF you follow the court's rules. That's what happened here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs)

Terminology again, huh? Choosing which reliable sources to go by again, huh? Regarding this, where you stated "there wasn't a plea agreement, probation, or parole. there was a suspended sentence that was unsuspended.", like you mentioned above, the Washington Post states, "parole revoked" and "The former grade school teacher who had sex with a 13-year-old and gave birth to his child was sentenced today to nearly 7 1/2 years in prison for violating parole by meeting with him." And it's not the only reliable source that states this. This 1998 Chicago Tribune source states, "The former Seattle grade school teacher who had sex with a 13-year-old boy and gave birth to his child was sentenced Friday to nearly 7 1/2 years in prison for violating parole by meeting with him." This 2004 NBC News source reporting on an Associated Press article, states, "A judge sentenced her to six months in jail for second-degree child rape, and ordered her to stay away from Fualaau. But the temptation proved too much for her to resist. A month after Letourneau was released, she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car, a violation of her parole. She was sent to prison for seven and a half years, and gave birth to Fualaau’s second daughter behind bars." This 2005 CNN source states, "'She served six months and was released on probation, but was ordered to serve her full sentence after she and Fualaau were found together in a van, in violation of a no-contact order." This 2014 CBS News source states, "Letourneau pleaded guilty in exchange for a 3-month jail sentence and probation, reports the station. Then 34, she had given birth to Fualaau's child. After being released, authorities discovered Letourneau and Fualaau together in 1998, a violation of Letourneau’s parole. She again became pregnant with Fualaau’s child. Following the violation, she was sentenced by a judge to 7-and-a-half years in prison." This 2019 USA Today source states, "She was first convicted of second-degree child rape the next year after giving birth to Fualaau's first child, received a six-month jail sentence and agreed not to have further contact with Fualaau. Letourneau was released after three months but got caught having sex with Fualaau soon afterward, became pregnant again and was sentenced in 1997 to more than seven years in state prison for her parole violation."
By contrast, this 1998 The New York Times source states, "Judge Lau revoked the suspension and sent Ms. Letourneau to prison for seven years and five months."
Reverted your edits (followup note here) pending discussion. Pinging Zaereth and Pincrete to weigh in. And I will leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Also alerted the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm reading the case at leagle.com, and there is a terminology issue here, I think that the articles Flyer lists are glossing over what the legal process was here. - the concept is right, but the details are not. First, this article should be mentioned the "Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA)" in Wa State [1] that Letourneau got from the first trial in 1997; her sentence given then was 89 months (7 years + 5 months), but with the SSOSA, she spent three months in prison, agreed to terms to not see VF or other minors unsupervised, 3 years of sexual deviancy consulting, and additional community terms. She gets out in late Jan 1998, and two weeks later is caught in the car with VF. Days later the judge revokes the SSOSA as she clearly violated its terms, meaning that the original 89 month sentence was now back on. The court's language (related to the financial gain part of the case) states "Consequently, the trial court revoked Letourneau's suspended sentence and ordered her to serve 89 months in the Department of Corrections with credit for the confinement time served during the period of community supervision." So, while it may look like a fresh sentence, it basically was just reapplying the original ordered sentence. I would strongly urge to mention that she was originally sentenced to 89 months, but plead under SSOAA to get the reduced term, and then as soon as she violated that, the SSOSA bargain was null and void, and the 89 month sentence was back on. --Masem (t) 05:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem appears to have answered why there is an apparent discrepancy. No idea how to represent or source that though!Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In a case like this, there is no reason why the court documents can't be cited directly to explain the legal matter, alongside third-party sources to show that this was a case of national attention. Generally, particularly for a BLP, we are not supposed to cite court documents if the court case was not of significance, but 99% of why she is notable is because of her legal problems. So the court documentation can be used to spell out specific terms. To me, the larger sources that Flyer points out got the net result correct (she started a 89 month term in Feb 1998 after seeing VF again), just that they aren't calling out it out as legally set by WA State law. --Masem (t) 16:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete and Masem, like I stated at the WP:BLP noticeboard, WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[a]"
Through a search, I see that leagle.com is used on Wikipedia, but does it pass WP:Reliable? And depending on what primary sources to use, we can only use those that have been discussed by a reliable secondary source, but WP:BLPPRIMARY says "may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source," not "is acceptable." There's also the fact the editors will want to report otherwise because of what the reliable secondary sources state. So maybe a hidden note would be in order? Tenebrae, as someone who deals with BLP articles and has dealt with WP:BLPPRIMARY matters, can we get your opinion on this as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Whew. That's a lot to read. I'd better get to it! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy action. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. As an editor professionally, here is what I would do. I'm prefacing this by saying that journalists aren't attorneys, and even legal journalists can get nuances wrong while reporting the end-result facts correctly. I think that may explain the discrepancy among these genuinely high-quality sources.
