Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 3

Regarding "illicit"
Regarding "rape of a child" is "illicit"  -- she pled guilty - it most definitely is not editor POV, it's an established fact that the relationship when he was 12 was illicit. It also implicitly takes care the "non-consensual" problem - that apparently led to the oddly clinical "impregnated by". Part of the nature of the established-in-fact illicit relationship here, is the minor cannot give consent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Illicit relationship," "illicit affair," or "illicit liaison" is inflammatory, POV, unencyclopedic wording, which is why SarekOfVulcan reverted an editor on "illicit liaison" before. Some people view this matter as "a forbidden love affair," as though it's some Romeo and Juliet story, which is another reason why the aforementioned descriptors are inappropriate. Stating "illicit relationship" is like stating "forbidden relationship." We know it's forbidden; that's why the law ruled it as child rape. There is no need for us to state that it is forbidden. DHeyward previously designed the lead; you can ask him about which wording is best. And I can leave a message at some relevant associated pages for others to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, using "illegal" is not much better; it's still stating the obvious. But whatever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your argument is absurd. There is nothing inflammatory or editor POV or unencyclopedic about an illegal sexual relationship being "illicit" - it's a stone cold fact. Your 'Romeo and Juliet' claim is nonsense when discussing "illicit".  Its illicit in part because he cannot consent, which the prior poor clinical wording of impregantion was trying to address, while oddly putting the onus on the person who could not consent. But at any rate, I changed it to illegal and focused on the subject. -Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sighs. Arguing with you over the tabloid-like "illicit relationship" wording will be futile. I've argued with you enough at Talk:Emmett Till, where I was subjected to your nonsense. Clearly, you've carried your hostility toward me from there to here. I'm not doing this again with you. I'll go ahead and alert the WP:BLP, WP:BLP noticeboard, WP:WikiProject Biography, WP:WikiProject Law, WP:WikiProject Crime and WP:Manual of Style talk pages to this discussion for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Additional comment: I also alerted the WP:NPOV talk page; I didn't consider the matter POV in terms of that policy, but they have been discussing labeling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have edited or said has anything to do with any "hostility" - your odd claim of "hostility" is a total and complete fabrication. As for your "tabloid" claim that is and was clearly not my intent, rather your odd understanding of a perfectly well-established by RS word for illegal, perhaps makes your baseless leap that it is. Besides, if that was your claim, ' "illicit" is only used by tabloids', why could you not say upfront 'hey, I think "illicit" sounds tabloid, let's find another word', instead of leaving it to after I changed the word, so there is no more reason for anyone to discuss illicit. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Your latest "additional comment" seems rather irrelevant, "illicit" was never used by me in this article or on this talk page to label a person, it was and is factual description of conduct that was adjudicated by a court, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just so it is clear, for anyone who comes here because of the above after-the-fact notices mentioned by Flyer Reborn 22, "illicit" has been stricken from where it was placed in the article and is not now used  or proposed to be used in the article, and that happened before the notices. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this has moved on, but just for the record, the dictionary definition of "illicit" is "illegal or disapproved of by society." In this case it would clearly be both. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Legis, were you responding to me as a clarification? I'm aware of what the dictionaries state about the term. This dictionary source states that it means "forbidden by law, rules, or custom." My issue with its use for this article is how it is often used in the media. See the first example given by the first source cited by Alanscottwalker above: "The wedding is mounted in traditional Punjabi style, but underneath the formal fanfare simmer dysfunctional-family tensions, deep dark secrets, … and illicit affairs. —David Ansen, Newsweek, 4 Mar. 2002." The kind of stuff you'd see in a tabloid, romance novel, or a newspaper going for a titillating title. And combined with "liaison," it's simply problematic, given that "liaison" is often taken to mean "affair, romance, intrigue, fling, love affair, amour, entanglement." (See lower in that source.) Luckily, "illicit liaison" was not added this time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Plus, both it and and "illegal" are completely unnecessary, as if readers will not understand that the interaction is forbidden/illegal from what the lead states before that point (including in its very first line). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the established context, here, is child rape and no liaison in sight, its not in the least titillating. As for unnecessary, the non-consensual illegal nature of the relationship was relevant before (I got here) in that paragraph, you said -- so its just continuing the relevance. That the relationship was illegal or illicit is calling it what it was, and it was her action - it did not somehow transmogrify into just a relationship because she had children therby, so let's be clear. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn you wrote "" No it is not obvious not non-American readers (a case of systemic bias?). The age of consent varies in the English speaking world), and it also varies over time in the same jurisdiction, so adding "illicit" is not inappropriate if indeed that is the commonly held moral as well as legal view in that jurisdiction, although as this is read by a wider audience illegal is probably clear as it makes no moral judgement. -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PBS, I work on child sexual abuse and age of consent topics. I know that the age of consent varies. But I don't agree that "illegal relationship" is needed after the lead paragraph quite clearly states "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. Her plea agreement called for six months in jail, with three months suspended, and no contact with Fualaau for life." Or, you know, what the rest of the lead states before "illegal relationship." And I certainly don't agree that "illicit relationship" is fine, and that doubles per your view that this page is for a wider audience and "illegal is probably clear as it makes no moral judgement." Do you think adding "illicit liaison" is fine as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And if we really want to discuss age of consent matters, I should note that the age of consent being 12 or below is not too common. Anyone is free to look at the Age of consent article or reliable sources on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is redundant, even if we deemed the word not too PoV-laden to use in our own material here. That seems unlikely, at least in this sort of context. It might be okay when distinguishing, e.g., between confiscated illicit funds and monies imposed as a fine, in the total cost imposed on a defendant in a legal case. Here, the intent of the word is clearly emotive/judgemental, so it should not be used even if the point of its insertion did not make it useless rehash. It actually doesn't even make sense in that micro-context; the illicitness of the relationship has nothing to do with the pregnancy, so it's a patent non sequitur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that illicit and illegal are both appropriate terms to describe Letourneau and Fualaau's relationship before the no contact order was lifted: the usage is correct as a matter of law, since she was convicted. Having said that, I don't think that over-the-top browbeating about the status provides the most readable article. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now tried chron order, perhaps that works. All I can tell you, is there was no intent to browbeat by use of one word - and to SMcCandlish, not judgmental, the judgement was the court's, and there is and was no emotive intent about saying what the court found - that's all that is, and ever was. As for non-sequitur, it makes no sense to claim that something that leads to something is a non-sequitur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It lead to something; there is no logical connection between "illicit" and "resulted in her giving birth", the actual topic of the sentence.  Also, the presence of "before her first arrest" in the same sentence, plus all the material and context in the article up to this point, mean that including "illicit" here is redundant brow-beating of the reader, even if the word actually pertained to the message of the sentence in which it was inserted, which it does not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph is gone, but no. Physically, the illicit act here as a matter of fact led to the result -- in the nature of things that illegal act led to pregnancy. Your other objections 'redundant or browbeat' can only be made if you think that the illegal sexual act led to pregnancy is obvious - and so obvious it does not need to be said, it's already an implicit part the message of the sentence. I now think the jumping around in time was the problem - it was 1997, 1998-2004, and then jump back in time to 1998, and have awhile ago ditched the paragraph, accordingly. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me, though I think you still did not understand the point I was making, which was linguistic and semantic, not biological or legal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was mentioned earlier. I believe my version used the term "victim." (it was three years ago so I cited my last edit, not the edit to the lead). I don't care about the word "illicit" but I do care that the article does not seek to portray this as a victimless misunderstanding. I liked the version I referenced because it plainly identifies a child victim of an act without characterizing their relationship. I have a feeling those that oppose "illicit" or "illegal" will also oppose "victim" but I prefer to name the child as "victim" of the acts. Technically, the "relationship" is not the legal infraction, sexual contact is illegal. It's rape of a child and Fualau is the victim. Use of the term "realtionship" to describe what i viewed as rape i a rathole and should be avoided. I wouldn't call it a relationship until Fualau was an adult. My .02. --DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. As of my chronology edit, "relationship" is now also not there, but I did think about it at the time and given the context written, her illegal relationship resulting in a child, seemed clear it was sexual, but not just sexual, as you note, an adjudicated crime - illegal/illicit - not victimless and not the victim's fault - and not another relationship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Illicit is a perfectly acceptable word to be used in this context. Definition of illicit is "forbidden by law, rules, or custom." Her actions are not in dispute. Using illicit would only be a WP:BLP issue if it were speculation; ie, "Mayor Joe Schmo is planning to resign because of an illicit relationship with a 15-year-old intern." It is a more accurate word than illegal, because illicit also describes not just breaking the penal code, but can mean breaking other rules and customs of society, such as adultery, or a university policy about professors having affairs with students. That is why media use the word illicit so much. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tabloid media love the word illicit because it is short and eye-catching since it implies something salacious. I don't think it is a word that would improve the article - it adds nothing to it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not the relationship that is illegal; they could be dating all the time and kissing all the time, having what most would consider a relationship, and it would not be illegal (tawdry, yes). It was the sex that was illegal, and specifically illegal for one of the two people involved, the other being considered the victim. A proper description would keep that problem precise. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, yeah, that's my view. I found the addition redundant and emotive. And then there is the aforementioned connotation regarding the word. This connotation -- the interaction simply being some illicit affair -- is what I was worried about (regardless of the lead making it clear that Letourneau's actions were illegal). I was concerned about the text giving the "oh, it was simply a forbidden love affair" feel, which is how a scandalous, consensual adult relationship is often portrayed in the media and in fiction, and is how some people actually view the Letourneau and Fualaau interaction. A number of people don't think of Fualaau as a victim because he was an adolescent boy, who was 12/13, and eventually ended up marrying Letourneau, and because Fualaau does not think of himself as a victim. As many know, there is a double standard in public perception when it comes to an adult woman being sexual with an adolescent boy vs. an adult man being sexual with an adolescent girl; the man is commonly viewed more harshly (by both sexes). In the case of the woman-boy matters, many men consider the boy lucky and don't think that the sexual encounter harmed him. There is some research indicating that boys view themselves as victims a lot less than girls do in these cases, but there are different reasons given for this. As for what Nat Gertler stated about kissing, kissing can also be sexual (as noted in the Kissing article) and it can be considered sexual assault (depending on the context). Kissing a child with sexual intent (such as French kissing) can be considered child sexual abuse. Kissing in this manner, does, after all, incite sexual feelings (including sexual arousal). But NatGertler is correct that the non-sexual aspects of the relationship were not illegal, and I was also thinking about that, but didn't bring it up. Anyway, I understand where DHeyward is coming from; it's why, when making the revert, I stated, "The paragraph was clinical-sounding because editors have been concerned about portraying the matter in a consensual light since it was ruled as rape of a child." I would understand adding "victim," but I would not recommend it for POV reasons. We don't even use "victim" or "patient" in our medical articles. Well, we avoid them in our medical articles and remove them when we see them (unless using one or the other is somehow better or necessary).

