Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4

statements by criminals

 * In the first sentencing, the subject told the court illicit engagement "wouldn't happen again". But across two decades following that statement, the subject has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery.

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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lindquist - Please examine the consistency with which this article covers subject denials and explanations, even after definitive conclusions of NPOV-primary sources.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone - Subject denials all included subject to WP:UNDUE limitations.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matt_Gaetz - Subject apology for tweet covered.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pecker - "criminal accusations the subject denied"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby - This BLP of a high-profile criminal starts a detailed paragraph with "Cosby has repeatedly denied the allegations and maintained his innocence."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Murray_(Washington_politician) - The subject of multiple accusations, this BLP mentions they were "all charges he denies."

I will add examples as our collaboration continues to help illustrate that we cover subject claims about claims that involve them, subject to WP:UNDUE limitations. This applies to all living subjects presented on Wikipedia, including those convicted as well as those awaiting trial. I will grow this list to illustrate the clear Wikipedia BLP principle at issue here: this subject's statements, and those of her husband, have an appropriate place in this BLP, subject to WP:UNDUE standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also quote from the top of this page: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks. For disputes, seek dispute resolution."


 * I'll get back to this and the above later. Soon, but later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Should we state that Letourneau doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime, or something similar?
It's not clear to me what is being proposed by giving Letourneau's view on the matter, but she did plead guilty to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child. An editor has proposed that we add "Since her first sentencing, she has held that the only transgression that occurred was that of adultery." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey 2

 * Comment: I've stated that if statutory rape happened, so did the adultery. Plus, adultery requires sexual activity to have occurred. We state in the article that "Letourneau pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child." So is Mcfnord, the editor who proposed the "only transgression" wording, stating that Letourneau has said that she didn't engage in sexual activity with Fualaau? Is Mcfnord stating that she claims she did not engage in sexual activity with Fualaau in the car? Is Mcfnord stating that she doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime? If Mcfnord is stating that Letourneau has said that she didn't engage in sexual activity with Fualaau, despite pleading to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child, what reliable sources do we have for that? And what reason did she give for pleading to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child if she says the activity didn't happen? If Mcfnord is stating that Letourneau claims she did not engage in sexual activity with Fualaau in the car, I already stated that given how widely reported it is, by numerous reliable sources, that she engaged in sexual activity with Fualaau in the car, some form of it should be in the article...even if we state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred." If Mcfnord is stating that Letourneau doesn't view her sexual activity with Fualaau as a crime, I'm not opposed to the statement being added to the article (even though the law clearly disagrees with her). But if Mcfnord is stating that she has said that she didn't engage in sexual activity with Fualaau, despite the fact that she pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child, and that we should include the statement, I'm leaning toward exclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * She claims there was no sex in the car on the night of the arrest. She claims she doesn't view her sexual activity as a crime. You can ask her Smmary why she pleaded guilty. Ok, here you get interesting: "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." Consider This!: Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Vili in the car, the police testified that no sex had occurred, and the prosecutor did not charge for such an offense." In other words, it's not just the mass-media claim against Smmary], but the mass-media's claim against two police officers and prosecutor! Maybe the papers got it... wrong? But yes, Letourneau, two police, one prosecutor, and ultimately one judge dispute the widely distributed claim that the two were found having sex in her car. Interesting stuff to me! And definitely a challenge for Wikipedians to get it right! [[User:Mcfnord|Mcfnord (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you pinged Smmary. But per her COI, she should not participate in these RfCs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


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


 * And looking at this, her claim is that she didn't know that sexual activity with Fualaau was a crime. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2
A BLP includes concise subject statements about their deeds, especially including crimes. Every single time! Mcfnord (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused CNN source
I find it rather odd that this source hasn't been used:


 * Boy, mom file suit over him having sex with teacher
 * "When police came to the car in a marina parking lot, Letourneau was jumping into the front seat and Fualaau was pretending to sleep in the back. The officers soon became suspicious and consistently asked Fualaau if any "touching" had taken place."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. John from Idegon (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullrangifer, I would be happy to present all facts, including the steamed up windows, but currently we say they were having sex in the car when arrested, which is unsupported by those police you're quoting. Unsupported by the whole state apparatus, including the RS that go into detail. Additional sources say they gave false names, or that she claimed she was alone in the car. We could cover every word of that and remove the false claim of sex in the car, and I'd support that psychosis-rocked set of claims. They wouldn't be libel. Mcfnord (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that so many WP:Reliable sources state that she was caught having sex in the car, the statement that it's a false claim is your claim and Letourneau's. I don't see any sources calling it false; I just see some sources noting that "police testified there was no indication the two had sex" or similar. Again, this is addressed in the section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you believe we can repeat it if a reliable source said it, but in this case, we need to examine evidence. I see you quoting police under oath as reported in the press and saying you "just" see that. Are you expecting the press to debate whether some got this detail wrong? You won't find that debate. But you will find lots of evidence, which I will now sum up in what I call the BullRangifer Solution: We say what evidence we have, all of it: "At 3am, police noticed a car in a marina parking lot with steamy windows and interior lights on. After seen jumping into the front seat, LeTourneau said she was alone in the car. Fualaau pretended to sleep in the back. Both fully clothed, she and the teenager provided false names when asked for identification. Vili told police the two had kissed and that he had touched her thigh." That would really summarize every piece of evidence we have, and the reader can decide what that means. Or would you prefer a passage such as this: "While many news sources reported the two were found having sex, police testified they saw no indication the two had sex that evening in the car." That would also be a good sentence. It especially alludes to the unique nature of tabloid news events. If you are looking for sources to call other sources mistaken, that's probably not going to happen. Instead, some sources provide evidence, and that's what we use. Mcfnord (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I was invoked, but laying out what the RS say is often the best solution, so the longer version above certainly does that. I'm not sure of every detail, but that seems to be the gist of it. If polished up, with the references in the right locations, it might work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mcfnord, it's not a matter of what I personally believe. It's a matter of following Wikipedia's rules. I've noted that because so many sources -- which mostly are not tabloid sources (despite your repeated characterization of the matter as tabloid reporting) -- state that she was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, we should mention something about it. No, I'm not expecting the press to debate whether some got this detail wrong. But you have been acting like there is some dispute on the matter in sources. You are the one who has been calling the "sex in the car" matter false. That is why I stated that the "it's a false claim" assertion is your and Letourneau's assertion. It is why I stated that I don't see any sources calling it false.


