![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I came here as it was listed on a BLP-checking experiment, and find many problems. I hope no one will take offense, but I have to call this one as I see it. This article is repetitive, contradictory, and not well-organized. For example, we talk about the crime, referring to the relationship, before we talk about the relationship, and then we repeat details; we talk about her relationship with Steve after we talk about her relationship with Vili, which is chronologically skewed, etc. The contradictions that currently stand in the article regarding Vili's age are particularly egregious - was he 12 or 13 when their intimacy began, and how old was he when the first child was conceived and then born? The way this stands now, I'm sorry to say, is an embarrassment - a major overhaul is needed. I thought some cleanup would help, but then I'd read another section and find further problems. I will try to give it some time if I can, but I hope that editors working here will do some research and verify some of the facts so that a re-organization and re-write can be done properly. We're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia, so I hope others will pick up on this one. Tvoz/ talk 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I am the subject of this article. I am the living person and I have six children living and of Internet-use age. I would like to assist in editing; I see at least 15 factual errors in this article. I understand that the facts noted in articles have to be verifiable. The facts that I correct, I will verify (with references that have merit). Just because material/language is published in the media does not make it "verifiable". As I'm sure you all realize, "published" does not equal ethical journalism. Incidentally, I appreciate the dialog here on the talk page - some very sound minds.
On a personal/professional note regarding editing: I have worked in a law firm as a legal assistant for approximately four years. My primary job related skills/tasks are legal research and to edit legal pleadings and arguments for factual substantiation, also to remove language that is emotionally charged and/or not relevant to the particular part of the document.
For now, I only intend to edit/correct the factual errors of the content already there in the present. As it is presently showing, I see about 15 factual errors. It will be somewhat time consuming to substantiate each of those with references of the highest authority available (or to simply remove statements that have no merited verification. If you all look at the edits I attempted to submit on 1/18, you'll see the areas that I impulsively corrected. I'm sorry I don't have experience, as it appears you all do, in working the technical part of Wikipedia editing. So bear with me on this; I'll try my best to get up to speed on the rules. I hope you all apreciate my intentions for correcting this article. I actually "trust" Wikipedia and refer my children to Wikipedia as a starting point for school research, etc. I moreso trust Wikipedia after now reading some of the notes here on the talk page - the overall integrity of the editors.
So far as me being the subject of the article: I don't think it should matter if you all believe I am who I say I am. When I substantiate the facts, it won't matter. Smmary ( talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This is one of a series of four women-teachers-molesting-male-students that first came to the media's attention some years back during a slow news period. Stories provided hours of titillating material to the gullible public who was led to believe that these four were the only women teachers in the world who had ever done this. When it became apparent to the media (if not the public) that this was fairly common, the media moved on to other material and neglected the category entirely except for local reporting, of course.
It currently fails as a standalone article though, because of the huge volume of media attention at the time, it must be retained as a "noteworthy" something or other. These four articles should be merged together under some non- WP:OR title. Something shorter than "Four American women teachers convicted of sex crimes against students from nnnn-nnnn."
See criteria at WP:PERP. Letourneau fails these since the crime is far from exceptional, but rather common. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Could_I_get_help_with_the_wording.... Student7 ( talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Student7 ( talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
if she had 5 children with her first husband, and 2 with her current husband, isnt that 7 children? has one passed away? there is no real explanation for this on the wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.164.247 ( talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Since 2010 there has been a tag asking for a rewrite so I have reformatted the article and removed the tag. What I did was merge the Personal Life and Relationship with Vil F. into the main body of the article. In doing so I removed some duplicate/repetitive content about the crime, pregnancies etc. I also reformatted some of the section titles to give it cohesion. These organizational issues were the main complaint of the editor who placed the rewrite tag in 2010. Although the article could use some additional tweaking, I think at least in terms of format it is in good chronology order and is properly organized. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have some issues with this reference and link, it seems to have nothing to do with the movie.
