![]() | 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 |
This article should STAY and NOT be removed. Jesse Dirkhising deserves to be remembered and the truth of his brutal death are facts and should also never be forgotten. His story was largely ignored by mainstream media, like mine was, and like millions of others were because of political correctness. That is the truth no matter what the liberals or mainstream media claim! When a white boy is raped, assaulted, tortured sexually and in many cases murdered by adult males who just happen to be homosexual...the media covers it up from ever reaching the public's ears. They are too concerned about being politically correct. What mainstream media continues to do, is make us victims once again...victims of political correctness. It's been done to me repeatedly and it continues to be done to Jesse Dirkhising. Lets's not silence Jesse Dirkhising's story here on Wikipedia. The truth hurts but it needs to be told. I am tired of being silenced myself, so therefore, I VOTE TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE.
Caden, Friday 27 July 21:27 pm
I found this article quite critical. :| -- ILovEJPPitoC 16:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Omg! Homos can be disgusting! But the media won't tell anyone because its "politically incorrect" Its sick.
What happened to Jesse Dirkhising is unimaginably horrible, but this article has some serious problems. It has been plagiarized word-for-word from various anti-gay websites. The article's connection to this poor kid is tenuous in that, as stated above, it is really all about comparing the media's coverage of this heinous crime to the coverage in the Matthew Shepard case. The premise of that comparison is questionable at best, because while the murder of Jesse Dirkhising was heinous, heinous, heinous, it cannot arguably be called a hate crime. If you disagree with that, perhaps you should take that up with the United States Department of Justice. It was the hate crime aspect of Matthew Shepard's murder that garnered all the attention when compared to Jesse Dirkhising, not that one person's life is worth more than another's. Ultimately, this article should be rewritten so that it is about Jesse Dirkhising and the crime in a non-POV way. Grabbing an entire article off of websites cheapens the value of Wikipedia, for sure.
This article needs verifiable sources, preferably with links to reputable news sites etc. covering the story. Mistercow 15:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is just conservative-bashing in disguise. For example, "Certain American conservative interest groups have long sought to link being a gay person or the larger gay rights political movement to a desire to sexually abuse children." Um, who? Proof? This article needs references, and shouldn't be laid out in a format of sections which seems to say "The wack-job right-wingers say this" and then "Rational liberals disagree". This is too POV and being used as a soapbox article. Harr o 5 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The largest issue that I see with the manner in which this particular article is written is not the lack of objectivity, but the lack of resource citation. I believe there really needs to be more formality involved in the citation and less "so-and-so said this". Etoulania
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.203.147 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC2)
I read that Jesse was gay. His mother spoke to a newspaper or media outlet and said that her son was gay and told her about the two men he met several weeks before he died. (Anonymous User) May 30, 2006
This is a tragic case. The fact that people have used it to malign gay people makes it even more tragic. It reminds me of Fred Phelps' numerous protests staged during the funerals of fallen soldiers. Have some respect for the dead, please. Do you want to blame this child's death on homosexuals? Given that most pedophiles are straight, can we blame every rape-and-murder where a young girl was the victim on all heterosexuals? Should we increase their families' pain by dragging their dead daughter's names through the mud just so we can attack straight people? Shall we have two categories, one for heterosexual pedophiles and one for homosexual pedophiles? If we did, would the fact that the heterosexual list is longer impress you? Would seeing that make you stop labelling all gay people as pedophiles? The sheer force of numbers alone is enough to label all you heterosexuals as perverts, if we are to assume that pedophilia is determined by their gender preference. Let Jesse Dirkhising rest. He's suffered enough, and so has his family. Stop using his dead body as your political soapbox. You are desecrating the grave. Wandering Star 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any hard evidence that this is exactly what his killers were? If someone in the media or in court said that this is what they were, then we can include it with an appropriate citation, otherwise, just stick to the facts that it was two men. -- Hetar 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It is likely the murderer in question was neither a pedophile (Kenning), nor a homosexual (Groth). This term shouldn't be used in the absense of hard evidence the killer was both a) exclusively attracted to the same sex, & b) sexually preferential for prepubescent children. Wikipedia's here to assert facts, not uneducated guesses. JayW 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's true either. Age of consent laws in the US range from a low of 12 to a high of 18. Few would call an adult sexually attracted to 18-year-olds a paedophile, or probably even an adult sexually attracted to 17- or 16-year-olds. Exploding Boy 03:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there is, but that has nothing to do with this article. The question is what the two men should be called, and as of now we still haven't come up with anything appropriate. Barring some new, reliable source, let's just leave things as they are for now. Exploding Boy 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The murderers were clearly both homosexuals and pedophiles. However, if you want to mention this fact, it would be better to do so in a manner that reports objective facts. --