Given the nuanced distinctions and the mixed RS reporting re: probation v. parole v. suspended sentence, I would use an overall phrase that covers all of these things: "conditions of the court." That's accurate, it avoids prolonged hair-splitting, it reconciles discrepancies, and we can cite the differing third-party sources so the question of using a primary source is no longer an issue. I hope this is useful.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a viable solution to me, especially if it avoids using court docs. I really don't have the time to scour through all of that myself, as I'm trying to go on vacation. Personally, though, I'm in favor of reading BLPPRIMARY in the literal sense. We should not be using court documents at all. What's next, tax records? If so-and-so politician says something in a speech about his taxes, can we use his actual records as a source to augment the news articles? (Yes, this does happen.) Doesn't that seem just a little like stepping completely out of bounds and into the realm of pure OR? Not to mention BLPPRIVACY concerns. Conversations like this, about the law, and what the specific law is in a particular state, and how that law is interpreted within that state, are exactly the kinds of discussions we should not even be having. Some of us here may in fact be lawyers, judges, or people with law degrees who are fully qualified to speak on these issues, but I'm not, and we shouldn't expect others to be either. We don't rely on an editor's expertise in a particular field to determine content (or, rather, their interpretation of the raw data) we rely on reliable, secondary sources. I really don't see this as being any different from a scientific or technical article in this respect. Some of us may be physicians and physicistws and some may just dabble in these things as a hobby, but once we start interpreting the raw data ourselves we open a Pandora's box of problems. Zaereth (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Court records are nearly always public records (outside sealed cases), whereas tax filings are private, even if one can seek a FOIA request for them. And actually, if we start getting into science and medicine, the situation is flipped per SCIRS and MEDRS (particularly the latter), we use the expert sources as the main information source over any secondary sources from mainstream press because the mainstream press often get the details wrong or are not knowledgable. Legal's a different beast altogether as this tends to be an areas journalists have more direct involvement in, but I would argue the same principle should be considered when a discrepancy comes up. Further, as pointed out above, the Kipsap Sun - which is actually an AP article, gets the details right , as well as this earlier AP article [2], and event mentions the SSOSA law in all but name ("Roe acknowledged, however, that sex offenders often are sentenced to treatment programs instead of long prison terms. More than half of the first offenders in Washington convicted of such crimes -- the vast majority men -- are spared prison terms in favor of treatment, said David Gehrke, LeTourneau's defense attorney.") So using court records augmented with these reports gets the correct picture. And really, all that I think is necessary is to establish the SSOSA thing to understand it was a plea bargain and suspended sentence that all went to heck when she was caught with VF again. It does not contradict what mainstream sources effectively got right, just the specific terms. --Masem (t) 00:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Nearly all sources will contain mistakes. It's an unavoidable side-effect of being human. I'm not saying that expert sources should not be used over poorer ones, but that we shouldn't be relying on an editor's own expertise to determine these things. But not all reliable sources are equally reliable, and we most certainly can determine that. If 95% of sources are saying one thing, and a small percentage says something else, we can look at the reliability of these sources. Regardless of number, if the high-quality sources are saying one thing and the lower quality something else, I'd go with the higher quality any day. You've really answered how to solve this problem without the use of court docs both here and at BLPN, so I still don't see the need for them.
There's a difference between a peer-reviewed article in a respectable journal and the raw data from, say, experimental notes. For example, people often come here to add information about some inventor or invention based upon their patent information. All public information and easily accessible to anyone, but not as easily interpreted by anyone except a qualified engineer/patent attorney. A patent doesn't guarantee an invention will sell, become notable, or will even work as described. It only has to be a novel product with some purpose. (And before anyone goes quoting patent law to me, I am very familiar with the process.) The layperson typically has no way of knowing what that patent really means in English. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you're making a more complicated analogy than you need to. No interpretation is necessary to figure out if "parole" is technically accurate. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Leagle.com is just a court reporter repeater. We'd used the legal volume as the source, with leagle.com as a URL link. For example this is one of the appealled facets related to her financial gain situation. We'd use a legal citation "997 P.2d 436 (2000)" which is a volume in the Pacific Reporter series. If it is a question that is Leagle.com modifying those decision reports (outside of formatting), they state on their about page "Our policy is to post court decision text exactly as it appears in released court documents." and I've never heard of any issue with leagle improperly modifying those court records. --Masem (t) 00:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem, to better understand what you have in mind, it would help if you proposed wording and what sources to use to replace this material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
And what do you think of Tenebrae's suggestion? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
What I would change in the body is this sentence:
  • Letourneau pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree child rape. Through a plea agreement, she was sentenced to six months (three of which were suspended) in the county jail and three years of sex offender treatment.