I also understand that Alanscottwalker did not mean any harm by his addition. And I think that the current lead is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of that, but agree with the above observation that fixing the chronological presentation of the material largely makes the matter moot. There are other aspects to this; e.g., statutory rape of a minor (under various exact names) isn't considered the same crime as sexual assault in most jurisdictions (maybe not in any of them). It's OR to try to equate them with phrasing like "ruled as rape of a child". The fact that both crimes' names (sometimes) include the same word, in different precise senses, doesn't mean they can be given the false equivalence treatment.  The case also raises issues of legal versus societal perceptions of what "consent" is and who may give it under what circumstances; both of these vary widely from place to place, and can be in conflict within the same place.  But these aren't matters to speculate on in WP's own voice.  To the extent this case may raise reader questions about them, our answers have to come from secondary-source analysis, and would be better treated at other, more general articles on these legal and social topics probably, though it's not beyond a reasonable expectations that there may already be RS that address some of them regarding this case in particular. Still there are other cases (and stranger ones); I remember reading of a mother-son relationship in New Mexico that began under similar gender and age circumstances, also resulting in prison time, and in a mutual vow to continue the relationship. There are also plenty of father-daughter and sibling or half-sibling cases (a prominent one in Germany went to the UN or EU courts).  I.e., there's enough on this sort of thing (with or without an incest component) to cover it generally at general articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on substantiated changes
Hi User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:John from Idegon.