 * BullRangifer, as for the longer version, we could include it with text stating that sources reported that she was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car. I suggested going with something like "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) 00:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about writing it up here, with sources, and we can look at it? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I came to this discussion from the ANI notice board. It looked like there was some progress in resolving this dispute, but the discussion seems to have stopped. Right now this article makes strong assertions about the car incident as undisputed fact in Wikipedia's name, yet the current discussion here suggests that our account may not accurately reflect what happened. Our BLP policy says "...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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article,..." Note that this article affects not only its subject but also Mr. Fualaau, who was a minor at the time, and the child our article claims was conceived in this incident, something that the CNN reference casts considerable doubt on. Can the editors here please come up with some better language soon, otherwise the contentious material should be removed.--agr (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, ArnoldReinhold (agr), there is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. I know that you just wanted to make sure that I got your message; I'm just noting that I'm not one of the editors who needs a ping to this talk page.


 * As for your concerns, like I stated above, "sex in car" is supported by numerous WP:Reliable sources, and those sources are not stating the matter in a sensationalist way/tabloid fashion. It is a piece stated in almost every source on Letourneau violating the conditions of the plea agreement. So, no, I can't see it as a BLP violation. I already started an RfC on this above. Apparently, few editors are concerned about this piece, perhaps because it is stated as fact by so many reliable sources. But as seen there in that RfC and above in this section, I proposed that we go with "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. Mcfnord proposed, "While many news sources reported the two were found having sex, police testified they saw no indication the two had sex that evening in the car." Just a few days ago, I also noted that I would get back to this. I am busy with a lot of things on Wikipedia and in real-life; it has only been a few days. Since you pinged me, I'll go ahead and repeat that we can include the longer proposed version by Mcfnord with the text I proposed. It would read like this: "At 3am, police noticed a car in a marina parking lot with steamy windows and interior lights on. After seen jumping into the front seat, Letourneau said she was alone in the car. Fualaau pretended to sleep in the back. Both fully clothed, she and Fualaau provided false names when asked for identification. Fualaau told police that they had kissed and that he had touched her thigh. Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, police testified that they saw no indication the two had sex that evening." This would obviously go lower in the article. For the lead, we could replace "Shortly after months in jail, Letourneau was caught by police having sex with Fualaau in a car. The judge found that she was in violation of the conditions of the plea agreement, and revoked her parole." to "Shortly after months in jail, Letourneau was caught in a car with Fualaau. The judge found that she was in violation of the conditions of the plea agreement, and revoked her parole." Or, for the lead, we could change "caught in a car" with "caught meeting with Fualaau." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also pinging John from Idegon for his thoughts on what wording to use. In the section immediately above this one, we already know that John from Idegon argued, "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." In this case, common sense is math...and premature births or births otherwise earlier than expected do happen. Our article currently states, "On February 3, 1998, two weeks after completing her jail sentence, Letourneau was found having sexual relations with Fualaau in her car, where Fualaau impregnated Letourneau a second time. When she was arrested, police found $6,200 in cash, baby clothes, and her passport inside the car. With more than 125 journalists observing, Letourneau was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison for violating the terms of her probation." We know that Fualaau impregnated Letourneau a second time. When that happened is the question. But either way, we should follow the reliable sources, and present both sides when sources conflict in a way that we should address the matter. Per the proposed wording, we should perhaps additionally remove "where Fualaau impregnated Letourneau a second time." If we remove it, readers will just have to wonder when Letourneau was impregnated a second time. That is, if they don't use common sense. Even if one states that it wasn't in the car that the sex occurred, we know that sex occurred after she was released. And sex is possible when people are fully clothed. The police testified what they saw. Clearly, Letourneau giving birth to Fualaau's second child eight months later casts doubt on their testimony (not what they saw, but whether or not sex occurred). That stated, this source used in the article relays, "In earlier interviews and in their book, Letourneau acknowledged having sex with Fualaau in January." So we could incorporate that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The revised wording you propose "At 3am, police noticed a car in a marina parking lot..." seems reasonable. Maybe we don't need all the details. "Steamy windows" could be too suggestive; two people talking innocently in a car can easily fog windows in a New England winter. "At 3am police approached a car parked in a marina lot. After seen jumping into the front seat, ..." might suffice. Letourneau's pregnancy does not cast doubt on the police report. There could have been other encounters. We don't know and we should not speculate. I trust that the existing text can be replaced soon.