http://bijumann.insanejournal.com/9866.html
In fact I'm really not sure why it was added. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Not a biggie. Her Article title is her well-known name "Mary Kay Letourneau." Per MOS her name she is referred to herslf by is Fualaau and should be the name first stated. Because of the number of Letourneau's and Fualaau's, her first name is the easiest way, per Wikipedia:Surname#People with the same surname. She has multiple children through different surnanmes. Mary Kay and "she" are the easiest identification names to distinguish her from others. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Lenore made this edit to the article, changing "former schoolteacher who was imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 for child molestation of her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau." to "former schoolteacher who was convicted two times for child sexual abuse and imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 after the second conviction. Abuses were perpetrated against her 12-year-old student Vili Fualaau."
I changed the wording, stating, "I'm not sure that 'violating the terms of her probation' counts as a second conviction. Added 'sentenced twice' instead. Should mention in first sentence who she molested." To elaborate, I objected to "convicted two times" because conviction is usually associated with a jury, while a sentence is something a judge can decide on even without a jury. I also clearly object to removal of "Vili Fualaau" from the first sentence and unnecessarily breaking up the text with "Abuses were perpetrated against her 12-year-old student Vili Fualaau." It should be "The abuses," not just "Abuses"; the former is not good grammar in this context and disconnects the matter from Mary Kay Letourneau by making it seem like we are randomly naming someone who has been abused.
Lenore reverted me (not even keeping one of my changes), stating, "'violating the terms of her probation' is, of course, a felony itself," and added "due to breach of probation imposed in the first one" and "who Letourneau met again just after the first conviction, violating the terms of her conditional freedom." Lenore also made this followup (date) change, which I don't object to.
I will alert WP:Law to this matter in the hopes that one or more members from there weighs in on it. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
To be completely accurate, she was not "convicted," rather she plead guilty (which has the same legal ramifications). She was sentenced to 7 years and released on probation after serving 80 days. For violating probation, the prosecutor presented evidence of probation violation to a judge. She was found guilty of probation violation by the judge and was resentenced to serve the full 7 years in custody on the original crime. She was still afforded a trial for the probation violation though the burden of proof is lower. She was not charged with a crime when found again so her only criminal "conviction" involving the victim was the original crime she plead guilty to. She still only has the single felony child rape conviction. Really, there were two parts of the probation violation: the first was a hearing to revoke probation, the second would have been a new set of child rape charges. The prosecutor chose not to file new charges I believe because of a lack of cooperation from the victim. They had plenty of time to file if the victim changed his mind as the statute of limitation clock doesn't start until the victim is an adult. Now it's moot. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Lenore for yielding to consensus. In spite of our different views on this specific issue concerning the lead, I/we appreciate your good faith efforts to improve this article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a bunch of changes to the lead. It was jumbled and confusing and gave undue weight to the crime history which is only one third of the content in the article. I'm sure others will tweak it and I'm open to discussion and consensus here on the talk page if there are any significant issues. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi DHeyward, your rollback of my edits from yesterday reversed many valuable and time consuming changes to the body of the article (based on my research of the sources and WP guidelines). I see no reason to undo those edits since while are discussing the lead. So......... I rolled back to the way I left the article yesterday AND..... then I replaced the lead with your preferred version until we have a consensus on the talk page as to whether or not we should expand the lead to include all aspects of her life as reported by reliable sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The subject of this article is notable only because she has committed a crime(s) and received extensive media coverage. However, many newspapers and magazines that have reported on her crimes have also given significant amounts of information about other aspects of her life such as her childhood, family history, notable siblings, her marriages etc. This non-crime related information has been included in the article with proper citations. The question for this RfC is:
Edit: wait, I was thinking we were discussing whether to include it in the article as a whole. Are we just talking about the first part of the article? Can anyone point out which revision we're discussing so I know what to look at? The information doesn't belong in the lead, but it does belong in the article Bali88 ( talk) 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the most accurate closure of this RfC would have been 'no consensus'. There were equal numbers of yes's and no's. Most of the yes's cited guidelines and gave good reasons for their opinion so I see no good reason for this RfC to be closed a clear consensus for 'No'. With that in mind I've asked the closing party to provide a further explanation here on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, I reverted Smmary, who claims to be Mary Kay Letourneau (or rather Mary Kay Fualaau); I reverted because of an obvious, very serious WP:COI.