to
  • Letourneau pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree child rape and sentenced to 89 months in jail. Under a plea agreement under Washington State's Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA), the sentence was suspended, reducing her jail time to three months, along with strict restrictions on supervised interactions with VF and other minors, three years of sexual offender treatment, and additional community terms.
Then later
  • Letourneau was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison for violating the terms of her probation.
to
  • Letourneau was found to have violated the terms of her SSOSA plea agreement by seeing VF without supervision, and her previously-suspended 89 month sentence was restored.
(Wording is not perfect but gives the idea). And adding just a couple sources to those lines to help readers know about SSOSA and why it applied here. --Masem (t) 04:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
To add, I also don't seen it as a problem to use what Tenebrae suggested. I just feel that we can be a bit more precise and helpful to readers to explain in a bit more detail from sourcing we can use in this type of case. It is not like there is a discrepancy in how the courtroom events took place - the court records document that; it is the slightly lazy reporting that we're dealing with here. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Just in terms of everyday copy editing, rather than "Letourneau was found to have violated the terms," we can just say "Letourneau violated the terms." If that's what the court determined, that that's what happened. Also., I'm not sure we need to use the phrase "under Washington State's Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA)" in the one instance and "SSOSA" in the other -- for the average reader, to whom we write, "plea agreement" in the second instance by itself conveys the point. We might be getting needlessly legalistic and overdetailed. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I understand that, I guess if we don't have any useful blue-link it looks like nonsense to the reader that they'd have to go search on about. But I would definitely say something like "As part of a plea agreement as an alternative to imprisonment, Letourneau was sentenced to three months in prison, three years of sex offender treatment, and strict conditions for supervised interactions with VF and other minors." That linked article is a bit lacking, and could probably use some expansion across various states and nations, but that's still a valid link to help. A point to stress is about the conditions of supervised interactions, which is currently missing, That's what she broke in February and why the plea agreement was nullified. --Masem (t) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I think you should implement the changes. A hidden note about the matter would also be a good idea. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
diff I only kept to the AP-via-Kitsap Sun reports (very handy) and only touched on that the state was looking for 6.5 years, and when she violated the plea, the judge re-instated that for the max 7.5 y by the law. But kept the SSOSA and other stuff out there , and didn't touch any court reports. --Masem (t) 03:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Masem and Tenebrae: I agree that mentioning SSOSA would be "needlessly legalistic and overdetailed." But what it boils down to is not a plea agreement, but an alternative sentence. A plea agreement is always a negotiation with the state (which is the prosecutor), when in this case the judge rather than the prosecutor accepted the alternative sentence. I think it's rather easy to remove this error that a plea agreement occurred, and simply call it an "alternative sentence". I've made this change here for your consideration. Mcfnord (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
If "alternative sentence" is a broader term for things including a plea deal / plea agreement (which I think are synonyms meaning the same thing), then I'm all for using the broader term. Just for curiosity's sake what other alternative sentences are there that are not a plea deal / plea agreement? -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I got the language from the titling of the SSOSA law, which is called a "sentencing alternative". I don't think "alternative sentence" is commonly used to describe plea deals/agreements/bargains because there's nothing alternative going on, there's just a prosecutor securing a conviction by getting a guilty plea to a lesser crime. The subject has explained that no negotiation like that took place, but instead she pleaded guilty and the judge applied the SSOSA law (against prosecutor wishes, apparently). Mcfnord (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nah. It's fine as is. Masem did a good job implementing the text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
And as for "The subject has explained that no negotiation like that took place", we've been over the fact that we go by what the reliable sources state. Not what Letourneau states...unless reported on in a reliable source and WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope Masem can speak for him or herself! Confirmation that an alternative sentence was imposed and a plea agreement was not is incredibly well-documented in reliable sources. I've started assembling sources for our collaboration here. Mcfnord (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
And did I speak for Masem? No. I stated, "Nah. It's fine as is. Masem did a good job implementing the text." As for sources? I've already cited sources above that use wording such as "agreed not to have further contact with Fualaau" and "Judge Lau revoked the suspension", and Someguy1221 cited quality sources below. The sources currently in your sandbox are poor in comparison. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, shucks, I do cite the actual State v. Letourneau Court of Appeals ruling! Tough crowd! Mcfnord (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors on this talk page have questioned the way you sometimes use sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY, for example, is clear. And you taking "sentencing alternative" from "the titling of the SSOSA law" to argue that we should use "alternative sentence"? Tsk. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources not yet used in the article