--agr (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ArnoldReinhold (agr), there was nothing innocent about the meeting. She was kissing/making out with the boy. And, yes, making out is sexual. Kissing can be sexual, as noted in the Kissing and Making out articles. The kisses she was giving him were sexual, meant to sexually arouse. There was nothing innocent about the kissing. Due to the fact that she was making out with the boy, it's not unreasonable at all to think that that's why the windows were steamy. But because "steamy windows" sounds tabloidish in this context and is not needed, I won't include it. I was already going to exclude it. As for "other encounters," we only have Letourneau's word (and possibly Fualaau's word) that she engaged in sexual activity with Fualaau in January. Because of the timeline, we know that, after her release, she only had time to be sexual with him in January or in very early February. Clearly, Letourneau's pregnancy does cast doubt on whether or not vaginal intercourse occurred in that car. Again, the police reported what they saw. They didn't definitively state that sex did not happen. It's not like the police could have known for certain whether or not sex occurred and if she was impregnated at that time. In fact, despite the proposed wording of "police testified that they saw no indication the two had sex that evening," what Detective Dane Bean said is that "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." This is not about speculating. It's about following the sources with WP:Due weight (which requires weighing the different views and how much weight they have been given in reliable sources) and using WP:Common sense. Letourneau's claim that she engaged in sexual activity with Fualaau in January doesn't have as much weight as "sex in the car," but we should include it because it is a counterclaim from the BLP subject and it gives readers another timeline for when Letourneau may have been impregnated by Fualaau a second time. And, really, with everything Mcfnord has gone about, I don't see why we don't include that (per the CNN source) Fualaau did at one point consider Letourneau his sexual abuser. I have changed the text to this, and stopped the RfC on this particular topic. I went with "reported" instead of "widely reported" because I don't have a source stating "widely reported," and using a bunch of sources for it will only result in WP:Citation overkill. I didn't see "3:00 a.m." in sources; so I left that out. If someone comes across a reliable source that says "3:00 a.m.," we can obviously add it. Also, as made clear by this Springfield News-Sun source, Letourneau was caught in a car with Fualaau twice -- once on June 18, 1996, and again on February 3, 1998. The CNN source also reports June 18, 1996 for the "Letourneau was jumping into the front seat" incident, while other sources are talking about about a February 3, 1998 incident. So I tweaked the text in that regard for accuracy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn, yes, I noticed the various "in a car" incidents, and it left me confused about whether there was duplication of some of the same incidents. Please take a look and see if that could be worded a bit better to ensure there is no confusion. Thanks for all your hard work with this. It's appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, yes, I made sure that the text I added is accurate (going by the sources) when it comes to the two different car incidents. I don't see what needs to be worded better, but I did fix these two typos. On a side note: Regarding "3:00 a.m.," I did see that one of the sources in the article states it. Maybe one or more in the article also state it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that what happened in that incident was innocent, only that fogged windows in VT winter do not imply anything beyond that the car was occupied, and that the the word "steamy" as opposed to "fogged" has a pejorative implication. Common sense also says that the only people who have any direct knowledge of what happened in that car are the occupants and the police on the scene, and that in a sensational story like this the press becomes an echo chamber, repeating lurid details without independent fact checking. So just counting sources is not enough. We do not have to say what did or did not happen, we should only report what is known, and we don't have to cram in every possible detail. That said, I find the current version of the article much improved, and I'd like to thank you and the other editors who contributed for the work that has been done. The couple is back in the news, so I'm glad this editing has been completed ahead of that.--agr (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ArnoldReinhold (agr), when you stated "two people talking innocently in a car can easily fog windows in a New England winter," I just wanted to be clear that making out was happening in that car, which could have fogged the windows. I felt the need to stress that it wasn't just talking going on in that car. As for the press, like I stated, we follow what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. We do have to report on what did or did not happen if it's WP:Due, as it is in this case. And I don't mean details like "steamy windows." As for reporting on what is known? While Wikipedia respects accuracy, it is not about the truth. We clearly weren't in the cars with Letourneau and Fualaau. Fact-checking is one of the criteria listed at Reliable sources. That an editor might think that the sources got a matter wrong does not mean that we shouldn't follow the sources with due weight. If there are reliable sources that disagree with other reliable sources and/or cast doubt on what other reliable sources are reporting, then we can validly question those other reliable sources. I've been clear that "sex in the car" is supported by numerous reliable sources. It just is. It is not for us to doubt "sex in the car." But it is for us to use common sense and include both the "sex in the car" aspect and Fualaau's "there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh" claim. As noted, I also included Letourneau's "sex in January" claim (which is very likely true, although it doesn't mean that sex also didn't happen in that car). Following the reliable sources with due weight for this matter is enough as long as we are also adhering to WP:BLP. But as made clear by arguments above on this talk page, WP:BLP is not always interpreted the same by editors. This is why discussions like this, including RfCs on the matters, are had. I already indicated that "the only people who have any direct knowledge of what happened in that car are the occupants" when I stated "we only have Letourneau's word (and possibly Fualaau's word) that she engaged in sexual activity with Fualaau in January" (a statement made, in part, to dispute that vaginal intercourse happened in the car). As for the "the police on the scene," I already stated that "the police reported what they saw. They didn't definitively state that sex did not happen. It's not like the police could have known for certain whether or not sex occurred and if she was impregnated at that time" and that what Bean said is that "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." He was going by Fualaau's word. He had to do that because he did not see what actually happened (although he and other officers had suspicions about what happened). Like the source, I've relayed what Fualaau told the police. We only have reliable sources and statements by those involved to go by on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