SpinyNorman
22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to state exactly what you find to be non neutral about the intro? None of the statements in that intro are disputed which is why I worded it like that. Even the Washington Post admitted that the Dirkhising case receieved less attention but they explained why - this is elaborated on in the article hence why this is just an intro. Also, the two individuals were admittedly homosexual lovers - this was reported in court and in the affidavit. The other two sentances are merely what you left in there merged into the additional info. The intro must tell why the case is even notable. -- Strothra 04:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the description, but to the phrase "as described below." Exploding Boy 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"As a result of the torture is fine." It's "as described below" part I'm objecting to (as, um, described above). Exploding Boy 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The part where you say "as a result of the torture, described below" is unnecessary, tasteless, and sensationalistic in tone. Is this really so confusing? Exploding Boy 04:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes because you haven't explained yourself. You're simply repeating the same empty, non-specific, words. "as a result of the torture, described below" is merely a statement of fact. Nothing more. He died as a result of the torture. The torture is described below the introduction. Either way, the description of the murder is still written below so I don't object to removing the words "as described below". -- Strothra 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How about now? -- Strothra 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at. Now how about the business about Matthew Shepard? Exploding Boy 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What about this?:
Jesse Dirkhising ( May 24, 1986– September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999. Dirkhising died as a result of the torture. Ensuing controversy over the media-attention given, or lack thereof, to Dirkhising's murder struck up national debate regarding the mainstream media and what some percieved to be its political correctness toward homosexuals.
-- Strothra 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What about this?:
Jesse Dirkhising ( May 24, 1986– September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999, and died as a result. Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals.
? Exploding Boy 04:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Capitalist. I can't really go that far. I really prefer "Dirkhising died as a result of the torture" and the following final sentance. I really see nothing wrong with since it's neither false nor POV:
Jesse Dirkhising ( May 24, 1986– September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999. Dirkhising died as a result of the torture. Ensuing controversy over the lack of media attention to Dirkhising's murder struck up national debate regarding the mainstream media and what some percieved to be its political correctness toward homosexuals.
-- Strothra 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals" is a better way of putting it. Exploding Boy 05:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just in the introduction, yes. I've just re-read the article, and the entire issue of how much coverage there was is controversial. Best to deal with it in the article than to try to explain it in the lead-in. Exploding Boy 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
ok...with or without male lovers? -- Strothra 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure if he was kidnapped. I've been reading some things in the past couple days which refer to a history of the boy having pseudo-sexual encounters with at least one of the two men. You may want to check into whether he arrived on his own will or not. Although, I think it may also be feasible to say that once the torture began it was probably kidnapping. -- Strothra 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. Look, if you don't know the term "homosexual agenda" and you don't know what it is, you can't make the claim that I'm putting words in other people's mouths. It's absolutely ridiculous that you'd replace the POV tag on that basis. The article is fine now that we've spent hours discussing it and working on it. I'm asking you to remove that tag.
As for "pseudo-sexual," a lack of penetration does not make sexual activity any less "sex." But whatever. As long as you're not planning to put that in the article, we can deal with it later.
As for "kidnap," the definitions are somewhat unclear in some cases. It's my understanding that Dirkising went to and entered the house voluntarily, so I'm not sure that he was actually "kidnapped," although he was confined. The question is whether his confinement was voluntary, which we'll never know, so let's get rid of this word altogether. Exploding Boy 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's true at all given the number of uncited claims made in the article. It's not an "outside idea" and it's not original research. Again, you don't seem to know what the term means. I think you're being unnecessarily strident about this. There is absolutely no reason for a POV tag to be on this article, so I'm removing it.