These are germane facts:


 * Attention to the case was large and international. 100 journalists attended the first sentencing. 125 journalists attended the second sentencing.
 * The judge vacated the plea agreement with the suspended sentence. (Now the page says the "probation" was vacated, but that doesn't make sense, and isn't stated in any source.)
 * The second child was born after the subject had been imprisoned for 8 months.
 * Around the time of her first sentencing, subject became target of an international tabloid scandal, was targeted by delusional strangers, and experienced symptoms of degraded mental health.
 * In 2001, in a prank by a test author, a standardized test used across Washington State included a math question that resolved to a sequence of city names that phonetically matched Letourneau's full name.


 * NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENSUS-SEEKING AT THIS TIME: The officer who made the second arrest saw no signs that the couple had engaged in sex in the car.
 * NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENSUS-SEEKING AT THIS TIME: In the first sentencing, the subject told the court her actions were wrong. I can't find the article where she's quoted. Would like to find that again, because in all other sources, the subject has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery.
 * NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENSUS-SEEKING AT THIS TIME: The original verdict specified that 84 months of imprisonment would be suspended.
 * NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENSUS-SEEKING AT THIS TIME: The subject's initial period in jail was 5 months in length.

These are NPOV-secondary sources that confirm these facts:


 * https://www.historylink.org/File/5727
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/02/07/parole-revoked-ex-teacher-sent-to-prison-in-teen-sex-case/ed36067d-b2b7-49f6-962e-241b15ff579b/
 * https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html
 * https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-07/0001_letourneau_s_prison_term_seen_as_.html
 * https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-11/0002_report__letourneau_confused__impu.html
 * https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-13/0005_teacher_s_lawyer_warned_groupies.html
 * https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/10-19/0012_mary_kay_letourneau__teenage_fath.html
 * https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2001/04-27/0003_letourneau_s_name_hidden_in_wasl_.html

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

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

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


 * Like I've noted at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, there are some issues with your edits. I'm not going to discuss this in two different places. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My edits have nothing to do with a COI issue. I'm going to discuss them here. I'm pretty sure they belong here! Sorry about that!
 * The best NPOV-primary sources are the police testimony and police report. The AP story cited police testimony, and the Washington Post cited the police report. I know of no other evidence presented in any other source, though yes one could listen to LeTourneau's attorney, or the child, but I don't really bother. Think about this: The subject was not charged with an additional felony rape of a child for events of that night, which means: The police report, the charging document, the King County Prosecutor, the police testimony, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the judge would dispute your claim that sex occurred. The strongest evidence-based articles are those two. I think that's because the AP summarized the testimony, and the Post summarized the police report. Can you find any other source supporting their claim with evidence? I'm concerned that we are looking right at the implications of tabloid journalism but not acknowledging it.
 * This couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred, which is noteworthy. It's not about what you think, or what the judge thought, but what they think. It's absolutely a noteworthy detail and absolutely required in this BLP. Basically BLPs cover what the subject says about claims about them, proven and unproven. I agree the existing quotes are kinda-ok, but what's wrong with the more precise statement? Not some Bremner celeb attorney's star-talk, but clarity about a two-decade pattern of clear statements? What's wrong with that?
 * It sounds like we only disagree about whether this BLP should say they were caught having sex in a car. I'd agree to "kissing in a car". Is the rest ok? Do you concur with every claim but the sex-in-car-upon-arrest claim? Mcfnord (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I told you the following at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard... You stated you were "able to substantiate every change made by Smmary, and have added strong citations for each." If we look at this revert by John from Idegon, we see that you added this products.kitsapsun.com source, which is a part of the USA Today network and seems to be reporting on an Associated Press article. You used it, in part, because you stated, "Two highly credible sources dispute the claim in some sources that they were found engaged in sex." The products.kitsapsun.com. source shows that David Gehrke, LeTourneau's attorney, said the two were clothed and merely talking. That's his claim. And this The Washington Post source that you used states, "The next witness, Detective Dane Bean, said the young man told him that there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh. The two were found fully clothed." First, kissing can be sexual, as noted in the Kissing article. Second, that is a witness reporting on Fualaau's claim. Of course, if Fualaau was trying to protect Letourneau, he would state that. Most importantly, per WP:Due weight, two sources do not trump what the literature generally states. Per WP:Due weight, we give most of our weight to what the literature mostly or generally states. We do not give false balance. We don't try to "balance" out every view or aspect with an opposing view or aspect, as if the article is a trial we are involved in with rebuttals for every piece. Like WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." But not everything is due for inclusion. Per WP:Due weight, minority views are not automatically included. And Fualaau's claim is not a WP:Reliable source; it's just his claim. If reliable sources generally state, or at least often state, that Letourneau was caught "having sex with Fualaau in a car," then we go with that unless the report was proven as false. We certainly don't remove the statement that "Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car," like you did. That is what is misleading nonsense. This Chicago Tribune source clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." This Washington Post source clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." This products.kitsapsun.com source, reporting on an Associated Press report, clearly states that "she was caught having sex with Fualaau in her car." It's not just People magazine stating it. The most we might add as a counter report is that Fualaau, or both Letourneau and Fualaau, stated that they didn't have sex while in the car.