The following are academic secondary sources that discuss Mary Kay Letourneau. I'll quote the parts relevant to her sentencing, though there is more at the sources for anyone who wants to look for additional material.

  • Mary Kay Letourneau, was convicted of child sexual abuse... The teacher was convicted of second degree statutory rape and sent to prison for seven and a half years, all but six months of that suspended. She was required to agree never to see Fualaau again and to participate in a three-year-long rehabilitation program. However, after Letourneau was released from her six-month prison stint, she again struck up a relationship with Fualaau and, when discovered, was sent back to prison to serve the remainder of her original sentence.—Hayes, Sharon L. & Carpenter, Belinda J. (2011) Out of time: The moral temporality of sex, crime and taboo. Critical Criminology, 20(2):141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9130-3
  • Facing statutory rape charges, Letourneau pled guilty in exchange for a short term of incarceration (3 months) followed by a longer term of probation... Once released on probation, Letourneau was banned from contacting her victim, who was then 14 years old. However, within a month, the two were found together in a compromising situation in Letourneau's vehicle. This violation led to additional charges, and Letourneau was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison.—Tara N. Richards and Catherine D. Marcum eds. (2014), "Sexual Victimization: Then and Now", SAGE Publications, p.104, ISBN10:1483354946, ISBN13:9781483354941
  • Mary Kay LeTourneau pled guilty to two counts of child rape... LeTourneau was sentenced to 7-1/2 years in prison on November 1997, which was suspended on the condition that she enter a treatment program...On February 3, 1998, she was arrested after the two were found together in a car. on February 6, LeTourneau was sentenced to the remainder of her original 7-1/2-year sentence.—Louis B. Schlesinger ed.(2000), "Serial Offenders: Current Thought, Recent Findings", CRC Press, p.27, ISBN10:1420039008, ISBN13:9781420039009
  • She was sentenced to a 7 1/2-year prison term for child rape after she pled guilty to having sex with her 12-year-old student. However, the judge suspended all but six months of the sentence on the condition that she enter a sex offender treatment program.—Graham, Alisa (2007), Simply Sexual: The Discrepancy in Treatment between Male and Female Sex Offenders Notes and Comments, Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy 7(1):145–167, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/wjcfad7&i=149
  • After violating the terms of her plea deal under which she would have only served three months in prison, Letourneau was eventually sentenced to seven and a half years in prison.—Steve James (2009), Romeo and Juliet Were Sex Offenders: An Analysis of the Age of Consent and a Call for Reform Comment, UMKC Law Review 78(1):241–262 https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/umkc78&i=243

Perhaps this affords more possibilities for how the article is written. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you gathering these additional sources. I'm often the first to look to academic sources on non-BLP topics, but I didn't think to do so in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

followup: statements by criminals

This subject claims she did not know sex with the child was a serious crime. We should probably summarize the subject's claim.

We considered this in an archived discussion, but there were a number of open issues at that time, and this one slipped through the cracks. So here's the key stuff discussed previously:

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

  • R. Kelly - It's important to note that subject denials present in this BLP are not due to his unconvicted status, but due to the necessity that claims about subjects of BLPs are, subject to WP:UNDUE restrictions, a necessary part of the article.
  • Roger Stone - Subject denials all included subject to WP:UNDUE limitations.
  • Matt Gaetz - Subject apology for tweet covered.
  • David Pecker - "criminal accusations the subject denied"
  • 2009 Lakewood shooting - Darcus Allen, convicted and sentenced to 420 years in prison, says here, "Allen maintains that he did not know Clemmons intended to commit a crime, and believes he has been a scapegoat for the public anguish and outrage evoked by the murders," as per BLP standards.
  • Bill Cosby - This BLP of a high-profile criminal starts a detailed paragraph with "Cosby has repeatedly denied the allegations and maintained his innocence."
  • Ed Murray - The subject of multiple accusations, this BLP mentions they were "all charges he denies."

This stricture applies to all living subjects presented on Wikipedia, including those convicted as well as those awaiting trial.

As Flyer22 Reborn pointed out, the subject in this source (and many others) claimed that she didn't know that the sexual activity was a crime. We should probably add this near the claim about her criminal sex, as we do in all examples listed above, and as we do across the site for living and recently-deceased criminals and the accused.