By the way, even if it was original research, a POV tag wouldn't be appropriate. Exploding Boy 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. So what's non-neutral about the article? Nothing that I can see. The big remaining problems are the lack of citations (there's a tag for that) and the format of the references. Exploding Boy 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Were either of the perps actually convicted or even indicted on kidnapping charges? If not, do the verdicts against them mention kidnapping or false imprisonment as an aggravating factor? The findings of a court would go a long way toward solving this dispute. -- squirrel 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The supposed evidence that the two men were homosexual comes from one affidavit in which they were stated to be lovers. However, their relationship seems to have been of a sadomasochistic and paedophile nature (and their paedophilia includes abusing boys and girls). I think any reference to the men as 'homosexuals' needs to be heavily qualified for that reason. Unfortunately, any references to this, or to the fact that their child molestation was of both sexes, or that the death had strong signs of being accidental are immediately being removed by other posters - hence the need for this article to be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.227.58 ( talk • contribs)
The second sentence currently reads: "Controversy ensued over the lack of coverage in mainstream media outlets of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was the result of the homosexuality of the perpetrators."
This reads: "the murder... was the result of the homosexuality of the perps", not "the lack of coverage... was the result of the homosexuality of the perps." I think the latter is what's intended (if not, it's very problematic). I'd fix it myself, but I haven't followed the history and don't want to step on any toes. Fireplace 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the statements about Dirkhising being "kidnapped." The www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382abf9f7001.htm affidavit does not mention kidnapping, and they were not charged with kidnapping. [ This] article says Dirkhising was "...at the Rogers, Ark., home of a family friend..." [[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026 This one]] states "Earlier that summer, Jesse – with the permission of his mother and stepfather, Tina and Miles Yates – had begun spending weekends with the homosexual couple." DejahThoris 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm also removing "The affidavit [1] has much more detail on Brown and Carpenter's history of child molestation, including cases against both sexes." It sounds to me like that says they had previous cases against them for molestation. The affidavit states "A check of Davis Carpenter’s prior record shows no known prior convictions at this time... A records check of Joshua Brown reveals no known prior convictions." I would like to add something like "Police also found detailed notes describing drugging young girls, and engaging in sexual activity with them." I'm not sure where to put it, though. Any suggestions? DejahThoris 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am very hesitant to see the Free Republic used as a source for anything on Wikipedia becuase it is a highly partisan forum. Is there no other way to obtain the information, and are we certain that it is correct? - Will Beback · † · 00:36, 13 January 2007 (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 |
This article should STAY and NOT be removed. Jesse Dirkhising deserves to be remembered and the truth of his brutal death are facts and should also never be forgotten. His story was largely ignored by mainstream media, like mine was, and like millions of others were because of political correctness. That is the truth no matter what the liberals or mainstream media claim! When a white boy is raped, assaulted, tortured sexually and in many cases murdered by adult males who just happen to be homosexual...the media covers it up from ever reaching the public's ears. They are too concerned about being politically correct. What mainstream media continues to do, is make us victims once again...victims of political correctness. It's been done to me repeatedly and it continues to be done to Jesse Dirkhising. Lets's not silence Jesse Dirkhising's story here on Wikipedia. The truth hurts but it needs to be told. I am tired of being silenced myself, so therefore, I VOTE TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE.
Caden, Friday 27 July 21:27 pm
I found this article quite critical. :| -- ILovEJPPitoC 16:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Omg! Homos can be disgusting! But the media won't tell anyone because its "politically incorrect" Its sick.
What happened to Jesse Dirkhising is unimaginably horrible, but this article has some serious problems. It has been plagiarized word-for-word from various anti-gay websites. The article's connection to this poor kid is tenuous in that, as stated above, it is really all about comparing the media's coverage of this heinous crime to the coverage in the Matthew Shepard case. The premise of that comparison is questionable at best, because while the murder of Jesse Dirkhising was heinous, heinous, heinous, it cannot arguably be called a hate crime. If you disagree with that, perhaps you should take that up with the United States Department of Justice. It was the hate crime aspect of Matthew Shepard's murder that garnered all the attention when compared to Jesse Dirkhising, not that one person's life is worth more than another's. Ultimately, this article should be rewritten so that it is about Jesse Dirkhising and the crime in a non-POV way. Grabbing an entire article off of websites cheapens the value of Wikipedia, for sure.