 * You argued that "this couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred, which is noteworthy." What? If you are stating that they are claiming that there was no sexual activity between them, all the evidence points to sexual activity having occurred between them. If you are stating that they do not view the sexual activity as a crime, their view contrasts what the law deemed. It was a crime. If one is talking about the "in the car" matter, it was a violation either way. And the products.kitsapsun.com source notes that she "pleaded guilty last August to two counts of second-degree child rape." Their view that it wasn't a crime because they were "in love" could go in the "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau" section if they claim that, but that section already has Fualaau's view that he's not a victim, which, again, is common for boys involved in statutory rape cases where the perpetrator is an adult woman to state. And that section states that "Letourneau considered her relationship with Fualaau to be 'eternal and endless'." As for TruTV, I am familiar with TruTV. That it is reliable for some things does change the fact that it is not reliable for everything, especially when the author of the source is taking a "romance that was a crime" viewpoint, which is a viewpoint the author likely wouldn't have if it was an adult male teacher with a 13-year-old girl.


 * I stand by all of that. Above, you stated that your "edits have nothing to do with a COI issue." They do. Because you are now proxy editing for Smmary. WP:COI, as noted by JzG, is partly about the COI editor requesting that other editors review their edits and add or change the material they want added or changed. Primary sources are not ideal on Wikipedia. So I'm not going to entertain you on going with or by primary sources for this topic. What I will do is start a WP:RfC and see what other editors think because I'm not going to sit here and extensively debate you on this. I have enough debating to do at other articles. And regarding this, per WP:Canvassing, you should not only be contacting an editor I was in disagreement with above on this talk page. It's obvious why you chose to contact that editor and didn't even bother to ping or otherwise contact others who were involved in the dispute seen higher up on this talk page. You stated, "The police report, the charging document, the King County Prosecutor, the police testimony, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the judge would dispute your claim that sex occurred." It is not my claim. It is a statement by various reliable sources, including the Washington Post and Associated Press. You keep going on about tabloid journalism with no proof of tabloid journalism. Various reliable sources state she was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car. You stated that "It's not about what [I] think, or what the judge thought, but what they think." Re-read what I stated above about following what reliable sources state and due weight. What Letourneau and Fualaau think does not trump what reliable sources state. I'm not going by what I think. But it sure sounds like you are going by what you think by stating "It's absolutely a noteworthy detail and absolutely required in this BLP." Furthermore, I cannot understand what you are talking about when you state "this couple has maintained over all sources and over two decades that no crime occurred." What in the world do you mean by "no crime occurred"? This is why I stated what I did regarding your "no crime occurred" statement. For example, they can believe that the sexual activity between them was not a crime as much as they want to, but the law (not just a judge, but what the law in the United States says) deems it a crime. Before I start the RfC, you need to clarify what you mean by the "no crime occurred" part. And, no, per above, I don't agree to removing the "she was caught having sex with him in the car" the aspect. Given how widely reported that aspect is, by numerous reliable sources, some form of it should be in the article...even if we state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agreed to listen to User:Smmary, and treat her with respect. The policy is that a COI should suggest changes on Talk, and editors can proceed from there. But if you need to expand the WP:COI claims you've made to include me as a COI-by-proxy, I agree you should pursue that on the WP:COI board. Here we are only seeking consensus on the bullet listed set of claims I've provided. No debate needed for that! It sounds like you agree with all the points Except the sex-in-car-upon-arrest claim. Is that right? (Your suggested language might work... but let's just figure out where we agree first, and then we can tackle the tougher stuff together.) Mcfnord (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. You are editing for Smmary, who still is not verified as Mary Kay Letourneau. I'm not stating that because you are editing for Smmary, this needs to be at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. Why I took the matter to WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard is clear. That you weighed in there and took over editing the article for Smmary does not mean that the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion cannot continue. Given your WP:Neutral views, this discussion clearly needs the opinions of other editors, ones who have been editing this site for years (like me). So even though you still have not clarified what you mean by "no crime occurred," I will be starting an RfC on the "sex in car" matter and it will perhaps include the "no crime occurred" aspect. As for the rest, I'm not the one who reverted you. John from Idegon did. But given the way you prioritize certain sources over others, and that John from Idegon isn't weighing in here on the talk page, I might need to make some of that part of the RfC as well. In the meantime, we can wait and see if John from Idegon or some other experienced editor weighs in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Let's give User:John from Idegon (or anyone else) some time to weigh in on the bullet list of claims (minus the sex-in-car-while-arrested claim) and that way we can get the undisputed stuff out of the way and move on to the harder stuff. Mcfnord (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose any content based on either Smmary's, Letourneau's or her victim's assertions. As is certainly aware, part of the psychopathology of sex offenders is justification. And as far as any assertion that nothing criminal happened, that's just false. She pled guilty to a crime. That's a very good indication that a crime occurred. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've added bold font to seven bullet-point items above. I've also moved two to the bottom, and marked them as outside the scope of this discussion. (I'd use strikethrough text but don't have the skillz for that.) The bolded claims are all derived from reports by the Associated Press, shown in the second bullet list. These seven claims contradict the article as you have left it. Most notably, your revert shows that 3 months of the sentence were suspended, but the Associated Press reports that 84 months of the sentence were suspended. Do you agree that these claims, substantiated by NPOV-secondary sources, more accurately reflect the facts of this subject? Or can you produce other sources that support your own assertions? In other words, can we all agree that the claims presented in the bold text are both accurate and germane to this subject? Look forward to hearing from you. Mcfnord (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll answer for John from Idegon on this aspect. This AT&T Internet Services source states "Letourneau was sentenced to six months behind bars, with three months suspended, and told to have no contact with Fualaau for life." This Toronto Sun source states, "Letourneau was sentenced to six months in prison with three months suspended for second-degree rape of a child." Our Wikipedia article on the Toronto Sun states, "The Toronto Sun is modeled on British tabloid journalism, even borrowing the name of The Sun newspaper published in London, and sharing some similar features of that paper." But it doesn't have a source for that statement. This People magazine source states "Letourneau was sentenced to six months behind bars, with three months suspended, and told to have no contact with Fualaau for life." This Today.com source states that "her initial sentence, which was six months with three months suspended, for second-degree rape of a child after engaging in a sexual relationship with Fualaau when she was 34 and he was 12 in 1996." This CBS News source states "Letourneau pleaded guilty in exchange for a 3-month jail sentence and probation, reports the station." This USA Today source states that she "received a six-month jail sentence and agreed not to have further contact with Fualaau" and she "was released after three months but got caught having sex with Fualaau soon afterward." This Biography.com source states "After serving 80 days of a seven-year sentence, Letourneau was released on parole and was promptly caught with Fualaau again and sent to prison for her full term." and "After serving 80 days, she was granted a release on the condition that she enter a treatment program for sex offenders and promised not to have any contact with Fualauu. In February 1998, Letourneau violated the terms of her parole when the Seattle police caught her with Fualauu in a parked car."