Calling on SarekOfVulcan, who, judging from Smmary's very short edit history, has interacted with Smmary. Also calling on other editors who recently edited the Mary Kay Letourneau article during the #Changes to the lead discussion above, or simply recently weighed in on the lead debates: DHeyward, Keithbob, Student7, NorthBySouthBaranof, Bali88, Stuartyeates, Ca2james, Anythingyouwant, Aircorn, DavidLeighEllis, and Number 57 (closer of the above lead WP:RfC). Out of the editors who participated in that WP:RfC, Useitorloseit ( talk · contribs), looking at his contributions, was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn I took out the mention of bipolar disorder because it was just a passing mention of private health information that is not widely publicized, so it's an issue of weight and erring on privacy on a BLP. EGRS might technically be about categories, but more importantly it's about privacy of BLPs and the things that fall under EGRS, which includes disabilities, should be self-disclosures that are commonly mentioned in mainstream, reliable sources. —PermStrump (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The "In pop culture" section was looking exactly how it's not supposed to look, so I removed it and I'm pasting it below. The pop culture mentions should only go back in if secondary sources connect them to Mary Kay Letourneau. (See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Synthesis of published material, WP:Primary sources, and the essay WP:In popular culture.)
Extended content
|
---|
In the 2001 Gilmore Girls episode "P.S. I Lo...," Lorelai rejects the prospect of marrying a passing young man on a skateboard, explaining, "I'm not Mary Kay Letourneau." [1] In the Gossip Girl episode "Carrnal Knowledge," Blair suspects her teacher, Ms. Carr, of having an affair with a student. She sends a tip to Gossip Girl that reads, "Lonely Boy and Ms. Carr? Mary Kay Letourneau alert!" [2] In the Friends episode "The One in Vegas: Part 1," Ross references the Letourneau case when he tries to embarrass Rachel by telling a stranger that she is "that teacher that had a baby with her student". [3] J. H. Trumble's 2012 novel Where You Are tells the story of the romantic relationship between high-school teacher Andrew McNellis and senior student Robert Westfall. Andrew mentions Letourneau in the first chapter of the book when a fellow female teacher hints interest in Robert, and again in the seventeenth chapter when he fears being arrested if he engages in a relationship with his student. In Nancy Ohlin's 2015 young adult novel, Consent, senior Bea Kim begins an affair with her substitute music history teacher, Dane Rossi. After the police begin to investigate their relationship, she is forbidden to contact him. Late one night and unable to sleep, Bea searches online for news about cases involving other student-teacher relationships. One of the search results is yields a story about, “a thirty-five year old teacher [who] becomes pregnant by her seventh grade student," [4] presumably referencing Mary Kay Letourneau, although both Letourneau and Fualaau have been aged up one year. In the 30 Rock episode "Cougars," Liz Lemon, herself being 37 years old, dates a 20-year old and says, "This just went from a senior dating a freshman to Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau." In the film God Bless America, the protagonist Frank says "Fuck Mary Kay Letourneau" along with several other figures in popular culture associated with pedophilia such as Woody Allen and Vladimir Nabokov. In the third part of the book "Loitering" (anthology of essays) written by the great and worlwide known american short stories writer, Charles D'Ambrosio, appears an essay against the popular culture which criminalized - reguardless to love - Mary Kay Letourneau (Loitering by Charles D'Ambrosio, 2014) - the essay is a perfect example of the power and the influence of the highest literature (the essay contains many quotations from poets and writers such as P.B. Shelley or Gustave Flaubert) versus the poor popular journalism. |
—PermStrump (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Per the outcome of this discussion, I've been meaning to re-add this with more detail, and I will get around to doing so if no one beats me to it first. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, you have not substantiated your concerns. I looked at the discussion you referenced and found no mention of the phrase "romantic relationship". So I am uncertain what you are referring to. Having the first sentence simply state the conviction without even mentioning that the two were married is a deliberate attack. It is rather like starting the Richard Nixon article with "Richard Nixon was a politician who was disgraced by involvement in the Watergate scandal." It does not matter if it is factually accurate. That is an attack.
