![]() | 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 |
Regarding [1] "rape of a child" is "illicit" [2] [3] -- she pled guilty - it most definitely is not editor POV, it's an established fact that the relationship when he was 12 was illicit. It also implicitly takes care the "non-consensual" problem - that apparently led to the oddly clinical "impregnated by" [4]. Part of the nature of the established-in-fact illicit relationship here, is the minor cannot give consent. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn you wrote "it's still stating the obvious." No it is not obvious not non-American readers (a case of systemic bias?). The age of consent varies in the English speaking world), and it also varies over time in the same jurisdiction, so adding "illicit" is not inappropriate if indeed that is the commonly held moral as well as legal view in that jurisdiction, although as this is read by a wider audience illegal is probably clear as it makes no moral judgement. -- PBS ( talk) 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I was mentioned earlier. I believe my version used the term "victim." [7] (it was three years ago so I cited my last edit, not the edit to the lead). I don't care about the word "illicit" but I do care that the article does not seek to portray this as a victimless misunderstanding. I liked the version I referenced because it plainly identifies a child victim of an act without characterizing their relationship. I have a feeling those that oppose "illicit" or "illegal" will also oppose "victim" but I prefer to name the child as "victim" of the acts. Technically, the "relationship" is not the legal infraction, sexual contact is illegal. It's rape of a child and Fualau is the victim. Use of the term "realtionship" to describe what i viewed as rape i a rathole and should be avoided. I wouldn't call it a relationship until Fualau was an adult. My .02. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, yeah, that's my view. I found the addition redundant and emotive. And then there is the aforementioned connotation regarding the word. This connotation -- the interaction simply being some illicit affair -- is what I was worried about (regardless of the lead making it clear that Letourneau's actions were illegal). I was concerned about the text giving the "oh, it was simply a forbidden love affair" feel, which is how a scandalous, consensual adult relationship is often portrayed in the media and in fiction, and is how some people actually view the Letourneau and Fualaau interaction. A number of people don't think of Fualaau as a victim because he was an adolescent boy, who was 12/13, and eventually ended up marrying Letourneau, and because Fualaau does not think of himself as a victim. As many know, there is a double standard in public perception when it comes to an adult woman being sexual with an adolescent boy vs. an adult man being sexual with an adolescent girl; the man is commonly viewed more harshly (by both sexes). In the case of the woman-boy matters, many men consider the boy lucky and don't think that the sexual encounter harmed him. There is some research indicating that boys view themselves as victims a lot less than girls do in these cases, but there are different reasons given for this. As for what Nat Gertler stated about kissing, kissing can also be sexual (as noted in the Kissing article) and it can be considered sexual assault (depending on the context). Kissing a child with sexual intent (such as French kissing) can be considered child sexual abuse. Kissing in this manner, does, after all, incite sexual feelings (including sexual arousal). But NatGertler is correct that the non-sexual aspects of the relationship were not illegal, and I was also thinking about that, but didn't bring it up. Anyway, I understand where DHeyward is coming from; it's why, when making the revert, I stated, "The paragraph was clinical-sounding because editors have been concerned about portraying the matter in a consensual light since it was ruled as rape of a child." I would understand adding "victim," but I would not recommend it for POV reasons. We don't even use "victim" or "patient" in our medical articles. Well, we avoid them in our medical articles and remove them when we see them (unless using one or the other is somehow better or necessary).
I also understand that Alanscottwalker did not mean any harm by his addition. And I think that the current lead is fine. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:John from Idegon.
These are germane facts:
These are NPOV-secondary sources that confirm these facts:
Let's pause to thank the Kitsap Sun for providing old articles free-of-charge. Priceless!
The hardest point to address was the sex in the car at the time of arrest. Two well-sourced articles provide substantial evidence this did not happen, while many sources just repeat the claim that they were found by police having sex in a car, with no evidence. My notes about this appear in the last section, above.
Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose any content based on either Smmary's, Letourneau's or her victim's assertions. As Flyer22 Reborn is certainly aware, part of the psychopathology of sex offenders is justification. And as far as any assertion that nothing criminal happened, that's just false. She pled guilty to a crime. That's a very good indication that a crime occurred. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is exceptionally useful resolving some complexity: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html
Our current lede is unhelpful when it repeats the sentence was six months with three suspended, because the judge says, "Any violation, Lau said, would result in her being imprisoned for up to 7 1/2 years -- the top end of the sentencing range for the crime." We know in hindsight that she served 5 months. This lede is distracted by the "six months with three suspended" especially because we know the judge essentially suspended 7 years, not 3 months. I see this all the time in Wikipedia coverage of legal matters. First, most people aren't experts in that area, and Wikipedia often compounds that fact with tangential details, like this distracting "six months, with three suspended". I suggest this lede:
"Her plea agreement called for up to six months in jail, but any contact with Fualaau would result in up to 7 1/2 years."
So we know that the subject knew the 7+ figure. Currently in this article it suggests the judge just re-sentenced, and perhaps just made up the seven year figure. That's untrue. The judge said up front that contact would trigger the long stretch.
Mcfnord ( talk) 17:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The strongest sources say the student-teacher relationship had ended when the sexual relationship began. As is common in tabloid scandals, an oft-repeated claim that the sex started while the student-teacher relationship was ongoing may not be accurate. Simple majority rule in resolving ambiguity might work for birthdays and cities in Iceland, but BLPs are conservatively written. This matter deserves some study. I'm not convinced "former student" is dramatically different than "student" but it is different, and the stronger claim requires stronger evidence. Repeating it over and over isn't evidence. Those sources that dig deep universally report that the student-teacher relationship had ended before the sexual relationship began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, Flyer. I should have used the term hebefile (sic?) and characterized her act as perverted rather than herself. And I encourage you to do just that. There is very little productive going on here. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=next&oldid=377790084
In 2010, Wikipedia decided to call subject crimes statutory rape. It has been noted that child rape, while the title of the criminal code, is misleading to some readers.
And here's Wikipedia on the crime: /info/en/?search=Statutory_rape
Alright, let me get this straight: child rape is the crime because the Washington criminal code decides to title it thusly? And we don't consider the reader in the Wikipedia entry about the crime? Yet we have a page that describes the crime to our readers as one of statutory rape ? I suspect the commonly used term for this crime is statutory rape, and not child rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The state didn't assert that sexual abuse was intended in the charges. This further suggests "child rape" is misleading. Mcfnord ( talk) 05:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To stick with the Washington State legalese, the correct presentation would be "felony second degree rape of a child without intending sexual abuse". If you want to play legalese, that would be the proper legalese. Or "Statutory rape" is Wikipedia's preferred language. Mcfnord ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
After considerable failure to reach a consensus, I present these NPOV-secondary statements that refute the claim that subject was found having sex in a car when arrested.
Washington Post provides this refutation of our current claim:
"Seattle Police Officer describe how he found LeTourneau, 35, in a car with the youth, now 13, near her home early Tuesday morning. Harris said LeTourneau first said she was alone in the car, and then she and the teenager provided false names when asked for identification. The next witness, Detective Dane Bean, said the young man told him that there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh. The two were found fully clothed."
Associated Press provides this refutation of our current claim:
"Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."
After careful review, and with careful consideration of claims made by other editors (none of which presented evidence to refute), I have found no NPOV-secondary sources that present evidence to substantiate the claim we now present as factual. Instead, we have two evidence-based explanations that refute our claim. The claim we present now is sensationalist and titillating. Wikipedia must stop stating this claim here as fact. In defense of Wikipedia, in accordance with BLP rules, and with protection of BLP exemption from the 3RR revert rule, I am taking action to remove this claim. Please do not return this claim to public view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
With the snow melting I'm getting busier and busier in real life, so there's even less time to go through all of this stuff, so I'll just give some advice and constructive criticism. My approach to BLPs is the same as any other article, taking into account that they are real people and thus I adhere to the ethical guidelines set forth by the Society of Professional Journalists. Otherwise I treat them as subjects (nouns} to be defined rather than characters we are telling a story about, just as I would with flashtube, tempering (metallurgy), or Japanese swordsmithing.
Rather than replying to everything point-by-point, Mcfnord, since you're obviously very new to this I'm going to try to summarize what the problems are. Since credentials are important to you, I have been writing all of my life, in many different styles and forums, and have been participating at BLP/N for the last 11 years. People like Flyer22, John from Idegon, and Bullrangifer have also been here a long time, and to my knowledge are well-versed in policy and brilliant of their own accord.