 * Also notice that most of the sources that speak of Fualaau's age at the time that Letourneau became sexual with him state that he was 12. This is why I stated that some sources state 12 and others state 13. Perhaps we should state "12 or 13" and support each part (12 and 13) with a reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many sources say that "6 months, with 3 suspended." I think that was the plea agreement, and underlying that was the larger sentence of seven years. Biography.com says something related, saying she did 80 days of a seven year sentence (which is the 84 months of bullet item 1). How a 6 month sentence, with 3 suspended, ended up as 80 days is not clear to me. Further, while Biography.com says she did 80 days in the first stretch, these two sources add up to 5 months, not 6.7 months (80 days). And this source: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html ... has some real numbers that still don't quite add up (12 weeks ago, she spoke to the judge. She was arrested one month after her release from jail.
 * Also note the 7.5 year term (renders as 71D2, but presuambly said 7 1/2 at one point). I've heard that figure before. I think we may need to develop a timeline of events that examines the inconsistencies. I've taken the first and third items off the BOLD list, and we can probably roll them into a separate section around "timeline".
 * I'm familiar with the prevalance of both 12 and 13 as ages. While I prefer 13 as the most substantiated claim, something like "12 or 13" might have a sound basis.
 * I've migrated (all but one of) the undisputed claims into the article, with citations. I'll roll the unresolved issues into another section soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding "6 months, with 3 suspended," we should follow what sources usually state on the matter. If any deviations in reports are likely to cause confusion, we can perhaps clear that up with sourcing and a bit on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally fixed this but you rolled it back! Mcfnord (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

judge statement at original sentencing tell the court's position helpfully
This article is exceptionally useful resolving some complexity: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html

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

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

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

Mcfnord (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should retain the material, but be clearer about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally did that, but you rolled it back! Mcfnord (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