Please be aware that WP:NPOV is not a vehicle for allowing personal bias into articles. The policy explicitly states a preference for "nonjudgmental language". Perhaps more to the point, WP:BLP states regarding "Attack pages" that "Pages that are ... negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once ...". No matter how unseemly the subject of an article is, WP must always strive to treat the subject in an unbiased manner. Turning the lead sentence into an attack is not consistent with this philosophy.
Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.
-- MC, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk • contribs)
Is there a Wikipedia policy that bans references to Radar Online in WP:BLP articles as was done in this edit? Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 22:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the sky is blue, regarding this, this, this and this, why do you think readers are going to be confused when we state "Letourneau" for her and "Fualaau" for him throughout the article? Maybe you were confused because you jumped straight to the section in question, but I don't think readers will be confused by the matter. The section title quite clearly states "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau," and, like the other sections, separates the two by using "Letourneau" for her and "Fualaau" for him. So why would readers think that we have suddenly changed over to "Fualaau" for her? Your use of "her husband" in place of "Fualaau" is unnecessary and somewhat unencyclopedic; I changed it to "Fualaau filed for separation from Letourneau." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I see no problem with using "Letourneau" to refer to her throughout. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I came here as it was listed on a BLP-checking experiment, and find many problems. I hope no one will take offense, but I have to call this one as I see it. This article is repetitive, contradictory, and not well-organized. For example, we talk about the crime, referring to the relationship, before we talk about the relationship, and then we repeat details; we talk about her relationship with Steve after we talk about her relationship with Vili, which is chronologically skewed, etc. The contradictions that currently stand in the article regarding Vili's age are particularly egregious - was he 12 or 13 when their intimacy began, and how old was he when the first child was conceived and then born? The way this stands now, I'm sorry to say, is an embarrassment - a major overhaul is needed. I thought some cleanup would help, but then I'd read another section and find further problems. I will try to give it some time if I can, but I hope that editors working here will do some research and verify some of the facts so that a re-organization and re-write can be done properly. We're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia, so I hope others will pick up on this one. Tvoz/ talk 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I am the subject of this article. I am the living person and I have six children living and of Internet-use age. I would like to assist in editing; I see at least 15 factual errors in this article. I understand that the facts noted in articles have to be verifiable. The facts that I correct, I will verify (with references that have merit). Just because material/language is published in the media does not make it "verifiable". As I'm sure you all realize, "published" does not equal ethical journalism. Incidentally, I appreciate the dialog here on the talk page - some very sound minds.
On a personal/professional note regarding editing: I have worked in a law firm as a legal assistant for approximately four years. My primary job related skills/tasks are legal research and to edit legal pleadings and arguments for factual substantiation, also to remove language that is emotionally charged and/or not relevant to the particular part of the document.
For now, I only intend to edit/correct the factual errors of the content already there in the present. As it is presently showing, I see about 15 factual errors. It will be somewhat time consuming to substantiate each of those with references of the highest authority available (or to simply remove statements that have no merited verification. If you all look at the edits I attempted to submit on 1/18, you'll see the areas that I impulsively corrected. I'm sorry I don't have experience, as it appears you all do, in working the technical part of Wikipedia editing. So bear with me on this; I'll try my best to get up to speed on the rules. I hope you all apreciate my intentions for correcting this article. I actually "trust" Wikipedia and refer my children to Wikipedia as a starting point for school research, etc. I moreso trust Wikipedia after now reading some of the notes here on the talk page - the overall integrity of the editors.