age of victim
It's incredibly unclear whether the victim was 12 or 13 years old on the first offense. The sources offer no clarity. This must happen from time to time on Wikipedia. I could imagine writing "12 or 13" or I can imagine writing 13. I think the fundamentals of BLP would favor 13, as it's the more conservative, most fully substantiated claim. Is there an obligation here to favor the more conservative claim when sources disagree (about equally)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, like I stated, that "13 is the more substantiated claim" needs to be shown on the talk page. I mentioned above that "Also notice that most of the sources [I pointed to] that speak of Fualaau's age at the time that Letourneau became sexual with him state that he was 12. This is why I stated that some sources state 12 and others state 13. Perhaps we should state '12 or 13' and support each part (12 and 13) with a reliable source." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/887192136 Nobody has replied. By substantiated, I mean that people who claim 12 also claim 13... in other words, ALL sources claim unlawful acts occurred at age 13, while SOME also say 12. The younger age is the more sensationalistic. I have some support for "12 or 13" but believe the rules of BLP writing to be conservative about claims favors 13. A BLP expert is going to just know the answer here. Mcfnord (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a reply. And I don't understand what you mean by "ALL sources claim unlawful acts occurred at age 13, while SOME also say 12." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By ALL sources, I mean this: Those that claim 13 are not claiming 12. Those that claim 12 also claim 13. So 13 is the most conservative choice. basically all sources agree that at age 13, this unlawful relationship was occuring. I often return to this well-written page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons The most significant thing it says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively." The conservative choice is 13, because 13 is what we know most certainly. Conservative prose, as I understand it, only includes the most substantiated words. This is an interesting test case for me to understand if I am understanding this critical rule correctly. That paragraph goes on in key ways: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." So the opposite of tabloid claims is conservative claims. This subject is a super-interesting opportunity for me to learn what Wikipedia means by these key passages. There are certain key legal reasons why this policy exists, but it's also at the core of encyclopedia writing. "12 or 13" is, to me, not the conservative presentation. It's something like the comprehensive presentation, I guess, but it denies that these aren't numbers, but ages. It's a really interesting test case for how I need to handle competing claims about a living person on Wikipedia. I've specialized in BLP since December but have a career in writing technical claims like these. At work I guess I write internally in a comprensive way, but for external audiences, I write conservatively. (Customers probably deserve conservative prose! Meaning claims that are the most clearly established.) What's appropriate here, and why? "12 or 13" seems to avoid considering these key passages of the BLP introduction. Mcfnord (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "Those that claim 13 are not claiming 12. Those that claim 12 also claim 13." What sources that call Fualaau 12 also state that he was 13? What do you mean by sources simultaneously calling him 12 and 13? Why would sources do that? We know why Wikipedia would do that, but I haven't seen any sources that simultaneously call him 12 and 13. Or do you mean that the publications that call him 12 have also called him 13 at the time, and that publications that called him 13 at the time stuck with age 13? What sources do you have showing any of this? You stated "because 13 is what we know most certainly." Are you speaking of math on that? And WP:BLP speaking of writing conservatively does not mean that we forgo WP:Due weight. If most sources state 12, we should state 12. If sources equally or almost equally state 13 as much as they state 12, we should likely add "12 or 13." We do similar regarding birth dates, just like we do at the Mariah Carey article. We shouldn't put 13 over 12 simply because 13 sounds slightly better because age 13 is a teenager and there is a better indication that Fualaau was pubescent at that age. Most boys are pubescent by age 12 as well. Reliable sources, not just tabloid sources, reported age 12. I don't see any proof that sources reported age 12 to be titillating. Reporting age 13 is just as "titillating" anyway. But, really, given what "titillating" can mean, I don't think it's the right word to use. I highly doubt that most people were "[aroused by] mild sexual excitement or [sexual] interest" when hearing of this story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2019‎ (UTC)

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

You're saying WP:UNDUE is how to represent a divergence in coverage, manifesting as "12 or 13". I'm saying conservative writing is bound to the most substantiated claims. We certainly have a dispute, so let's continue seeking assistance. One thing is clear to me: Figuring out what conservative writing is is hard! Because it's not about the political ideology. So I'm hitting the dictionaries! Interesting clues.
 * "cautiously moderate". Oh interesting. Are you being cautiously moderate about this claim in this BLP?
 * "(of guesses and calculations) likely to be less than the real amount." ... but rooted in the more cautious of estimates?! Interesting.
 * "not involving or taking unnecessary risks" -- Very interesting. Untrue claims, regardless of origin, are a risk to Wikipedia. That's the legal foundation of the BLP policy. And we are talking about what that foundation does to this article. Mcfnord (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You stated, "The publications that said the relations began at 12 are implying they continued into 13... so 13 is the age All Sources concur is true. Conservative writing seeks that status of truth, the undisputed truth. Conservative writing seeks that status of truth, the undisputed truth." Eh? No reliable source states that age 12 is not true. So age 12 is not disputed by any reliable source. It's just that some sources state age 12 and others state age 13. You still haven't shown that most state age 13. It would be good to compile a list showing just how many state age 12 vs. how many state age 13. And with regard to "[age] 12 [is] implying they continued into 13," then those sources are perhaps more accurate. I did address your "conservatively" argument. And in the case that you didn't mean we should go with age 13 because it's one year older, I also noted that age 12 is not disputed.


 * I've started an RfC on this below. I'm not going to keep debating you on this. One other RfC is above, and other RfCs are below. I think that you are making arguments that most experienced Wikipedians would dispute you on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help you had to offer. Mcfnord (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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?