student or former student
The strongest sources say the student-teacher relationship had ended when the sexual relationship began. As is common in tabloid scandals, an oft-repeated claim that the sex started while the student-teacher relationship was ongoing may not be accurate. Simple majority rule in resolving ambiguity might work for birthdays and cities in Iceland, but BLPs are conservatively written. This matter deserves some study. I'm not convinced "former student" is dramatically different than "student" but it is different, and the stronger claim requires stronger evidence. Repeating it over and over isn't evidence. Those sources that dig deep universally report that the student-teacher relationship had ended before the sexual relationship began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are arguing on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Subject did not have sex with a student, according to the state, because their illicit relationship began after school had ended. The charges reflect this conclusion of law. But we are saying otherwise, a libelous claim. When mass-media goes mad, as it did here, false claims are repeated, because they excite. We are on the side of truth, not of press accounts by volume. If I can make sound arguments why mass-media got things wrong on two serious claims on this page, you should respect that, hear that out, recognize that it's not just about taking a vote on what differing sources say, and in the interest of the important nature of conservative writing, as mandated clearly by BLP policy, you should support removal of these dubious and damaging claims. The solution is, "While many sources reported they initiated sexual relations while she was his teacher, she was not charged with abusing teacher authority because the state determined the school year had ended." Mcfnord (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear why sources state "student." What sources state "former student"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The good ones. The one article in the Washington Post is among the greatest reporting about the crimes I've found. But the claim is substantiated by the fact the subject was not charged by the state with abusing the student-teacher relationship, just the adult-child one. Mcfnord (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there such a crime as "abusing the student-teacher relationship"? Not in most jurisdictions where the crime is abusing "the adult-child one", compounded by the abuse of trust/unprofessional conduct element. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the state where the crime occurred, yes, a teacher-student relationship would be a separate crime that was not charged here. Mcfnord (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it that a teacher-student sexual relationship is a distinct crime there, partly because, even if it is distinct, not charging MKL doesn't really prove anything, especially when plea bargains are involved. We go by what RS say, though of course we try to present a comprehensive and accurate picture. I can see an argument that says that any teacher employed in a school has a teacher-student relationship with any student in that school, especially if 'teaching contact' had previously occurred and regardless of whether such contact was ongoing. Anyone who has ever met a former teacher or student in innocent social circumstances knows that the former relationship is difficult to get past - even when one is an adult. The body presents the whole picture, which is that two years of 'teaching contact' had very recently occurred. I'm less happy with the lead describing the boy as 'her student', but would be almost as unhappy with 'former student', which would imply that one or other had ceased to be at the school. Perhaps a form of words could be found that concisely and accurately reflects the fuller picture. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your point that a plea bargain can hide crimes is well-taken. The COI reports there was actually [| no plea bargain], so that's another possible problem in the article. Many sources confirm the school year had concluded and child matriculated from the school when the the relationship began, and certainly when the arrest occurred. No article presents evidence to contradict the former student status. I consider 'student' false and 'former student' accurate. Here's a source that explains the child had left the school itself before the sexual relationship commenced. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13106958/ns/dateline_nbc/t/love-no-other/#.XI9bhNJlDmF Mcfnord (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not helping much here, but what exactly do you see as differentiating between student and former student. What it was, and is, is still an adult had sex with a child. That's all. It's rape and it's rape in every state in the US and every province in Canada. Its singularly the most heinous crime, even more so than murder, in today's society. Why should what Ms. Letourneau's wishes as to how she is portrayed have any bearing on it? I'm sorry,, but you are beginning to sound like a pedophilia apologist, and we've site banned numerous people for that over the years. She pled guilty to child rape. End of story. It would matter not a whit if the pervert screwed with my son while he still was in the building she worked in or whether she waited until he'd been promoted out. She raped him. There is no need to soften our approach to covering this. And don't you dare attempt to revert my portrayal of her as a pervert. Pedophilia is recognized as a deviant sexual desire (ie, a perversion) in all the mainstream literature. She pled guilty to it. Again, end of story. Shall we justify John Wayne Gacy next? John from Idegon (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are looking for a soapbox and your accusations are deplorable. I cover legal-heavy BLPs exclusively and this one contains libel. That should not happen on Wikipedia, but for complicated emotional/political reasons pertaining to abhorrence to this crime, it's happening right here. Your last revert returned 3 libelous claims to public view and you did not join the discussion in defense of your deed. I say good day, sir. Mcfnord (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As someone who has studied pedophilia, child sexual abuse and statutory rape a great deal, and works on those topics on Wikipedia, I understand John from Idegon's passion on this matter. And I do feel that Mcfnord is being too sympathetic toward Letourneau. But, John from Idegon and others, this is still a BLP and the WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages as well. Technically, Letourneau does not have pedophilia (a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children); she wasn't diagnosed as a pedophile. Fualaau appears to have been pubescent at the time she became sexual with him. She's stayed with Fualaau throughout his adulthood. And she hasn't, to our knowledge, shown sexual interest in another pubescent or underage person. I would go into detail about her psyche (not excuses) at the time she became sexual with Fualaau, and women like her who have become sexual with pubescent or post-pubescent boys, but Wikipedia is not a forum. And, again, this is a BLP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who has written controversial claims as a professional for 25 years, and as someone who has specialized in Wikipedia BLP for 4 months so far, when I say John from Idegon reverted 3 libelous claims on the article, that is not related to sympathy for the subject, and should alarm serious editors. This article still contains two libelous claims that you are defending. Wikipedia has safe harbor protection in this matter, and it is clearer and clearer that you are repeating the libelous claims. It is not a defense that they were repeated in sensationalized press accounts. NPOV-secondary accounts enable us to bring NPOV-primary sources into consideration as clarifying sources, though that shouldn't be necessary, as readers seeking evidence have what they need in NPOV-secondary sources. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Which claims--even oft-repeated in typically reliable sources--do not endure under scrutiny? You and I will continue examining these important facts. But let's talk about empathy (not sympathy). A person should not be asked to tolerate false claims on the Wikipedia page about them. It's built into the writing rules around claims. The BLP rules go about as far as it could go to prevent what's going on here. I empathize with anyone who has to tolerate that. And to be abused for complaining? Intolerable. Mcfnord (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this and this, what I reverted to is not libelous. You keep going on about things in ways that are not getting support from other editors. Even your understanding of WP:COI is off. Really, you are pushing me closer and closer to typing up an extensive WP:ANI case against you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Flyer. I should have used the term hebefile (sic?) and characterized her act as perverted rather than herself. And I encourage you to do just that. There is very little productive going on here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22: Please widen the circle of people aware of this dispute. I approached a Stranger reporter today. User:Smmary needs to be heard and respected like any other editor here. Your previous abusive statements and pattern of rudeness makes your claims of righteous authority here troubling to me. Not neutral whatsoever. Mcfnord (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon, no, not hebephilia either. Like the lead of that article currently states, "While individuals with a sexual preference for adults may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals, researchers and clinical diagnoses have proposed that hebephilia is characterized by a sexual preference for pubescent rather than adult partners." Like pedophilia, it's about the exclusive or primary sexual attraction. Basically, the act of child sexual abuse or statutory rape does not automatically mean that the person is a pedophile or hebephile. I know that can be confusing to many, but acts do not automatically equate what is going on psychologically with a person. In some cases, although it's unsettling to think about, a 14-year-old girl might look 18 years old, and so the man's sexual interest in her is not because she looks 14 or is age 14. I don't think we can characterize Letourneau's acts toward Fualaau as perverted in the article. And I think it's best that we don't call her acts toward Fualaau as perverted on the talk page.