So far as me being the subject of the article: I don't think it should matter if you all believe I am who I say I am. When I substantiate the facts, it won't matter. Smmary ( talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This is one of a series of four women-teachers-molesting-male-students that first came to the media's attention some years back during a slow news period. Stories provided hours of titillating material to the gullible public who was led to believe that these four were the only women teachers in the world who had ever done this. When it became apparent to the media (if not the public) that this was fairly common, the media moved on to other material and neglected the category entirely except for local reporting, of course.
It currently fails as a standalone article though, because of the huge volume of media attention at the time, it must be retained as a "noteworthy" something or other. These four articles should be merged together under some non- WP:OR title. Something shorter than "Four American women teachers convicted of sex crimes against students from nnnn-nnnn."
See criteria at WP:PERP. Letourneau fails these since the crime is far from exceptional, but rather common. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Could_I_get_help_with_the_wording.... Student7 ( talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Student7 ( talk) 21:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
if she had 5 children with her first husband, and 2 with her current husband, isnt that 7 children? has one passed away? there is no real explanation for this on the wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.164.247 ( talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Since 2010 there has been a tag asking for a rewrite so I have reformatted the article and removed the tag. What I did was merge the Personal Life and Relationship with Vil F. into the main body of the article. In doing so I removed some duplicate/repetitive content about the crime, pregnancies etc. I also reformatted some of the section titles to give it cohesion. These organizational issues were the main complaint of the editor who placed the rewrite tag in 2010. Although the article could use some additional tweaking, I think at least in terms of format it is in good chronology order and is properly organized. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have some issues with this reference and link, it seems to have nothing to do with the movie.
http://bijumann.insanejournal.com/9866.html
In fact I'm really not sure why it was added. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Not a biggie. Her Article title is her well-known name "Mary Kay Letourneau." Per MOS her name she is referred to herslf by is Fualaau and should be the name first stated. Because of the number of Letourneau's and Fualaau's, her first name is the easiest way, per Wikipedia:Surname#People with the same surname. She has multiple children through different surnanmes. Mary Kay and "she" are the easiest identification names to distinguish her from others. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Lenore made this edit to the article, changing "former schoolteacher who was imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 for child molestation of her 12-year-old student, Vili Fualaau." to "former schoolteacher who was convicted two times for child sexual abuse and imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 after the second conviction. Abuses were perpetrated against her 12-year-old student Vili Fualaau."
I changed the wording, stating, "I'm not sure that 'violating the terms of her probation' counts as a second conviction. Added 'sentenced twice' instead. Should mention in first sentence who she molested." To elaborate, I objected to "convicted two times" because conviction is usually associated with a jury, while a sentence is something a judge can decide on even without a jury. I also clearly object to removal of "Vili Fualaau" from the first sentence and unnecessarily breaking up the text with "Abuses were perpetrated against her 12-year-old student Vili Fualaau." It should be "The abuses," not just "Abuses"; the former is not good grammar in this context and disconnects the matter from Mary Kay Letourneau by making it seem like we are randomly naming someone who has been abused.
Lenore reverted me (not even keeping one of my changes), stating, "'violating the terms of her probation' is, of course, a felony itself," and added "due to breach of probation imposed in the first one" and "who Letourneau met again just after the first conviction, violating the terms of her conditional freedom." Lenore also made this followup (date) change, which I don't object to.