With warmest regards, Mcfnord (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, where to start. There is nothing in BLP policy that says we have to give a subject's statements about a crime. In most cases the subject simply denies it, which is what is expected, so it doesn't provide any useful information and is taken with a grain of salt. The list of articles doesn't really establish anything per WP:Other stuff exists. All that matters is if the information gives us some insight into this person. In this case, I actually have to agree with you that the info does indeed tell us something about the subject. Either she's lying and really, really bad at it (most likely scenario) or she is incredibly stupid beyond the realm of believability. Even small children know "bad touching" is illegal. So personally I have no objection to its inclusion, because it gives a huge insight into her character, although others may feel differently. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree it says something about her character. But this addition should be stated in just a few words (no more than one sentence), per WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
As for Mcfnord's arguments, a person denying their guilt is not necessarily the same thing as a person claiming that they didn't know something was a crime. And, really, if she thought that being sexual with a 12/13-year-old boy wasn't a crime, why did she repeatedly behave in a way as to not get caught? Because she was only worried about her husband finding out? And where did she think the cut-off point was with regard to age? Did she also think it was perfectly fine for an adult to be sexual with a 5-year-old? Why would she think age 12/13 specifically is okay? As for the discussion Mcfnord linked inked to, I asked him questions about what he meant by "the subject has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery." It took me querying more than once for clarification, more discussion, and me looking at the aforementioned People magazine source to see that what she actually claimed is that she didn't know that sexual activity with Fualaau was a crime. Anyway, I don't mind the statement being included lower in the article, not in the lead. Pinging Valjean (previously BullRangifer), Pincrete, Masem, and Someguy1221 for their thoughts. Good to see Sundayclose commenting now that Sundayclose watches the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I basically agree with Sundayclose, a sentence or so, though like Zaereth, I find it quite incredible (literally), that a qualified teacher could possibly not know that sexual activity with one of her charges was illegal, unethical and … … well, what else? But this is a reflection on her and the oddnesses of this case, so, worth a sentence or so. Pincrete (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Valjean (previously BullRangifer), Pincrete, Masem, and Someguy1221, here is the addition. I moved it and added more to it. In the source, although she says she didn't know it was a crime, she does acknowledge that she knew it would be wrong to let the relationship go any further. Hmm. Maybe she we should add something about her saying she didn't think it was a crime. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
As far as I could see, what the source says is "Mary claims at the time it didn’t cross her mind that her new love was illegal". That's subtlely different from "didn't know". I've amended, but if she says explicitly somewhere that she "didn't know" - then by all means amend my edit. To reply the question I was asked here about, I don't see the addition of her claims as problematic - whether self-deceiving, dishonest, obsessed, cleverly disingenuous or whatever (quite a few sources say fantasist and immature) - her claims and character are aspects of the incident. I've removed/amended in a few other places since the text seemed to me to be excessively soap-opera-y, which many sources are of course.Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Pincrete, I'm not sure that I would state "subtlely different." The source is saying she claims she didn't think it was a crime to be sexual with a 12/13-year-old boy who "consented" to the activity. In any case, as seen, I was going by the source's words and quoted it for the first part of the piece. I also moved it from where you placed it because I don't think it flows best to skip to a 2006 interview there after the fact. I moved the text to go with the other post-prison commentary about their interactions. As for whether the addition of the claim is problematic, we tackled that in April. As seen above, you commented on it then and I understood what you meant. I didn't state that including it would be problematic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
And this aforementioned People source states the same of a newer interview she gave. It states, "Mary Kay Letourneau, the elementary school teacher who was convicted in 1996 of raping her sixth-grade student before ultimately marrying him, said in a new interview she didn't know that her actions were criminal. Appearing on Sunday Night on Australia’s Channel 7, Letourneau said she did not realize her actions were illegal. 'If someone had told me, if anyone had told me, there is a specific law that says this is a crime I did not know,' she told the show. 'I’ve said this over and over again. Had I’d known, if anyone knows my personality. Just the idea, this would count as a crime.'" Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
So added it. Because of what the People source relays, I think it's safe to remove the extra you added regarding her thoughts on the matter being a crime. She tells us that she's said over and over again she didn't think it was a crime. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, these sources are more specific. The difference between it didn’t cross my mind and "I didn't know" is only that the first is vaguer - "I didn't even stop to think" being a valid interpretation of the first. Either way, it stretches credulity to near-breaking point to think that someone in charge of 12 year-olds could NOT know/not realise, but that is what she says. Pincrete (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured you were stating that "it didn't cross my mind" could be interpreted as "I didn't even stop to think." But that source is straightforward in saying she says she didn't know, and it didn't challenge the wording on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Death

New reports of Letourneau's death due to cancer have surfaced in several news reports. I found this link:[3] 172.222.112.194 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

According to news reports, Mary Kay Letourneau died Monday night, July 6, 2020. Her death was not announced until July 7, but that erroneously is the date of death listed in the wikipedia article and in the summary to its right on the page. Should be July 6.[4], [5] 2601:602:8480:46D0:E88B:FFF4:7387:A90E (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

Please add the following bullet point to the popular culture section:

  • A 2006 episode of the animated television series South Park features a plot line based on Letourneau and Fualaau's relationship. The episode, titled Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy, shows kindergarten teacher Miss Stevenson enter a relationship with her student Ike Broflovski.

Thank you in advance. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2020

In the last sentence of the section "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau", "close to Faulauu" should be changed to "close to Fualaau". Ersonpay (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

I reverted AzureCitizen on these changes. The reason I did so is because what should be in the lead and how to format the lead has been extensively discussed. As seen in the archives and on the talk page above, editors (me included) have been through hours and hours of discussion to come to WP:Consensus about aspects of the lead. I ask that AzureCitizen review at least some of that and/or propose changes here. For example, I don't think we should be stating "best known for" or "sexual relationship." For similar discussion concerning "relationship", see Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 3#Regarding "illicit".