No offense, but you seem to come off as a lawyer in both your approach to policy, in your writing style, and in your communication style. Wikipedia is not a court and policies are not legal documents, so arguing them as such will get you nowhere. And I say that because I have seen this time and again. You can't focus on little bits of policy to the exclusion of everything else. You can think of policy as being one, giant equation, and each parameter must be met to satisfy the equation. When you target-fixate on a single, micro-portion of it, like a lawyer would do, you fail to satisfy the rest of the equation. This is what I mean by "synthesis". Unlike laws, policy is firm but meant to be flexible to account for variation in circumstances. Therefore, you will get nowhere by arguing it like a lawyer would, giving the most zealous representation of a client. You'd be better to argue your case like a detached, analytical scientist would.
Your arguments above suggest original research. We do not do that here. It's one of our core policies. We do not gather evidence, interpret that data, and then form theories about it. We let the reliable, secondary sources do that. We're a tertiary source, which means for the most part we just summarize what the secondary sources say. We rely on them to do their due diligence so we don't have to.
In addition, your arguments are filled with too many logical fallacies to count, including but most certainly not limited to argument from authority, appeal to accomplishment, appeal to consequences, argument from ignorance, questionable cause (including cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and furtive fallacy), argument from fallacy, affirming the consequent, argument from repetition, and kettle logic. I'd suggest you take some more time to study the policies in their entirety, and take the advice of more experienced editors. We are not here to WP:right great wrongs. We don't examine evidence, draw conclusions or refute claims. We just summarize the info we are given by the reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth ( talk) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Many NPOV-secondary sources repeat the claim that the subject was found with the victim having sex in a car. It is clear they had sex after the suspended sentence (when any contact was a violation of the plea agreement), and it's clear they were in the car when subject was arrested, and I think it's even concluded that they had sex previously in a car and conceived a child in one. However, here's probably the best source about sex in the car at the time of arrest:
https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html
"Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."
This is another very credible source, that specifies "kissing and thigh touching":
Across the rest of the sources, you find an unusual pattern: Perhaps half say they were having sex in the car. No RS has indicated a source for the sex claim. If the A.P. account is to be believed, police do no concur with the claim. Instead, they testified against the claim, saying there was no indication they had sex in their last meeting, and the AP relayed that. What does People Magazine know that police didn't mention in this testimony? Why don't they specify a source for this information, which would contradict the police testimony? Did police leave out significant evidence from their testimony, and the NPOV-secondary reliable sources discover it somehow later?
I think it's likely the fact of sex, fact of a car, and the probable fact of sex previously in the car (but not on the night of the arrest), conflated into the claim of an arrest during or right after sex in the car. This seems more plausible given the enormous international attention paid to the subject and incident. The only source with any substance on this point that I've found is the Associated Press account cited above, in which police testimony contradicts the oft-repeated claim. One can make a similar claim that the victim was initially 12 or 13, and I'm surprised to see such wide disagreement on what's probably an easy fact to verify. This article sides with caution, at age 13. It should also side with caution against the oft-repeated claim of sex in the car at time of arrest, especially with this clear report based on police testimony, and with zero evidence (just many press claims) to contradict this Associated Press account of the police testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. this is also a detailed account that does not describe "sex in a car" in my view: https://books.google.com/books?id=ij4Wc-5krxYC&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false We must acknowledge that 3 detailed accounts do not describe sex as having occurred, and there is no evidence produced by any reliable source to defend the claim that sex had occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
"While many sources claimed they were engaged in sexual relations when found, police testified there was no indication the two had sex that evening in the car." - We can line up a bunch of sources for the first portion, and use https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html for police testimony. I think we can expand this further, but we should be able to agree to this much. I can't imagine suppressing police testimony that contradicts media claims (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that contradict it. Mcfnord ( talk) 21:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
As noted in the Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Consensus on substantiated changes discussion below, many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, state that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car. But this source (a copy of a different Associated Press source) states that "Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."