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

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

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

Survey 3

 * 12 or 13. Like I stated above, WP:BLP speaking of writing conservatively does not mean that we forgo WP:Due weight. If most reliable sources state 12, we should state 12. If sources equally or almost equally state 13 as much as they state 12, we should likely add "12 or 13." We do similar regarding birth dates, just like we do at the Mariah Carey article. We shouldn't put 13 over 12 simply because 13 sounds slightly better because age 13 is a teenager and there is a better indication that Fualaau was pubescent at that age. Most boys are pubescent by age 12 as well. Reliable sources, not just tabloid sources, reported age 12. I don't see any proof that sources reported age 12 to be titillating. Reporting age 13 is just as "titillating" anyway. But, really, given what "titillating" can mean, I don't think it's the right word to use. I highly doubt that most people were "[aroused by] mild sexual excitement or [sexual] interest" when hearing of this story. No reliable source states that age 12 is not true. So age 12 is not disputed by any reliable source. It's just that some sources state age 12 and others state age 13. It would be good to compile a list showing just how many state age 12 vs. how many state age 13. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Conservative writing is the most substantiated writing. Majority cannot rule, caution must. If any reliable source says 13, we must state 13. If our prose is conservative, it favors the more cautious claim when many claims compete. Birth dates are painfully irreverent compared to the age of a child victim of illicit sex. I hope nobody cares if Wikipedia got their birthday wrong, and hope you can imagine Wikipedia getting the age of your victim wrong, despite considerable sourcing to contradict the claim. Your job is not to prove a case for the most salacious claim, but to choose the most substantiated claim. Majority can't rule until you understand we aren't talking about birthdays but lives here, and repeating claims that are clearly dubious. That is absolutely not what should be happening on a Wikipedia biography of a living person. Mcfnord (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 12 or 13 I endorse the arguments made by GreenMeansGo below and Flyer above. There seems no doubt that RS reported both ages, so we should record the uncertainty. The difference here is fairly marginal, (we aren't talking about someone a few months away from legal adulthood), but the principle remains the same. 'Conservative' would not inherently mean a higher or lower figure. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 12 or 13, or only 12, per RS. We don't edit "conservatively" in a manner that ignores RS, so both is really the most conservative and safe manner to word it. OTOH, if there is clear evidence in sources that the sexual contacts started at 12, we should state it clearly as 12, not "12 or 13", since the 13 seems to be a continuation of something that started at 12. We are documenting the "start", not the continuation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 12 or 13 (or just '12' if that's overwhelmingly favoured in RS). I don't think WP:BLP intends to say that we should report only the version of the facts that is most flattering to the subject, even if it's only supported by a minority of sources. Colin M (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 3
Pinging Spintendo, GreenMeansGo, John from Idegon and JzG, who also recently weighed in at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Also pinging Govindaharihari and A Quest For Knowledge, who recently weighed in at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as seen here and here. Other RfCs relating to the COI and BLP reports are on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Nosebagbear Bbb23 Xymmax Galobtter Otro500 BLP meets MKL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did you ping those editors? I was clear about why I pinged the ones I pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They have helped me tremendously to understand BLP concepts and standards. Mcfnord (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean you should be randomly pinging them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should you be saying to any editor, "you need to watch your WP:COI" ? Should you say in a disagreement "... you ridiculously refer to as...", "... your typical personal attack garbage", and "stop wasting my time with nonsense." ? Should I take advice from you? This article screams for people who understand BLP and conservative writing to come down clearly on behalf of conservative writing. It's about a tabloid sensation and includes sensational claims. The truth of these claims is incredibly important, and Wikipedia must err on the side of conservative claims (or get sued, rightly). Mcfnord (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see you want to bring an off-topic discussion from your talk page to this talk page. I couldn't care less if you take advice from me. What I do know is that, just like on your talk page, your WP:BLP rationales here on this talk page show just how inexperienced you are as an editor and that you are prone to engage in WP:Advocacy editing. And as for Wikipedia getting sued, see WP:Legal threat. That policy is the page an editor is pointed to any time they talk about suing Wikipedia. And when it comes to wasting time, you (just like the other editor) are wasting my time. "Includes sensational claims"? Come off of it already. It includes "claims" supported by numerous reliable sources. And I've already pointed you to WP:Truth. What the essay states is exactly how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case we follow this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Mcfnord (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And your understanding of it is flawed. And to repeat: WP:3RRNO is clear that "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy to use both tools. I want a comprehensive solution to the problems on this topic. Either you or I misunderstand BLP principles. You seem to know it's me! ;) Mcfnord (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And I see that you didn't bother to ping BullRangifer, who tried to help you understand WP:BLP on your talk page. But then again, you concluded that BullRangifer, a significantly more experienced editor than you are, had "some confusion about BLP." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for including him. He's also most welcome, even if we sometimes disagree. Mcfnord (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Umm... if the sources disagree then just put the disagreement in the article. The age of the victim seems relevant, since the age is the principle factor making it a crime. If the sources lean heavily to one side, then put that side in the body of the article, and put a footnote giving more in-depth explanatory detail about how some sources disagree.  G M G  talk  12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Note: For more info there is a related discussion that can be found at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive281. Zaereth (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

political family
Here's an edit that is probably quite sound. It's a no-change localization of specifics of three political careers of non-subjects to a "political family" sub-title. But hmmm, someone reverted it here? The comment is: ''Not this again. Take it to the talk page. As made clear on your talk page more than once, your BLP editing style is out of step with policy.)'' Is this titling out of step? Seems organizational to me.

Is the child's father's political career part of the child's early life and education? Sorta, I guess, but are the political careers of her brothers also part of her early life and education? No. Those began after she was an adult. Perhaps these 3 men should have their political details localized, as the unusual detail or pattern this is, and because it's not quite about the subject. Their "family business" is unique and quite noteworthy, but it's not her own career. Why not localize these details about the three men? Mcfnord (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need a "political family" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

End aspersions
Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. Above, I created a section to examine the substance of a titling change. This section considers the comment that that accompanied your revert of the titling change, which reads:

''Not this again. Take it to the talk page. As made clear on your talk page more than once, your BLP editing style is out of step with policy.''