Please don't ping me if you reply.Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To specifically comment on the "best known" piece, she is only known (to the general public) for this matter. So having "best known for" there is odd. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not just odd, it's superfluous. It's really taking a fact and turning it into a judgment call. It'd be like saying "Horand von Grafrath is best known for being the first German Shepherd Dog." That's a conclusion. Better is, "Horand von Grafrath was the first German Shepherd Dog." That's a fact. I would avoid the prepositional phrase "best known for" in any article. At the very least it's pointing out the obvious, which is unnecessary. Zaereth (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro name

Subject's legal name Mary Katherine Fualaau appears on her death certificate, and should appear as this article's first words, according to MOS:NAME. Mcfnord (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it should. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
As made clear by MOS:MULTIPLENAMES in the same section, "It is not necessary to list all previous names of subjects when they are not notably known by them." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
MOS:NAME is a guideline, not a policy. She is widely known as Mary Kay Letourneau, and that's quite sufficient as a reason for referring to her as such. That's why virtually every word written about Elizabeth Taylor would refer to her as Elizabeth Taylor regardless of whether she ever took the last name of one of her husbands. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP:PRIVACY and child names

Hi QuestFour. You should not be re-inserting the names of non-subjects, as per BLP:PRIVACY. Your revert comment says:

"restore as BLP generally applies to the article's subject, should at least be discussed before omitting"

Not correct. BLP policy applies to all mentions of all people on this website, in articles, in talk, everywhere, everyone, including me, including you! I have reverted these names of (then) children and need them to stay removed, as per clear policy. While not libelous, they invade privacy of these people.

ALSO, I still don't understand how MOS:BOLDREDIRECT means we bold the victim's name. Could you zero in on what I'm missing? Mcfnord (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

QuestFour: You don't understand WP:BLPNAME, and you keep violating it. Read: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Mcfnord (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The names of people who are not notable enough to have their own articles, especially children, should be left out, partly because of BLPPRIVACY, but mostly because it's trivial info to the general reader (a name with no face) that serves no function in defining the subject. If it is of no use then just use a general descriptor, respect their privacy, and leave the names out. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

relevance of media role and unusually strong interest

Pincrete, I'd like to revert a change you made. You ask in the comment about relevance, which is a reasonable question. It's important that we understand how much media scrutiny was placed on this particular subject and situation. I've recently become aware of a different person who committed a very similar crime. Her name is Brittany Zamora, but the only thing Wikipedia says about her is where she currently resides.

What we say today:

  • The case received national attention. (Actually, it was international)
  • She became the subject of an international tabloid scandal, and experienced symptoms of degraded mental health according to acquaintances.
  • Passing unnoticed past hordes of reporters and gawkers...

What we don't say, but possibly should:

Many commit similar crimes. Few receive this degree of intense, sustained, global attention. Nor can the story even be understood without these details. There are multiple instances where the unusual level of attention caused unusual results. Said Salon, "The scandals on the scale of Letourneau... expertly catalogs the corrosive role the media played in the affair."