This article needs verifiable sources, preferably with links to reputable news sites etc. covering the story. Mistercow 15:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is just conservative-bashing in disguise. For example, "Certain American conservative interest groups have long sought to link being a gay person or the larger gay rights political movement to a desire to sexually abuse children." Um, who? Proof? This article needs references, and shouldn't be laid out in a format of sections which seems to say "The wack-job right-wingers say this" and then "Rational liberals disagree". This is too POV and being used as a soapbox article. Harr o 5 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The largest issue that I see with the manner in which this particular article is written is not the lack of objectivity, but the lack of resource citation. I believe there really needs to be more formality involved in the citation and less "so-and-so said this". Etoulania
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.203.147 ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC2)
I read that Jesse was gay. His mother spoke to a newspaper or media outlet and said that her son was gay and told her about the two men he met several weeks before he died. (Anonymous User) May 30, 2006
This is a tragic case. The fact that people have used it to malign gay people makes it even more tragic. It reminds me of Fred Phelps' numerous protests staged during the funerals of fallen soldiers. Have some respect for the dead, please. Do you want to blame this child's death on homosexuals? Given that most pedophiles are straight, can we blame every rape-and-murder where a young girl was the victim on all heterosexuals? Should we increase their families' pain by dragging their dead daughter's names through the mud just so we can attack straight people? Shall we have two categories, one for heterosexual pedophiles and one for homosexual pedophiles? If we did, would the fact that the heterosexual list is longer impress you? Would seeing that make you stop labelling all gay people as pedophiles? The sheer force of numbers alone is enough to label all you heterosexuals as perverts, if we are to assume that pedophilia is determined by their gender preference. Let Jesse Dirkhising rest. He's suffered enough, and so has his family. Stop using his dead body as your political soapbox. You are desecrating the grave. Wandering Star 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any hard evidence that this is exactly what his killers were? If someone in the media or in court said that this is what they were, then we can include it with an appropriate citation, otherwise, just stick to the facts that it was two men. -- Hetar 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It is likely the murderer in question was neither a pedophile (Kenning), nor a homosexual (Groth). This term shouldn't be used in the absense of hard evidence the killer was both a) exclusively attracted to the same sex, & b) sexually preferential for prepubescent children. Wikipedia's here to assert facts, not uneducated guesses. JayW 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's true either. Age of consent laws in the US range from a low of 12 to a high of 18. Few would call an adult sexually attracted to 18-year-olds a paedophile, or probably even an adult sexually attracted to 17- or 16-year-olds. Exploding Boy 03:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there is, but that has nothing to do with this article. The question is what the two men should be called, and as of now we still haven't come up with anything appropriate. Barring some new, reliable source, let's just leave things as they are for now. Exploding Boy 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The murderers were clearly both homosexuals and pedophiles. However, if you want to mention this fact, it would be better to do so in a manner that reports objective facts. --
SpinyNorman
22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to state exactly what you find to be non neutral about the intro? None of the statements in that intro are disputed which is why I worded it like that. Even the Washington Post admitted that the Dirkhising case receieved less attention but they explained why - this is elaborated on in the article hence why this is just an intro. Also, the two individuals were admittedly homosexual lovers - this was reported in court and in the affidavit. The other two sentances are merely what you left in there merged into the additional info. The intro must tell why the case is even notable. -- Strothra 04:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the description, but to the phrase "as described below." Exploding Boy 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"As a result of the torture is fine." It's "as described below" part I'm objecting to (as, um, described above). Exploding Boy 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The part where you say "as a result of the torture, described below" is unnecessary, tasteless, and sensationalistic in tone. Is this really so confusing? Exploding Boy 04:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes because you haven't explained yourself. You're simply repeating the same empty, non-specific, words. "as a result of the torture, described below" is merely a statement of fact. Nothing more. He died as a result of the torture. The torture is described below the introduction. Either way, the description of the murder is still written below so I don't object to removing the words "as described below". -- Strothra 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How about now? -- Strothra 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at. Now how about the business about Matthew Shepard? Exploding Boy 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What about this?:
Jesse Dirkhising ( May 24, 1986– September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999. Dirkhising died as a result of the torture. Ensuing controversy over the media-attention given, or lack thereof, to Dirkhising's murder struck up national debate regarding the mainstream media and what some percieved to be its political correctness toward homosexuals.
-- Strothra 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What about this?:
Jesse Dirkhising ( May 24, 1986– September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999, and died as a result. Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals.