I will alert WP:Law to this matter in the hopes that one or more members from there weighs in on it. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
To be completely accurate, she was not "convicted," rather she plead guilty (which has the same legal ramifications). She was sentenced to 7 years and released on probation after serving 80 days. For violating probation, the prosecutor presented evidence of probation violation to a judge. She was found guilty of probation violation by the judge and was resentenced to serve the full 7 years in custody on the original crime. She was still afforded a trial for the probation violation though the burden of proof is lower. She was not charged with a crime when found again so her only criminal "conviction" involving the victim was the original crime she plead guilty to. She still only has the single felony child rape conviction. Really, there were two parts of the probation violation: the first was a hearing to revoke probation, the second would have been a new set of child rape charges. The prosecutor chose not to file new charges I believe because of a lack of cooperation from the victim. They had plenty of time to file if the victim changed his mind as the statute of limitation clock doesn't start until the victim is an adult. Now it's moot. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Lenore for yielding to consensus. In spite of our different views on this specific issue concerning the lead, I/we appreciate your good faith efforts to improve this article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a bunch of changes to the lead. It was jumbled and confusing and gave undue weight to the crime history which is only one third of the content in the article. I'm sure others will tweak it and I'm open to discussion and consensus here on the talk page if there are any significant issues. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi DHeyward, your rollback of my edits from yesterday reversed many valuable and time consuming changes to the body of the article (based on my research of the sources and WP guidelines). I see no reason to undo those edits since while are discussing the lead. So......... I rolled back to the way I left the article yesterday AND..... then I replaced the lead with your preferred version until we have a consensus on the talk page as to whether or not we should expand the lead to include all aspects of her life as reported by reliable sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The subject of this article is notable only because she has committed a crime(s) and received extensive media coverage. However, many newspapers and magazines that have reported on her crimes have also given significant amounts of information about other aspects of her life such as her childhood, family history, notable siblings, her marriages etc. This non-crime related information has been included in the article with proper citations. The question for this RfC is:
Edit: wait, I was thinking we were discussing whether to include it in the article as a whole. Are we just talking about the first part of the article? Can anyone point out which revision we're discussing so I know what to look at? The information doesn't belong in the lead, but it does belong in the article Bali88 ( talk) 19:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the most accurate closure of this RfC would have been 'no consensus'. There were equal numbers of yes's and no's. Most of the yes's cited guidelines and gave good reasons for their opinion so I see no good reason for this RfC to be closed a clear consensus for 'No'. With that in mind I've asked the closing party to provide a further explanation here on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, I reverted Smmary, who claims to be Mary Kay Letourneau (or rather Mary Kay Fualaau); I reverted because of an obvious, very serious WP:COI.
Calling on SarekOfVulcan, who, judging from Smmary's very short edit history, has interacted with Smmary. Also calling on other editors who recently edited the Mary Kay Letourneau article during the #Changes to the lead discussion above, or simply recently weighed in on the lead debates: DHeyward, Keithbob, Student7, NorthBySouthBaranof, Bali88, Stuartyeates, Ca2james, Anythingyouwant, Aircorn, DavidLeighEllis, and Number 57 (closer of the above lead WP:RfC). Out of the editors who participated in that WP:RfC, Useitorloseit ( talk · contribs), looking at his contributions, was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn I took out the mention of bipolar disorder because it was just a passing mention of private health information that is not widely publicized, so it's an issue of weight and erring on privacy on a BLP. EGRS might technically be about categories, but more importantly it's about privacy of BLPs and the things that fall under EGRS, which includes disabilities, should be self-disclosures that are commonly mentioned in mainstream, reliable sources. —PermStrump (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The "In pop culture" section was looking exactly how it's not supposed to look, so I removed it and I'm pasting it below. The pop culture mentions should only go back in if secondary sources connect them to Mary Kay Letourneau. (See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Synthesis of published material, WP:Primary sources, and the essay WP:In popular culture.)