 * Mcfnord, as you know, people have been alerted to what is going at this article via the WP:BLP noticeboard and the WP:COI noticeboard. Now there are RfCs. If anyone wants to note at those places that the RfCs are going on, they can. But then again, it's already been at the WP:COI noticeboard that RfCs are going on here. I have made no abusive statements and have shown no pattern of rudeness with regard to Letourneau. I have been less polite to you for reasons anyone can see on this talk page. I have been as neutral as WP:Neutral requires me to be. And given how you have acted at this talk page and at yours, its clear that you have engaged in non-neutral and other troubling and behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I dispute your claims. Mcfnord (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

To stick with the Washington State legalese, the correct presentation would be "felony second degree rape of a child without intending sexual abuse". If you want to play legalese, that would be the proper legalese. Or "Statutory rape" is Wikipedia's preferred language. Mcfnord (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Before I start an RfC on this, or if I do at all, I need to be sure what you are stating. Fact is...Letourneau pleaded to "second-degree rape of a child." That is the wording the sources use. They don't use "statutory rape," not typically anyway. But given the circumstances, editors have felt that WP:Pipelinking to the Statutory rape article is more accurate than WP:Pipelinking to the Child sexual abuse article. And I agree. The lead of the Statutory rape article indicates why this link is more accurate, and it states that "rape of a child (ROAC)" is sometimes the term used for statutory rape cases. We should continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason is: Some terms mislead. Even if the lede retained your preferred concision, the description of the crime in the body should accurately reflect the crime, based on facts of the crime, as charged by the state and reported in the best sources. This is especially true for a tabloid sensation! "felony second degree statutory rape of a child without intending sexual abuse" is a different crime than your concise preference, at least to me, and it's also the actual crime. The fact it exists in the state's charging documents means we must stretch to understand and communicate the full depth and even nuance of the crime. Concision isn't a necessity, and mustn't be the enemy of being complete. Sometimes a term can well mislead or misinform many or even most readers, and we aren't in the encyclopedia business to do that. Mcfnord (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Seems I need to start an RfC on this as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no alternative view present to be offered undue weight. But there is depth and clarity, core goals of the encyclopedia. Mcfnord (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Me three. It seems a fair compromise. Further, these are status crimes. Intent is either not, or only a minor, factor. A 34 year old woman is breaking the law by having sex with a 12 or 13 year old boy. She had his baby. Obviously they had sex. Obviously she broke the law. Gotta do some research quickly, but what law she broke may hinge on the age question above. In many jurisdictions the break point between 1st degree and 2nd degree is 12/13. Not sure on Washington. John from Idegon (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You could, I dunno, read her own words on her talk page to understand precisely how the law plays out in our state. You'd have to acknowledge that she lacked intent to sexually abuse, a critical detail in the charges which doesn't quite have the same "rape" ring to it. Mcfnord (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Intent does not affect the legal definition of statutory rape. We're not talking about violent rape, which some Republicans seem to think is the only "real rape", as well as such repugnant ideas as "If she didn't say 'no' it's not rape" or "It's not rape if you enjoy it." No, just no. Both proper age and consent must be present to avoid charges of rape.
 * No one is disputing that this was a consensual relationship. It was still illegal. She was the adult and shouldn't have gone down that path. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Under Washington law, there is no legal difference in the severity of her crime of rape of a child between 12 & 13., you made reference to some decision made by Wikipedia in 2010. Please cite that. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your concern about the severity of the crime (12 v. 13) is so thoughtful. You may also wish to know that this particular criminal charging did not include the claim that sexual abuse was intended by the adult. The 2010 discussion and decision is in one of the links at the start of this section. Back then, they decided that "statutory child rape" or "statutory rape" was the proper description of the crime. Mcfnord (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get your point. Are you implying that if the adult does not intend sexual abuse, then calling it "statutory child rape" or "statutory rape" is too harsh a description for the crime? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Claim of sex in car when arrested is unproven and libelous
After considerable failure to reach a consensus, I present these NPOV-secondary statements that refute the claim that subject was found having sex in a car when arrested.

Washington Post provides this refutation of our current claim:

"Seattle Police Officer describe how he found LeTourneau, 35, in a car with the youth, now 13, near her home early Tuesday morning. Harris said LeTourneau first said she was alone in the car, and then she and the teenager provided false names when asked for identification. The next witness, Detective Dane Bean, said the young man told him that there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh. The two were found fully clothed."

Associated Press provides this refutation of our current claim:

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

After careful review, and with careful consideration of claims made by other editors (none of which presented evidence to refute), I have found no NPOV-secondary sources that present evidence to substantiate the claim we now present as factual. Instead, we have two evidence-based explanations that refute our claim. The claim we present now is sensationalist and titillating. Wikipedia must stop stating this claim here as fact. In defense of Wikipedia, in accordance with BLP rules, and with protection of BLP exemption from the 3RR revert rule, I am taking action to remove this claim. Please do not return this claim to public view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are not needed to "disprove" your assertion. Letourneau's plea of guilty to the crime is sufficient to prove that a crime occurred, lacking secondary sources that she was victim of poor counsel, she was railroaded or other such things. Those do not exist. Further, the fact that she gave birth to a child fathered by him prior to his 18th birthday is absolute proof that the criminal act occurred. Common sense does not get tossed per BLP. I've reverted you. And you are treading on thin ice. Sign your posts please. John from Idegon (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are focused on the core point yet. Unfortunately, I don't know how to state it more clearly. Do you know what it means to refute? This is about reliable sources, and unrelated to any statement or pleading by the subject. It's not easy to collab with someone who just said "you are beginning to sound like a pedophilia apologist" and I'm supposed to respect you and hold your hand through this? When you make statements so psycho as that one, or random and oddball as these? When you say, "It's ok if it's libel, it's been there for years!" Not conservative writing, fundamentally not. Ponderous and painful. I have no idea why you're talking about subject specifics, I am 100% talking about reliable source statements that conflict. Not your folk theories about why you can do whatever you want on this BLP. Do you understand? Mcfnord (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this matter in the section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

With the snow melting I'm getting busier and busier in real life, so there's even less time to go through all of this stuff, so I'll just give some advice and constructive criticism. My approach to BLPs is the same as any other article, taking into account that they are real people and thus I adhere to the ethical guidelines set forth by the Society of Professional Journalists. Otherwise I treat them as subjects (nouns} to be defined rather than characters we are telling a story about, just as I would with flashtube, tempering (metallurgy), or Japanese swordsmithing.