So what should be done? One suggestion has been to state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred.", or similar. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Regarding [1] "rape of a child" is "illicit" [2] [3] -- she pled guilty - it most definitely is not editor POV, it's an established fact that the relationship when he was 12 was illicit. It also implicitly takes care the "non-consensual" problem - that apparently led to the oddly clinical "impregnated by" [4]. Part of the nature of the established-in-fact illicit relationship here, is the minor cannot give consent. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn you wrote "it's still stating the obvious." No it is not obvious not non-American readers (a case of systemic bias?). The age of consent varies in the English speaking world), and it also varies over time in the same jurisdiction, so adding "illicit" is not inappropriate if indeed that is the commonly held moral as well as legal view in that jurisdiction, although as this is read by a wider audience illegal is probably clear as it makes no moral judgement. -- PBS ( talk) 19:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I was mentioned earlier. I believe my version used the term "victim." [7] (it was three years ago so I cited my last edit, not the edit to the lead). I don't care about the word "illicit" but I do care that the article does not seek to portray this as a victimless misunderstanding. I liked the version I referenced because it plainly identifies a child victim of an act without characterizing their relationship. I have a feeling those that oppose "illicit" or "illegal" will also oppose "victim" but I prefer to name the child as "victim" of the acts. Technically, the "relationship" is not the legal infraction, sexual contact is illegal. It's rape of a child and Fualau is the victim. Use of the term "realtionship" to describe what i viewed as rape i a rathole and should be avoided. I wouldn't call it a relationship until Fualau was an adult. My .02. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, yeah, that's my view. I found the addition redundant and emotive. And then there is the aforementioned connotation regarding the word. This connotation -- the interaction simply being some illicit affair -- is what I was worried about (regardless of the lead making it clear that Letourneau's actions were illegal). I was concerned about the text giving the "oh, it was simply a forbidden love affair" feel, which is how a scandalous, consensual adult relationship is often portrayed in the media and in fiction, and is how some people actually view the Letourneau and Fualaau interaction. A number of people don't think of Fualaau as a victim because he was an adolescent boy, who was 12/13, and eventually ended up marrying Letourneau, and because Fualaau does not think of himself as a victim. As many know, there is a double standard in public perception when it comes to an adult woman being sexual with an adolescent boy vs. an adult man being sexual with an adolescent girl; the man is commonly viewed more harshly (by both sexes). In the case of the woman-boy matters, many men consider the boy lucky and don't think that the sexual encounter harmed him. There is some research indicating that boys view themselves as victims a lot less than girls do in these cases, but there are different reasons given for this. As for what Nat Gertler stated about kissing, kissing can also be sexual (as noted in the Kissing article) and it can be considered sexual assault (depending on the context). Kissing a child with sexual intent (such as French kissing) can be considered child sexual abuse. Kissing in this manner, does, after all, incite sexual feelings (including sexual arousal). But NatGertler is correct that the non-sexual aspects of the relationship were not illegal, and I was also thinking about that, but didn't bring it up. Anyway, I understand where DHeyward is coming from; it's why, when making the revert, I stated, "The paragraph was clinical-sounding because editors have been concerned about portraying the matter in a consensual light since it was ruled as rape of a child." I would understand adding "victim," but I would not recommend it for POV reasons. We don't even use "victim" or "patient" in our medical articles. Well, we avoid them in our medical articles and remove them when we see them (unless using one or the other is somehow better or necessary).
I also understand that Alanscottwalker did not mean any harm by his addition. And I think that the current lead is fine. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:John from Idegon.
These are germane facts:
These are NPOV-secondary sources that confirm these facts:
Let's pause to thank the Kitsap Sun for providing old articles free-of-charge. Priceless!
The hardest point to address was the sex in the car at the time of arrest. Two well-sourced articles provide substantial evidence this did not happen, while many sources just repeat the claim that they were found by police having sex in a car, with no evidence. My notes about this appear in the last section, above.
Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose any content based on either Smmary's, Letourneau's or her victim's assertions. As Flyer22 Reborn is certainly aware, part of the psychopathology of sex offenders is justification. And as far as any assertion that nothing criminal happened, that's just false. She pled guilty to a crime. That's a very good indication that a crime occurred. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is exceptionally useful resolving some complexity: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-04/0011_letourneau_found_in_car_with_form.html
Our current lede is unhelpful when it repeats the sentence was six months with three suspended, because the judge says, "Any violation, Lau said, would result in her being imprisoned for up to 7 1/2 years -- the top end of the sentencing range for the crime." We know in hindsight that she served 5 months. This lede is distracted by the "six months with three suspended" especially because we know the judge essentially suspended 7 years, not 3 months. I see this all the time in Wikipedia coverage of legal matters. First, most people aren't experts in that area, and Wikipedia often compounds that fact with tangential details, like this distracting "six months, with three suspended". I suggest this lede:
"Her plea agreement called for up to six months in jail, but any contact with Fualaau would result in up to 7 1/2 years."