Extended content
|
---|
In the 2001 Gilmore Girls episode "P.S. I Lo...," Lorelai rejects the prospect of marrying a passing young man on a skateboard, explaining, "I'm not Mary Kay Letourneau." [1] In the Gossip Girl episode "Carrnal Knowledge," Blair suspects her teacher, Ms. Carr, of having an affair with a student. She sends a tip to Gossip Girl that reads, "Lonely Boy and Ms. Carr? Mary Kay Letourneau alert!" [2] In the Friends episode "The One in Vegas: Part 1," Ross references the Letourneau case when he tries to embarrass Rachel by telling a stranger that she is "that teacher that had a baby with her student". [3] J. H. Trumble's 2012 novel Where You Are tells the story of the romantic relationship between high-school teacher Andrew McNellis and senior student Robert Westfall. Andrew mentions Letourneau in the first chapter of the book when a fellow female teacher hints interest in Robert, and again in the seventeenth chapter when he fears being arrested if he engages in a relationship with his student. In Nancy Ohlin's 2015 young adult novel, Consent, senior Bea Kim begins an affair with her substitute music history teacher, Dane Rossi. After the police begin to investigate their relationship, she is forbidden to contact him. Late one night and unable to sleep, Bea searches online for news about cases involving other student-teacher relationships. One of the search results is yields a story about, “a thirty-five year old teacher [who] becomes pregnant by her seventh grade student," [4] presumably referencing Mary Kay Letourneau, although both Letourneau and Fualaau have been aged up one year. In the 30 Rock episode "Cougars," Liz Lemon, herself being 37 years old, dates a 20-year old and says, "This just went from a senior dating a freshman to Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau." In the film God Bless America, the protagonist Frank says "Fuck Mary Kay Letourneau" along with several other figures in popular culture associated with pedophilia such as Woody Allen and Vladimir Nabokov. In the third part of the book "Loitering" (anthology of essays) written by the great and worlwide known american short stories writer, Charles D'Ambrosio, appears an essay against the popular culture which criminalized - reguardless to love - Mary Kay Letourneau (Loitering by Charles D'Ambrosio, 2014) - the essay is a perfect example of the power and the influence of the highest literature (the essay contains many quotations from poets and writers such as P.B. Shelley or Gustave Flaubert) versus the poor popular journalism. |
—PermStrump (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Per the outcome of this discussion, I've been meaning to re-add this with more detail, and I will get around to doing so if no one beats me to it first. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, you have not substantiated your concerns. I looked at the discussion you referenced and found no mention of the phrase "romantic relationship". So I am uncertain what you are referring to. Having the first sentence simply state the conviction without even mentioning that the two were married is a deliberate attack. It is rather like starting the Richard Nixon article with "Richard Nixon was a politician who was disgraced by involvement in the Watergate scandal." It does not matter if it is factually accurate. That is an attack.
Please be aware that WP:NPOV is not a vehicle for allowing personal bias into articles. The policy explicitly states a preference for "nonjudgmental language". Perhaps more to the point, WP:BLP states regarding "Attack pages" that "Pages that are ... negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once ...". No matter how unseemly the subject of an article is, WP must always strive to treat the subject in an unbiased manner. Turning the lead sentence into an attack is not consistent with this philosophy.
Please restore my edits or offer some constructive alternative.
-- MC, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk • contribs)
Is there a Wikipedia policy that bans references to Radar Online in WP:BLP articles as was done in this edit? Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 22:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the sky is blue, regarding this, this, this and this, why do you think readers are going to be confused when we state "Letourneau" for her and "Fualaau" for him throughout the article? Maybe you were confused because you jumped straight to the section in question, but I don't think readers will be confused by the matter. The section title quite clearly states "Release from prison and marriage to Fualaau," and, like the other sections, separates the two by using "Letourneau" for her and "Fualaau" for him. So why would readers think that we have suddenly changed over to "Fualaau" for her? Your use of "her husband" in place of "Fualaau" is unnecessary and somewhat unencyclopedic; I changed it to "Fualaau filed for separation from Letourneau." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I see no problem with using "Letourneau" to refer to her throughout. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary Kay Letourneau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)