? Exploding Boy 04:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Capitalist. I can't really go that far. I really prefer "Dirkhising died as a result of the torture" and the following final sentance. I really see nothing wrong with since it's neither false nor POV:
Jesse Dirkhising ( May 24, 1986– September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999. Dirkhising died as a result of the torture. Ensuing controversy over the lack of media attention to Dirkhising's murder struck up national debate regarding the mainstream media and what some percieved to be its political correctness toward homosexuals.
-- Strothra 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
"Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals" is a better way of putting it. Exploding Boy 05:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just in the introduction, yes. I've just re-read the article, and the entire issue of how much coverage there was is controversial. Best to deal with it in the article than to try to explain it in the lead-in. Exploding Boy 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
ok...with or without male lovers? -- Strothra 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not completely sure if he was kidnapped. I've been reading some things in the past couple days which refer to a history of the boy having pseudo-sexual encounters with at least one of the two men. You may want to check into whether he arrived on his own will or not. Although, I think it may also be feasible to say that once the torture began it was probably kidnapping. -- Strothra 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. Look, if you don't know the term "homosexual agenda" and you don't know what it is, you can't make the claim that I'm putting words in other people's mouths. It's absolutely ridiculous that you'd replace the POV tag on that basis. The article is fine now that we've spent hours discussing it and working on it. I'm asking you to remove that tag.
As for "pseudo-sexual," a lack of penetration does not make sexual activity any less "sex." But whatever. As long as you're not planning to put that in the article, we can deal with it later.
As for "kidnap," the definitions are somewhat unclear in some cases. It's my understanding that Dirkising went to and entered the house voluntarily, so I'm not sure that he was actually "kidnapped," although he was confined. The question is whether his confinement was voluntary, which we'll never know, so let's get rid of this word altogether. Exploding Boy 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's true at all given the number of uncited claims made in the article. It's not an "outside idea" and it's not original research. Again, you don't seem to know what the term means. I think you're being unnecessarily strident about this. There is absolutely no reason for a POV tag to be on this article, so I'm removing it.
By the way, even if it was original research, a POV tag wouldn't be appropriate. Exploding Boy 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. So what's non-neutral about the article? Nothing that I can see. The big remaining problems are the lack of citations (there's a tag for that) and the format of the references. Exploding Boy 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Were either of the perps actually convicted or even indicted on kidnapping charges? If not, do the verdicts against them mention kidnapping or false imprisonment as an aggravating factor? The findings of a court would go a long way toward solving this dispute. -- squirrel 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The supposed evidence that the two men were homosexual comes from one affidavit in which they were stated to be lovers. However, their relationship seems to have been of a sadomasochistic and paedophile nature (and their paedophilia includes abusing boys and girls). I think any reference to the men as 'homosexuals' needs to be heavily qualified for that reason. Unfortunately, any references to this, or to the fact that their child molestation was of both sexes, or that the death had strong signs of being accidental are immediately being removed by other posters - hence the need for this article to be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.227.58 ( talk • contribs)
The second sentence currently reads: "Controversy ensued over the lack of coverage in mainstream media outlets of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was the result of the homosexuality of the perpetrators."
This reads: "the murder... was the result of the homosexuality of the perps", not "the lack of coverage... was the result of the homosexuality of the perps." I think the latter is what's intended (if not, it's very problematic). I'd fix it myself, but I haven't followed the history and don't want to step on any toes. Fireplace 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the statements about Dirkhising being "kidnapped." The www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382abf9f7001.htm affidavit does not mention kidnapping, and they were not charged with kidnapping. [ This] article says Dirkhising was "...at the Rogers, Ark., home of a family friend..." [[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026 This one]] states "Earlier that summer, Jesse – with the permission of his mother and stepfather, Tina and Miles Yates – had begun spending weekends with the homosexual couple." DejahThoris 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm also removing "The affidavit [1] has much more detail on Brown and Carpenter's history of child molestation, including cases against both sexes." It sounds to me like that says they had previous cases against them for molestation. The affidavit states "A check of Davis Carpenter’s prior record shows no known prior convictions at this time... A records check of Joshua Brown reveals no known prior convictions." I would like to add something like "Police also found detailed notes describing drugging young girls, and engaging in sexual activity with them." I'm not sure where to put it, though. Any suggestions? DejahThoris 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am very hesitant to see the Free Republic used as a source for anything on Wikipedia becuase it is a highly partisan forum. Is there no other way to obtain the information, and are we certain that it is correct? - Will Beback · † · 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)