So we know that the subject knew the 7+ figure. Currently in this article it suggests the judge just re-sentenced, and perhaps just made up the seven year figure. That's untrue. The judge said up front that contact would trigger the long stretch.
Mcfnord ( talk) 17:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The strongest sources say the student-teacher relationship had ended when the sexual relationship began. As is common in tabloid scandals, an oft-repeated claim that the sex started while the student-teacher relationship was ongoing may not be accurate. Simple majority rule in resolving ambiguity might work for birthdays and cities in Iceland, but BLPs are conservatively written. This matter deserves some study. I'm not convinced "former student" is dramatically different than "student" but it is different, and the stronger claim requires stronger evidence. Repeating it over and over isn't evidence. Those sources that dig deep universally report that the student-teacher relationship had ended before the sexual relationship began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, Flyer. I should have used the term hebefile (sic?) and characterized her act as perverted rather than herself. And I encourage you to do just that. There is very little productive going on here. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mary_Kay_Letourneau&diff=next&oldid=377790084
In 2010, Wikipedia decided to call subject crimes statutory rape. It has been noted that child rape, while the title of the criminal code, is misleading to some readers.
And here's Wikipedia on the crime: /info/en/?search=Statutory_rape
Alright, let me get this straight: child rape is the crime because the Washington criminal code decides to title it thusly? And we don't consider the reader in the Wikipedia entry about the crime? Yet we have a page that describes the crime to our readers as one of statutory rape ? I suspect the commonly used term for this crime is statutory rape, and not child rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The state didn't assert that sexual abuse was intended in the charges. This further suggests "child rape" is misleading. Mcfnord ( talk) 05:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
To stick with the Washington State legalese, the correct presentation would be "felony second degree rape of a child without intending sexual abuse". If you want to play legalese, that would be the proper legalese. Or "Statutory rape" is Wikipedia's preferred language. Mcfnord ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should continue to state "second-degree rape of a child" while pipelinking to the Statutory rape article. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 16:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
After considerable failure to reach a consensus, I present these NPOV-secondary statements that refute the claim that subject was found having sex in a car when arrested.
Washington Post provides this refutation of our current claim:
"Seattle Police Officer describe how he found LeTourneau, 35, in a car with the youth, now 13, near her home early Tuesday morning. Harris said LeTourneau first said she was alone in the car, and then she and the teenager provided false names when asked for identification. The next witness, Detective Dane Bean, said the young man told him that there had been no sexual contact, but he and LeTourneau had kissed frequently and that he had touched her on the thigh. The two were found fully clothed."
Associated Press provides this refutation of our current claim:
"Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."
After careful review, and with careful consideration of claims made by other editors (none of which presented evidence to refute), I have found no NPOV-secondary sources that present evidence to substantiate the claim we now present as factual. Instead, we have two evidence-based explanations that refute our claim. The claim we present now is sensationalist and titillating. Wikipedia must stop stating this claim here as fact. In defense of Wikipedia, in accordance with BLP rules, and with protection of BLP exemption from the 3RR revert rule, I am taking action to remove this claim. Please do not return this claim to public view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
With the snow melting I'm getting busier and busier in real life, so there's even less time to go through all of this stuff, so I'll just give some advice and constructive criticism. My approach to BLPs is the same as any other article, taking into account that they are real people and thus I adhere to the ethical guidelines set forth by the Society of Professional Journalists. Otherwise I treat them as subjects (nouns} to be defined rather than characters we are telling a story about, just as I would with flashtube, tempering (metallurgy), or Japanese swordsmithing.
Rather than replying to everything point-by-point, Mcfnord, since you're obviously very new to this I'm going to try to summarize what the problems are. Since credentials are important to you, I have been writing all of my life, in many different styles and forums, and have been participating at BLP/N for the last 11 years. People like Flyer22, John from Idegon, and Bullrangifer have also been here a long time, and to my knowledge are well-versed in policy and brilliant of their own accord.