Rather than replying to everything point-by-point, Mcfnord, since you're obviously very new to this I'm going to try to summarize what the problems are. Since credentials are important to you, I have been writing all of my life, in many different styles and forums, and have been participating at BLP/N for the last 11 years. People like Flyer22, John from Idegon, and Bullrangifer have also been here a long time, and to my knowledge are well-versed in policy and brilliant of their own accord.

No offense, but you seem to come off as a lawyer in both your approach to policy, in your writing style, and in your communication style. Wikipedia is not a court and policies are not legal documents, so arguing them as such will get you nowhere. And I say that because I have seen this time and again. You can't focus on little bits of policy to the exclusion of everything else. You can think of policy as being one, giant equation, and each parameter must be met to satisfy the equation. When you target-fixate on a single, micro-portion of it, like a lawyer would do, you fail to satisfy the rest of the equation. This is what I mean by "synthesis". Unlike laws, policy is firm but meant to be flexible to account for variation in circumstances. Therefore, you will get nowhere by arguing it like a lawyer would, giving the most zealous representation of a client. You'd be better to argue your case like a detached, analytical scientist would.

Your arguments above suggest original research. We do not do that here. It's one of our core policies. We do not gather evidence, interpret that data, and then form theories about it. We let the reliable, secondary sources do that. We're a tertiary source, which means for the most part we just summarize what the secondary sources say. We rely on them to do their due diligence so we don't have to.

In addition, your arguments are filled with too many logical fallacies to count, including but most certainly not limited to argument from authority, appeal to accomplishment, appeal to consequences, argument from ignorance, questionable cause (including cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and furtive fallacy), argument from fallacy, affirming the consequent, argument from repetition, and kettle logic. I'd suggest you take some more time to study the policies in their entirety, and take the advice of more experienced editors. We are not here to WP:right great wrongs. We don't examine evidence, draw conclusions or refute claims. We just summarize the info we are given by the reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's likely the fact of sex, fact of a car, and the probable fact of sex previously in the car (but not on the night of the arrest), conflated into the claim of an arrest during or right after sex in the car. This seems more plausible given the enormous international attention paid to the subject and incident. The only source with any substance on this point that I've found is the Associated Press account cited above, in which police testimony contradicts the oft-repeated claim. One can make a similar claim that the victim was initially 12 or 13, and I'm surprised to see such wide disagreement on what's probably an easy fact to verify. This article sides with caution, at age 13. It should also side with caution against the oft-repeated claim of sex in the car at time of arrest, especially with this clear report based on police testimony, and with zero evidence (just many press claims) to contradict this Associated Press account of the police testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I've noted at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, there are some issues with your edits. I'm not going to discuss this in two different places, or in two different sections on this talk page. Repeated myself below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following: In the lede, say they were found together. This fact alone triggered the return to prison. Later, in the detailed discussion, we say something like "Many sources reported the two were found having sex in her car.[cite the best among these] Police said that during a search for a stolen car at 3pm, the two were found together in a car with steamed up windows.[cite AP report day after sentencing] The victim said they had been kissing and he had touched her thigh, but police testified that they saw no evidence the two had been engaged sexually.[WaPo cite]" To me, police testimony that contradicts media accounts is absolutely noteworthy. Either police or mass-media got it wrong, and we can report with cites and let the reader decide. Remember that a stunning 125 reporters were physically present in the hearing where they judge revoked the plea agreement... maybe that's a source of the different appraisals... but the mere two NPOV-secondary sources that include evidence, plus the police, prosecutor, and judge do not agree with oft-reported claim the two were found having sex in a car. This is where I think tabloid rumor-as-fact reporting may be evident. Wikipedia reports divergences like this, with citations, so the reader can evaluate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

"While many sources claimed they were engaged in sexual relations when found, police testified there was no indication the two had sex that evening in the car." - We can line up a bunch of sources for the first portion, and use https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html for police testimony. I think we can expand this further, but we should be able to agree to this much. I can't imagine suppressing police testimony that contradicts media claims (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that contradict it. Mcfnord (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know, I addressed your arguments in he section below. I made a suggestion like yours there. It's not helpful for you to jump back up to this section and comment on a matter already thoroughly argued in the section below. But an RfC has been started since I'm not going to spend another week debating you on this myself. And I'm certainly not going to spend months on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please send more people to keep up the quest for truth! Thanks for making those RfCs. Mcfnord (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Not truth. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we state that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car, or add a counter claim to it?
As noted in the Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau discussion below, many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, state that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car. But this source (a copy of a different Associated Press source) states that "Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."

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

Survey

 * Comment: Like I noted above, given how widely reported the "sex in the car" aspect is, by numerous reliable sources, some form of it should be in the article...even if we state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Response: "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, she, Vili, two police, the prosecutor, judge, and the most credible sources dispute this claim." Mcfnord (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Synthesis, your "the most credible sources dispute this claim" piece would need a WP:Reliable source explicitly stating that. And do try to remember to sign your username. I signed it for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we can examine those NPOV-secondary sources together. You'll see what I mean. Mcfnord (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment:I'm not wholly persuaded that did they/didn't they do it in that particular spot is vital info. She broke conditions simply by meeting him, particularly privately. However, if covered, the [so and so] referred to in Flyer's sentence above, should briefly be the police testimony. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I don't think including the information violates the BLP policy, the authors should consider whether the information is truly encyclopedic or  salacious.  Personally, I would not include the information as it may be incorrect and does not materially add to the article.--Rpclod (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also take note that, as made clear in the section below, the "sex in the car" piece relates to Fualaau impregnating Letourneau a second time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)