Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau

Untitled

• Sandbox For Sources 2
• Obselete Link

Intro name

Subject's legal name Mary Katherine Fualaau appears on her death certificate, and should appear as this article's first words, according to MOS:NAME. Mcfnord (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it should. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As made clear by MOS:MULTIPLENAMES in the same section, "It is not necessary to list all previous names of subjects when they are not notably known by them." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:NAME is a guideline, not a policy. She is widely known as Mary Kay Letourneau, and that's quite sufficient as a reason for referring to her as such. That's why virtually every word written about Elizabeth Taylor would refer to her as Elizabeth Taylor regardless of whether she ever took the last name of one of her husbands. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

relevance of media role and unusually strong interest

Pincrete, I'd like to revert a change you made. You ask in the comment about relevance, which is a reasonable question. It's important that we understand how much media scrutiny was placed on this particular subject and situation. I've recently become aware of a different person who committed a very similar crime. Her name is Brittany Zamora, but the only thing Wikipedia says about her is where she currently resides.

What we say today:

• The case received national attention. (Actually, it was international)
• She became the subject of an international tabloid scandal, and experienced symptoms of degraded mental health according to acquaintances.
• Passing unnoticed past hordes of reporters and gawkers...

What we don't say, but possibly should:

• subject gained "notoriety".
• Considered the "most famous" example of this crime with similar details.
• Subject received harassment from other prisoners due to subject's 'celebrity' status.
• Subject's marriage ceremony occurred Amid "Media Circus" with "camera crews and a news hellicopter" and "metal detectors"
• News about subject was often filed under "entertainment" as with this URL.
• Subject "registered [as a sex offender] in a locked office of the King County courthouse while media swarmed outside."
• A book (Olsen, G.) about the subject says on its cover, "story that stunned the world."
• "The case blended the universal intoxicants of sex and crime with the novelty of gender." - speculation about appeal
• "Her four older children, ages 3 to 12, were sent to live temporarily with relatives in Washington D.C., to protect them from the media glare."
• continuing fascination: "People can't take their eyes off a train wreck like that"
• "By the end of February 1998, only President Clinton's relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was prompting more letters to the editors of Seattle newspapers. The Seattle Times put the tally for the month at 197 letters on Clinton and 93 on Letourneau."
• Note the publication of four books, including Gregg Olsen's If Loving You Is Wrong: The Shocking True Story of Mary Kay Letourneau (published in 1999, reissued in 2004, and so far translated into 11 languages)"
• Letourneau left prison under the same spotlight that shone on her when she arrived. Representatives of the Today show, Oprah, Primetime, Inside Edition, and news organizations in Great Britain, France, and Germany were among those on stakeout when she was released from the Washington Corrections Center for Women near Gig Harbor on August 4, 2004.
• Fualaau sold some of the letters to tabloids.
• "international headlines"
• around the world
• public's decades-long fascination, "tabloid fixtures"

Many commit similar crimes. Few receive this degree of intense, sustained, global attention. Nor can the story even be understood without these details. There are multiple instances where the unusual level of attention caused unusual results. Said Salon, "The scandals on the scale of Letourneau... expertly catalogs the corrosive role the media played in the affair."