I have a question, and a request.


 * 1) What, specifically, is it that you don't want again? Changes to titles and sub-titles? And also, is there a more thoughtful way to say "not this again"? It sounds kind of abusive. Like saying watch your COI sounds kind of abusive. I noticed similar diction earlier that sounds kind of abusive, so I know titling is very important to you. Could you show me where we did work together to examine great titling on this whole article? Did we really collaborate on titles before? Or was it one of those edit comment decrees? Those need to stop. Anyway, even if I do some thing "again" that you think we've examined adequately, I'm old, so treat me like I just plum forgot. There's no need for derision, dismissiveness, or shame. Just include the link!


 * 1) Your general conclusion, that "your BLP editing style is out of step with policy," isn't clear yet. The proper place for this claim is a well-researched initiative to silence me on all BLP topics. You've tried here and there, because in your view, and the view of some who agree with you, a majority of my work suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP policies that causes my work to be remarkably or frequently wrong. I've started a project to localize and annotate the most severe 2019 claims about me, which should help you. I do dispute a long list of sweeping and severe claims you've made and repeated about my competence on BLP policy decision making, and about my encyclopedia-writing more broadly. I insist that rather than repeating your conclusion as fact in the comment of a revert, you bring your studied view to the proper administrative forum. Most importantly, until you proceed formally in an administrative venue, and until you prevail there, please don't write or repeat in edit summaries or anywhere else any additional sweeping adverse claims about my competence at writing encyclopedia prose. It's not appropriate in an edit comment, and really needs to be localized to the proper administrative venue until proven.

Thanks! Mcfnord (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2019‎ (UTC)


 * End aspersions, you say? After this and what you've stated on your talk page? The sandbox material that was there was WP:POLEMIC. Nothing about the way it was presented indicates that you are going to use it in a dispute resolution. What type of dispute resolution? As for the rest, BullRangifer has already tried to explain to you the way that BLP works. So have I. You just don't get it. And I do think it's a matter worth addressing at WP:ANI since this article is not the only article where you have displayed actions that are out of step with the BLP policy. When it comes to your "competence on BLP policy decision making," BullRangifer has that covered on your talk page. And we know that John from Idegon has questioned some of your editing.


 * Regarding titling, you know that we have reverted each other on the "Crime, ruling, and sentence" heading. And that its due to things discussed higher on this talk page.


 * If you want to discuss matters on this talk page first, then start a section on it. We can discuss. But I'm not going to pretend that everything is fine and dandy with your editing or that we are on good terms. I'm not going to pretend that you often don't just repeat the same thing again and again and act as though it's discussion/that you're listening. I can be civil, and that is the most I will offer you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have heard civility (politeness?) is one expectation. I've moved unfinished drafting offsite, and offered the URL. You could answer your own questions by studying my draft work. I also support your collaboration with BullRangifer and John from Idegon. Alas, you three haven't proven your case. Instead, you're crowdsourcing aspersions they wrote in March. You've been reprimanded in the past for this pattern of behavior. But my focus is the encyclopedia, and I have questions about your last series of changes:


 * This article isn't about detective Dane Bean, so I changed this to "a police detective" but you changed it back. Why's that?
 * I removed the specifics about the names of attorneys in a civil case. You returned those. Why's that? How are these details important?
 * Your removal of the NYPost is something we'll have to come back to. It's quite an article. It wasn't just news reporters waiting in the dark for her to leave prison. But I forsee a deeper dive into notoriety in a future section on this page.


 * I see those three names you re-added as both distracting trivia and privacy invasions. I see no reason to include them. Could I persuade you that we don't need that level of detail?
 * Ok, about that title: If you prefer the "Crime, ruling, and sentence" titling, please consider that there wasn't a ruling. Courts make rulings when parties disagree. But this is just a guilty plea. And there were two sentences. So confusing. A better title: "Crime and notoriety". Mcfnord (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, this is the wording that was agreed upon; it's seen at Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Archive 4. And there is no need to remove the detective's name, but I changed it to "a detective."


 * "Distracting trivia and privacy invasions"? What? Mentioning non-notable police detectives or attorneys by name in Wikipedia is a common, uncontroversial practice and is not necessarily a BLP violation, especially if the matter relates to a case such as this. And it's certainly not trivia. Trivia is the "Hot for Teacher Night" piece I removed. If an attorney such as Anne Bremner is going to be quoted, that should have WP:In-text attribution. It's not ideal to state, "According to an attorney, 'Nothing could have kept the two of them apart.'" The following was still in the article after your series of edits: "Attorney Anne Bremner, who met Letourneau in 2002 during Fualaau's civil suit, said that Letourneau considered her relationship with Fualaau to be 'eternal and endless'. According to Bremner, 'Nothing could have kept the two of them apart.'"


 * As for the rest, your argument that "Alas, you three haven't proven your case" is something to be handled at ANI. We clearly feel that we've proven our case about you editing BLPs, especially this one.