No offense, but you seem to come off as a lawyer in both your approach to policy, in your writing style, and in your communication style. Wikipedia is not a court and policies are not legal documents, so arguing them as such will get you nowhere. And I say that because I have seen this time and again. You can't focus on little bits of policy to the exclusion of everything else. You can think of policy as being one, giant equation, and each parameter must be met to satisfy the equation. When you target-fixate on a single, micro-portion of it, like a lawyer would do, you fail to satisfy the rest of the equation. This is what I mean by "synthesis". Unlike laws, policy is firm but meant to be flexible to account for variation in circumstances. Therefore, you will get nowhere by arguing it like a lawyer would, giving the most zealous representation of a client. You'd be better to argue your case like a detached, analytical scientist would.
Your arguments above suggest original research. We do not do that here. It's one of our core policies. We do not gather evidence, interpret that data, and then form theories about it. We let the reliable, secondary sources do that. We're a tertiary source, which means for the most part we just summarize what the secondary sources say. We rely on them to do their due diligence so we don't have to.
In addition, your arguments are filled with too many logical fallacies to count, including but most certainly not limited to argument from authority, appeal to accomplishment, appeal to consequences, argument from ignorance, questionable cause (including cum hoc ergo propter hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and furtive fallacy), argument from fallacy, affirming the consequent, argument from repetition, and kettle logic. I'd suggest you take some more time to study the policies in their entirety, and take the advice of more experienced editors. We are not here to WP:right great wrongs. We don't examine evidence, draw conclusions or refute claims. We just summarize the info we are given by the reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth ( talk) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Many NPOV-secondary sources repeat the claim that the subject was found with the victim having sex in a car. It is clear they had sex after the suspended sentence (when any contact was a violation of the plea agreement), and it's clear they were in the car when subject was arrested, and I think it's even concluded that they had sex previously in a car and conceived a child in one. However, here's probably the best source about sex in the car at the time of arrest:
https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html
"Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."
This is another very credible source, that specifies "kissing and thigh touching":
Across the rest of the sources, you find an unusual pattern: Perhaps half say they were having sex in the car. No RS has indicated a source for the sex claim. If the A.P. account is to be believed, police do no concur with the claim. Instead, they testified against the claim, saying there was no indication they had sex in their last meeting, and the AP relayed that. What does People Magazine know that police didn't mention in this testimony? Why don't they specify a source for this information, which would contradict the police testimony? Did police leave out significant evidence from their testimony, and the NPOV-secondary reliable sources discover it somehow later?
I think it's likely the fact of sex, fact of a car, and the probable fact of sex previously in the car (but not on the night of the arrest), conflated into the claim of an arrest during or right after sex in the car. This seems more plausible given the enormous international attention paid to the subject and incident. The only source with any substance on this point that I've found is the Associated Press account cited above, in which police testimony contradicts the oft-repeated claim. One can make a similar claim that the victim was initially 12 or 13, and I'm surprised to see such wide disagreement on what's probably an easy fact to verify. This article sides with caution, at age 13. It should also side with caution against the oft-repeated claim of sex in the car at time of arrest, especially with this clear report based on police testimony, and with zero evidence (just many press claims) to contradict this Associated Press account of the police testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. this is also a detailed account that does not describe "sex in a car" in my view: https://books.google.com/books?id=ij4Wc-5krxYC&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false We must acknowledge that 3 detailed accounts do not describe sex as having occurred, and there is no evidence produced by any reliable source to defend the claim that sex had occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
"While many sources claimed they were engaged in sexual relations when found, police testified there was no indication the two had sex that evening in the car." - We can line up a bunch of sources for the first portion, and use https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/02-08/0004_le_tourneau_case__police_check_re.html for police testimony. I think we can expand this further, but we should be able to agree to this much. I can't imagine suppressing police testimony that contradicts media claims (WITHOUT EVIDENCE) that contradict it. Mcfnord ( talk) 21:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
As noted in the Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Consensus on substantiated changes discussion below, many reliable sources, including the Associated Press, state that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in a car. But this source (a copy of a different Associated Press source) states that "Police testified there was no indication the two had sex in their last meeting Monday night and early Tuesday."
So what should be done? One suggestion has been to state "Although it was widely reported that Letourneau was caught having sex with Fualaau in the car, [so and so] maintain that no sex in the car occurred.", or similar. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)