We need to acknowledge the unusually high visibility of this criminal. I've tried to describe this appeal as notoriety, though I'm not 100% sold on the term. The article says in 3 places what that level of attention meant in concrete terms. We used to say it in 4 places, but you had concern about relevance. It's relevant! Mcfnord (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on media coverage - my removal was itself 'tabloidy' detail, as I would say is the 'gawkers' above. If the level of attention was in any way unfair, that is for others to remedy, we simply reflect the big bad world, not fix it nor comment on it. I would object to you restoring 'painting a scene' details. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I also wish to revert this eliding. She was indeed a staple of tabloids. And media coverage is one thing, but when media coverage changes what's going on, that's a different thing. Could you tell me which of these citations do seem noteworthy in your view? You say you have no strong opinion about covering the coverage, which we did 4 times, but now do 2 times, after your changes. Can you articulate how "painting a scene" is problematic, in your view? As a technical writer, I "paint scenes" with facts all the time. There are facts, and there are noteworthy facts. Which of the citations/facts listed above seem possibly inclusion-worthy to you? Does Wikipedia cover stuff like "story that stunned the world" but not stuff like "amid a 'media circus'"? Are you saying that reporting and level of interest is never part of the story? You reflect the big bad world except that part of it? I don't know if I think any of the coverage was fair or unfair, but it was massive, and that had consequences far beyond the printed pages. Why wouldn't we include those kinds of details? Locked in a police office while media swarmed outside? That's unusual. Her children relocated across the country due to media attention. Is that a detail you omit? Things like some book some guy wrote seem weaker to me than specifics about 100+ reporters at a court hearing, because it gets at what a lot of people were involved in (maybe a best-seller is comparable). We should reflect those unusual details, as they help explain the unusual international response to this criminal vs. very many others. Let our collaboration start! Mcfnord (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I just removed the information about Brittany Z. It's unsourced and libelous. For all we know that may have been added by a high school kid as a prank. I would also request that her last name be removed in the original post above, per WP:BLP. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, after reading through all of that, what the point is that we are trying to convey. What are the changes that are being suggested? What I infer from this is that we should portray her as somehow a victim of the media? Is that correct? I have no doubt that this was a high-profile case. That's extremely evident, so I don't know if there's much of a point in stating that, because pointing out the obvious can become condescending to the reader.
While true, every case does not come close to achieving this kind of publicity, you cannot blame that solely on the media. (And believe me, I am no fan of the MSM these days.) There is also public interest that plays a major role, because if the public is not interested the media will quickly move on. It's the same reason a handful of rock bands make it big and most don't. Her reactions and inane responses didn't really help her either, as that only fueled the interest.
That's the risk you take when you commit any crime. As an analogy, people commit murders everyday, yet very few of those reach the level of infamy as the Charles Manson murders. In retrospect, there have been many murders committed that were much more gruesome and deranged than the Manson case, and if it happened in, say ... Somewhere Nebraska, it would likely never had seen the type of coverage that it got. But, as it turned out, it happened in Beverly Hills, and all the ingredients came together to make it an extremely high-profile case. You can blame that on the media or public interest, the timing and the place, or any combination of the those, but the people ultimately responsible are the people who committed the crimes. That may be unfortunate for people like Bobby Beausoleil, who have served their sentences and would like to forget it and get on with their lives (and make it a footnote in their Wikipedia article), but that is never going to happen. These are names that achieved infamy, and Letourneau has achieved a level of fame that parallels theirs. (And for anyone that feels like jumping in and saying that child sexual abuse is not on the same level as murder, number one, that's not what I'm comparing, but rather the level of coverage they got, and number two, I would argue that it most certainly is.)
Now it definitely caused a controversy, and if we have sources specifically covering that controversy, then this may be one of those few articles that should actually have a controversy section (since "controversy" refers to a widespread public interest and debate, not just any old dispute or criticism or dirty laundry). But, from what I've read above, I have no clue what the actual proposal is beyond presenting a bunch of sources that together provide in inference not directly implied by them individually, so I'd be very careful of straying into the realm of synthesis. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
A "Controversy" section wouldn't be needed in this case (and often is not ideal in general). The whole reason she is famous is because of the Fualaau matter, which we cover in the respective sections. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 5 January 2023

  • What I think should be changed: - Factual Error - 2020 minus 1962 equals 48 not 58 [Born Mary Katherine Schmitz January 30, 1962 Tustin, California, U.S. Died July 6, 2020 (aged 58)
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

24.180.215.80 (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The content is correct. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Child rapist, a sort of revisited topic

TheXuitts wants to call Letourneau a child rapist in the lead.[6] I said to TheXuittsts that she wasn't Jimmy Savile, and that even his wikipedia article doesn't have the first sentence say "child rapist." By saying she was a child rapist, an onlooker might think there was more than one victim (before reading more, if they read more) and that she was a serial offender. But there was one victim, and editors have previously pointed out that she didn't seem to have a sexual preference for children. See Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 1#Child rape not statutory rape (2010 discussion) and Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 3#statutory child rape (2019 discussion). So I think saying "child rapist" isn't true to MOS:ROLEBIO. And the lead says already "second-degree rape of a child." I told TheXuitts that the consensus is to continue to say "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the statutory rape article. TheXuitts also wanted to say that Letourneau's motivation for the crime was pedophilia. I told them that "based on Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 5#BRD discussion, you shouldn't add 'pedophilia' as a motive to that page. Pedophilia as a motive isn't in sources on this topic." So far, TheXuitts has dropped "pedophilia", but they really want "child rapist" in the lead. Is it better to say "convicted sex offender"? Valjean, in the most up-to-date discussion about using the term statutory rape in the article, you said, "I agree that we should continue to state 'second-degree rape of a child' while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article." Do you still hold this view? There's also things said at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 5#suspended prison term by Masem that I don't completely understand. Should I ask WP:NPOVN for their opinions? 195.226.154.42 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