 * "Crime and notoriety" does not sound encyclopedic. And she was sentenced. That there were two sentences doesn't negate "sentence" being able to adequately cover both, but I changed it to "sentencing." Use of "Crime and sentencing" is better; so I tried that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So, first, you haven't proven any case about me. Through a ritual of crowdsourcing aspersions, you certainly convinced yourself (and one buddy) that I suck at BLPs. You are both still expected to stop repeating this claim until you prove it within an ANI. To repeat it as you do is an ongoing pattern of unproven severe claims about a living person: me!
 * This is your first title that is truthful. Kudos for that. "Crime and notoriety" is very solidly encyclopedic. Encyclopedic titles are also truthful, so it's good that you aren't insisting anymore that there was a trial, or a ruling. I hope we agree titles shouldn't be false. But you do show limits to which truths they can contain. Should we trust your judgement about good titling? Do you really know what's "encyclopedic"? Recently at a party someone mentioned a case that sounded like this one. I hadn't heard about it. I imagine that's the norm, and this is a rather extreme exception. This particular subject's (nick)name, likeness, and story are all very widely known. Notoriety is a word that helps describe that, although I don't think it's quite right or complete. I am preparing a much larger exploration of this noteworthy facet of events for you to reject later. :) Mcfnord (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Exculpatory police testimony is a really, super-duper noteworthy source
This discussion has scrolled to here. Here's my addendum to that very last section by Flyer22 Reborn. She had reverted this change, wherein I mention the exculpatory police testimony. Since we aren't claiming in Wikipedia's voice anymore that a (sex) crime occurred that night, then we're better off regarding that claim. But since that claim was widely reported, and since we have evidence that refutes its assertion of criminal behavior, it is dubious to omit that evidence.

Flyer22 goes on to say something that I find a bit confusing: "the police reported what they saw. They didn't definitively state that sex did not happen." Well, true. However, they did say they saw no evidence of this particular crime on this particular night. And that's what you'd expect from neutral, observant police: What they saw, if anything, to suggest a crime occurred. They can't and won't make a definitive statement about whether sex occurred that night. But they did say they saw no evidence of such, and it's incredibly important that their testimony accompanies this claim in this article.

Criminal accusations are among the most serious accusations made against living people. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that proves the non-guilty-ness of someone who has been accused.

There are really strong reasons to include this exculpatory testimony:


 * It's sworn court testimony, as opposed to something overheard or rumored or what-not.
 * It's from police, generally considered more-neutral-than-average source (an NPOV-primary source).
 * It's exculpatory, meaning it is evidence that disputes the claim that a crime occurred.
 * It refutes dubious and salacious claims that were widely reported, and repeated on this website over many years.

I believe Flyer22 extracted the Vili claims from the police testimony or police report, and that's good, because he is a party present in the alleged events. While that's good, the fact of exculpatory police testimony goes beyond quoting the subject about the event. Police statements under oath as reported in NPOV-secondary sources easily meet a high neutrality bar as Wikipedia sources, and are exceedingly relevant here in light of unusually high and probably inaccurate attention to these details in the national press. Mcfnord (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPKINDNESS
BLP noticeboard

Since this topic and talk page now have a verified subject BLP, WP:BLPKINDNESS holds us to an unusual standard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPKINDNESS

In particular: "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern."

Flyer22 Reborn, have you heard of this rule before? I'm shocked with how it proceeds, advocating leniency and even kindness toward BLP subjects who seek to correct what the BLP subject sees as errors. Does Smmary meet this standard, and if so, have we shown her both leniency and kindness? Mcfnord (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I advocates neither kindness or leniency with regard to the article's content. It advocates kindness in communication with the subject of the article should that circumstance arise.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell me if you think this pattern shows leniency or kindness toward the BLP subject. Mcfnord (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. With article content we're supposed to be neutral, analytical, and emotionless. The best editors tend to be those who are completely detached, neither showing any like nor dislike for the subject. That BLP rule is to keep people from treating the subject like the enemy when they try to help out. The subject of any article has a COI, and an intrinsic bias that completely prevents them from seeing themselves in a neutral light. (Turns out, the one person in the world we know the least tends to be ourselves.) The subjects need to be made aware of this, but preferably not in a mean or rude way.


 * I've seen no evidence of people being mean to Smmary. Direct, yes. Curt, maybe. But mean, no. However, when working on a project like this you're bound to meet all kinds of people who have different ways of interacting with others. Some will be overly sensitive and want everyone to walk on eggshells around them, while others may be downright rude in their dealings with people, not because they want to be mean but because to them that's normal. That's why we have WP:THICK as well. While Flyer22 has a very direct way of speaking, which some may find rude and others may find refreshing, I've seen no evidence of her nor anyone else at this article being mean to anyone. It's not unkind to give people necessary information, to comment on the validity of their argument, give advice, tell them you don't understand what they are saying, or that their writing is not up to par, etc... It's not unkind to point out the rules, and even WP:COMPETENCE if the rules are continually misunderstood. (To me, it's unkind not to.) Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I find Flyer22's way of speaking rude, and way of thinking intellectually dishonest. Every change Smmary made fit very cleanly under WP:BLPKINDNESS. Both Flyer22's diction and her judgement to shun Smmary are continuing flagrant violations of this rule. It's textbook. You always write some word jazz for Flyer22, but I don't share your views about her merits, or your own. Kindness is a real thing. Leniency is a real demand. Where is it? Mcfnord (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I find you to have a severe case of WP:BLPCOI. I'm not interested in your mischaracterizations and odd BLP takes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Subject name
News and sensationalist quasi-news media deemed subject "Mary Kay" though subject's name at the time was Mary Katherine Letourneau. It's not clear if subject ever went by Mary Kay as an adult, and sources are notoriously sloppy about getting name right. We title using the popularized name, but a good source says subject "now goes by the name Mary Fualaau." Verified editor Smmary specifies her name as Mary Fualuaau. Flyer22 Reborn, you have reverted this change, with this explanation: ''Restored name. We keep "Mary Kay" in the lead per WP:Alternative title. It's her WP:Common name, which is why we are not going to rename this article.'' Her name has never been Mary Kay Fualaau. For discover-ability, she certainly is known as Mary Kay Letourneau, but her name is Mary Katherine Fualaau. How do you arrive at Mary Kay Fualaau? I don't know what WP:Common and WP:Alternative are all about, but do they add up to jamming a new name onto a living person? Let me know! Mcfnord (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My focus with regard to the name, as seen by the revert, was to restore "Mary Kay." This article is called "Mary Kay Letourneau," not "Mary Fualaau." The title obviously is not "Mary Kay Fualaau" either. I didn't add "Mary Kay Fualaau." But if WP:Reliable sources use "Mary Kay Fualaau," it is something to consider. You stated, "It's not clear if subject ever went by Mary Kay as an adult." If that was your argument in a WP:Requested moves discussion, it wouldn't be valid since she is overwhelmingly known as Mary Kay Letourneau; that is what WP:Common name is about. And WP:Alternative title is about the following, in part: By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." You stated, "Her name has never been Mary Kay Fualaau." Where is your reliable source for that?