We need to acknowledge the unusually high visibility of this criminal. I've tried to describe this appeal as notoriety, though I'm not 100% sold on the term. The article says in 3 places what that level of attention meant in concrete terms. We used to say it in 4 places, but you had concern about relevance. It's relevant! Mcfnord (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on media coverage - my removal was itself 'tabloidy' detail, as I would say is the 'gawkers' above. If the level of attention was in any way unfair, that is for others to remedy, we simply reflect the big bad world, not fix it nor comment on it. I would object to you restoring 'painting a scene' details. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I also wish to revert this eliding. She was indeed a staple of tabloids. And media coverage is one thing, but when media coverage changes what's going on, that's a different thing. Could you tell me which of these citations do seem noteworthy in your view? You say you have no strong opinion about covering the coverage, which we did 4 times, but now do 2 times, after your changes. Can you articulate how "painting a scene" is problematic, in your view? As a technical writer, I "paint scenes" with facts all the time. There are facts, and there are noteworthy facts. Which of the citations/facts listed above seem possibly inclusion-worthy to you? Does Wikipedia cover stuff like "story that stunned the world" but not stuff like "amid a 'media circus'"? Are you saying that reporting and level of interest is never part of the story? You reflect the big bad world except that part of it? I don't know if I think any of the coverage was fair or unfair, but it was massive, and that had consequences far beyond the printed pages. Why wouldn't we include those kinds of details? Locked in a police office while media swarmed outside? That's unusual. Her children relocated across the country due to media attention. Is that a detail you omit? Things like some book some guy wrote seem weaker to me than specifics about 100+ reporters at a court hearing, because it gets at what a lot of people were involved in (maybe a best-seller is comparable). We should reflect those unusual details, as they help explain the unusual international response to this criminal vs. very many others. Let our collaboration start! Mcfnord (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I just removed the information about Brittany Z. It's unsourced and libelous. For all we know that may have been added by a high school kid as a prank. I would also request that her last name be removed in the original post above, per WP:BLP. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, after reading through all of that, what the point is that we are trying to convey. What are the changes that are being suggested? What I infer from this is that we should portray her as somehow a victim of the media? Is that correct? I have no doubt that this was a high-profile case. That's extremely evident, so I don't know if there's much of a point in stating that, because pointing out the obvious can become condescending to the reader.

While true, every case does not come close to achieving this kind of publicity, you cannot blame that solely on the media. (And believe me, I am no fan of the MSM these days.) There is also public interest that plays a major role, because if the public is not interested the media will quickly move on. It's the same reason a handful of rock bands make it big and most don't. Her reactions and inane responses didn't really help her either, as that only fueled the interest.

That's the risk you take when you commit any crime. As an analogy, people commit murders everyday, yet very few of those reach the level of infamy as the Charles Manson murders. In retrospect, there have been many murders committed that were much more gruesome and deranged than the Manson case, and if it happened in, say ... Somewhere Nebraska, it would likely never had seen the type of coverage that it got. But, as it turned out, it happened in Beverly Hills, and all the ingredients came together to make it an extremely high-profile case. You can blame that on the media or public interest, the timing and the place, or any combination of the those, but the people ultimately responsible are the people who committed the crimes. That may be unfortunate for people like Bobby Beausoleil, who have served their sentences and would like to forget it and get on with their lives (and make it a footnote in their Wikipedia article), but that is never going to happen. These are names that achieved infamy, and Letourneau has achieved a level of fame that parallels theirs. (And for anyone that feels like jumping in and saying that child sexual abuse is not on the same level as murder, number one, that's not what I'm comparing, but rather the level of coverage they got, and number two, I would argue that it most certainly is.)

Now it definitely caused a controversy, and if we have sources specifically covering that controversy, then this may be one of those few articles that should actually have a controversy section (since "controversy" refers to a widespread public interest and debate, not just any old dispute or criticism or dirty laundry). But, from what I've read above, I have no clue what the actual proposal is beyond presenting a bunch of sources that together provide in inference not directly implied by them individually, so I'd be very careful of straying into the realm of synthesis. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A "Controversy" section wouldn't be needed in this case (and often is not ideal in general). The whole reason she is famous is because of the Fualaau matter, which we cover in the respective sections. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP:PRIVACY and child names

Hi QuestFour. You should not be re-inserting the names of non-subjects, as per BLP:PRIVACY. Your revert comment says:

"restore as BLP generally applies to the article's subject, should at least be discussed before omitting"

Not correct. BLP policy applies to all mentions of all people on this website, in articles, in talk, everywhere, everyone, including me, including you! I have reverted these names of (then) children and need them to stay removed, as per clear policy. While not libelous, they invade privacy of these people.

ALSO, I still don't understand how MOS:BOLDREDIRECT means we bold the victim's name. Could you zero in on what I'm missing? Mcfnord (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

QuestFour: You don't understand WP:BLPNAME, and you keep violating it. Read: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Mcfnord (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The names of people who are not notable enough to have their own articles, especially children, should be left out, partly because of BLPPRIVACY, but mostly because it's trivial info to the general reader (a name with no face) that serves no function in defining the subject. If it is of no use then just use a general descriptor, respect their privacy, and leave the names out. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)