She was convicted of second-degree child rape. Someone convicted of child rape is a convicted child rapist. If someone is convicted of murder we say they are a convicted murderer, so I don’t know why you see this as different. She was a convicted child rapist and it is accurate to say she is one. TheXuitts (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"Child rapist" and "second-degree rape of a child" are practically synonymous, but have very different connotations in the public mind in the United States, where, unlike France and many other nations, this would barely have been a crime, and certainly not have been punished as severely because it was consensual and he was so precocious.
Although this is the English LANGUAGE encyclopedia, we should not write only to the American or British mindset. The image created by those two words is the actions of a pedophile on an unwilling prepubescent child. In neither sense is that the case here. Fualaau was a large, fully developed, sexually precocious, 13-year old young man, there was no violence, and there is no evidence that Letourneau was a pedophile or sexually attracted to prepubescent children. He was a minor, and the relationship was illegal because it violated statutory rape laws in the state of Washington, and they are determined by the age of consent. The ages of consent in the United States vary between 16 and 18, depending on the state. It used to be lower in some states. IIRC, Mississippi or some other such southern state had it down to 13. At least marriage is legal at such low ages in some states.
Some countries go much lower than 16, and in France, sex with older children was previously legal as long as it was consensual. That's what got Roman Polanski in trouble. He did what was legal in France, but he was in Hollywood. Oops! The laws in France have also changed to older ages of consent. This article gives an interesting glimpse into the French mindset: French petition against age of consent laws.
Ages of consent in Europe vary between 14 and 18, with it being 14 in Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, San Marino, and Serbia; 15 in Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. So that gives you an idea of how widely this is interpreted. Some go with the natural sexual development of the child and their impulses, and others go as high as 18, which goes completely against the natural order, but are thus according to the nation's own religious laws and repressive attitudes toward sexuality.
In summary, Fualaau was one year younger than the legal age of consent in many European countries, and we should keep the international mindset in mind and not create an unnecessarily harsh image that would be a BLP violation. That's why we pipelink the legal conviction "second-degree rape of a child" to the statutory rape article. Otherwise, people will end up at articles related to pedophilia, and that would be very wrong and violate our "easter egg" MoS guideline for wikilinks. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

the public mind in the United States, where, unlike France and many other nations, this would barely have been a crime, and certainly not have been punished as severely because it was consensual and he was so precocious.

What are you talking about? The defendant literally, factually, was tried and punished as a child rapist in the United States. And are you saying Americans are more tolerant of child rapists than the French? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus version and added a couple improvements. He was 13, not 12. Allowing that to be there at all was a huge BLP violation. -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, I'm confused because you restored one consensus format, but you removed another.[7] See Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4#Should the article state that Fualaau was "12 or 13" at the time that Letourneau was sexual with him, or should it choose an age? If choosing an age, which one? (2019). "12 or 13" was chosen by Flyer22 Reborn, Pincrete, and Colin M. While Colin M did say "or just '12' if that's overwhelmingly favoured in RS", you voted "12 or 13, or only 12" in bold. Votes were for "12 or 13" because sources report both, which has caused a back and forth on the topic (as some editors will switch in "12" and others will switch in "13"). So what's changed? Maybe you need to place a Template:Note beside the age?
Cunard's close said, "The consensus is that the article should state Fualaau was 12 or 13. Some editors suggested that if sources disagree, then the disagreement should be added to the article. And that if sources lean heavily to one side, that should be noted in the article. There was little discussion of this suggestion, so there is no prejudice against discussing this approach further." 195.226.154.9 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I added a ref of the trial document that said: "was having sexual intercourse with V.F., a 13-year-old student at the school where she taught". That's as RS as one can get. Can any argument or other RS top that?
IIRC, there was uncertainty because popular RS sent mixed messages. It seems they weren't sure, but the trial document should seal the deal for 13. -- Valjean (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to dig deep into my memory here, but vaguely remember that it was never established with precision when the relationship became 'actively' sexual - as opposed to merely flirtatious. Thus some sources go with 'still 12' if I remember correctly. BTW many of the European countries which you mention above make specific exceptions for a substantial age gap between parties and/or for those in a 'pastoral' role, such as teachers. Pincrete (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, the leagle.com/ document which says 13 explicitly says "In early 1997, the King County Department of Public Safety Special Assault Unit received information that Mary K. Letourneau—a 35 year-old sixth grade teacher and mother of four children—was having sexual intercourse with V.F., a 13-year-old student at the school where she taught" ie he was 13 at the time 'ongoing' sexual relations were reported to authorities. The source does not appear to mention the age when relations began, nor the age when the two counts to which she pleaded guilty occurred. This really doesn't resolve the age question at all.Pincrete (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ugh! That muddies the waters. Where are the other court records which discuss the actual beginnings of the relationship? -- Valjean (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I know this isn't a RS, but it mentions existing police reports, and it should be possible to find them cited in court records. According to it, "Fualaau later told police that the two had their first sexual encounter shortly before his 13th birthday, in Letourneau's home, after her husband had left for work and while her four children were asleep." With such documentation from those RS, we should be able to put this to rest as "12 years old when they started a sexual relationship". -- Valjean (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't found a police report, but a TV news source, and they are usually considered RS: https://abc7chicago.com/mary-kay-letourneau-vili-fualaau-student-teacher-lovers-teacher-sleeps-with-student/647483/ Is that good enough? -- Valjean (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have found a better one, although it's just an archive of a WDBJ news broadcast. It's still a RS that explicitly states: "FUALAAU WAS JUST TWELVE YEARS OLD WHEN THE AFFAIR WITH HIS TEACHER BEGAN."[1] That should be good enough. -- Valjean (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "WDBJ 7 news at Noon for 04/04/02". WDBJ. April 4, 2002. Retrieved December 10, 2021.

I am not logged in so I cant edit it right

sorry 103.71.77.84 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau/Archive_5&oldid=1252040143"