 * Given the issues with Smmary's editing, as noted by others, you should stop pinging Smmary to this talk page. We are not going to by Smmary's words on these maters. Not without WP:Reliable sources and valid guideline or policy-based statements, we aren't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The title of an article may not always be the same as the name of its subject. We title an article based upon the most popular name. It just makes it easier for the reader. Unfortunately, as some of my friends can tell you (like Shorty, Grover, Liptus, Tiger, Mud, or Prune) you can try and pick your own name but eventually you will respond to what everyone calls you.

But, that's not really why I came here. I notice a pattern here which is reminiscent of so many other articles of people in similar situations (for example, see Talk:Bobby Beausoleil). The tactics and arguments appear identical, as they often do. Although the edit war here is unusually slow, it does seem to suggest some sort of advocacy for the subjects of these articles, does it not? I'm rather disturbed by the nature of this, where the same edits are consistently made just to be reverted back to the consensus version. Slow, whack-a-mole wars like this are a poor way to get a point across, because eventually some admin will come along and put an end to it. Everything stays in the history. WP:BRD encourage people to be bold an make changes, but then to discuss those changes if and when they don't stick. This does not mean to boldly revert to your preferred version, leave an explanation on the talk page, and then keep doing that over and over. It means to build a consensus. Talk. Convince others. If you feel these changes are really necessary, then discuss it, Talk 'til your blue in the face if you must. Start and RfC, if that doesn't work. Go to mediation or even arbitration if you feel it's that important. Those are the proper courses of action, but for your own sake, Mcfnord, I highly recommend discontinuing this particular modus operandi, because it usually doesn't end well. Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, your friend here is saying MKL can be the title. The only dubious name here is MKF, which isn't the subject's name and never has been, and that can be rectified without changing the title.
 * Zaereth: Fun fact: You are expected to always bring evidence with severe claims. Yet you never do. You bring a fantasm of gothy, dour word jazz. You appear to want passion alone to disqualify me, if only you could mix up the right potion of speculative innuendo. Let's discuss the last time you made disparaging claims about me without evidence, when at Mary Kay Letourneau you wrote:
 * the desperation with which even trivial details are pushed, such as a child's exact age, seem to indicate an unusually strong attachment to the subject (emotional, financial, or other, I don't know). Mcfnord has made several comments and edit summaries that, to me at least, suggest some sort of ties to the subject, at one point suggesting he speaks for the subject. - (Juciest aspersion emphasized.)
 * I wonder: If your life is reflected on Wikipedia because you were a victim of a crime as a child, do the details claimed about the crime seem trivial to you? But perhaps I do have an unusually strong commitment to conservative writing on BLPs where criminal accusations appear. And on March 3rd, I said, I'm happy to collaborate with Smmary, as she has requested explicitly over 8 years of messages on her talk page.
 * Invite admins on gilded stationary, but please stop making serious and cynical claims about me that you aren't making to them directly. Your offensive and ongoing speculative innuendo (emotional? financial? advocacy? oh, I just don't know! But We All Know that no man has that much passion for writing encyclopedia entries!) is an ongoing pattern of unsupported severe claims about a living person: me. Please make sure from now on each and every time you speak about me that your speculative innuendo and cynical claims are always, always accompanied by links to high quality evidence. Mcfnord (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So many inaccuracies from you above. Emotional? Financial? Yes, that is what I and others wonder with regard to your apparent WP:BLPCOI. The next time I am keen to have any interaction with you, it will be at ANI. You need to be topic-banned. As soon as possible. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Enough with the "woe is me" routine. Your attempts at insulting me are wasted efforts. I honestly don't care what anyone thinks of me, Mcfnord; makes no difference one way or the other. I've had very, very little (almost no) interaction with Flyer22 over the years. This is far from the type of article that interests me or that I would ever edit. (I find the whole thing disgusting, and personally advocate the death penalty for anyone who harms a child.) Whenever I see someone delving into personal attacks on another editor, I usually feel the need to step in. Your comments are full of red herrings and straw men. All the evidence needed is right there for all to see. Believe it or not, my comments are designed to help you, Mcfnord, not hurt. The fact that you see them in that way suggests some serious insecurities, which is something I can't help you with. (I'd suggest Dr. Phil.) I see you making so many mistakes that sooner or later are going to get you blocked or banned. Some might think that would be a good thing, but I don't. We need editors here with differing points of view, but we also need those editors to work within the rules, or else they're just useless to the project. I hope you can see that. Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)