Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau

Old notes

The best way to proceed is to look at, read, absorb and summarize all the information in those many many links and write an article, not just list all the links.Ortolan88

The no-contact order between MKL and her victim has been lifted by a Seattle court. If they wind up living together in short order it wouldn't be too surprising and would merit adding to the article. --Wac 17:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The section on "Mass with Mary" seems to be ripped off from the amazon.com editorial review of same (or vice versa). David Battle

The "Mass with Mary" thing also reads a little bit commercial... is it relevant news or just an ad planted by the publishers? Bsktcase 05:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Is she changing her name after she marries Villi? (Alphaboi867 06:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• Oppose name change. It will be a LONG time before she is better known as anything but "Mary Kay Letourneau". Niteowlneils 06:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• her 15 minutes were over when he became of legal age. Leave the article where it is, Letourneau is the name the public will remember. redirect Fualaau. SchmuckyTheCat 14:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• most common name by which she is known: Mary Kay Letourneau. Her committment to using her former student's surname: non-existent. Leave it where it lies. - Nunh-huh 06:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose name change. Mary Kay Letourneau's case transcends her involvement with Vili Fualaau, as it is relevant to a more general question about the degree the legal system is justified intervening in affaires de coeur. David Cruise 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

--Er, I didn't think there was all that much debate about the acceptability of people in their 30s having sex with sixth graders. I do agree that the name should stay Letourneau, though.24.131.12.228 01:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the Washington State sex offender registry ( http://ml.waspc.org/Accept.aspx ) lists her as "Letourneau, Mary Katherine". Therefore, Oppose. -- 12.116.162.162 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the article title is called Mary Kay Letourneau, the header in the article should read her new name and that she was formerly known as Mary Kay Letourneau. --Mezaco 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 10:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Where did that image come from?

Is there any particular reason that this article uses such a badly photoshopped (gimped?) image placing Letourneau in front of a romantic sunset? What a strange choice.Phiwum 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I was just thinking the same thing. It seems highly unlikely that that image really is GFDL. Someone should just upload the mugshot or some other fair use photo from the press.--Pharos 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of birthdate because of privacy concerns and Wiki guidelines

I removed the exact day and month of Mary Kay Letourneau's birth according to the guidelines at BLP which specifically recommend that editors do not include exact birthdates in articles about living people. The reason for this is explained at BLP, but the practice of not including such information is common among reputable publishers. Her exact birthdate is of no relevance to why she is notable, and it is completely unneccesary addition of information that violates her right to privacy. We only need include information about why she is notable. (see BLP for guidance) Vivaldi 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is the gayest thing I've ever heard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.200.136 (talk • contribs) .

Revealing her phone number and/or address would be a violation of privacy. The day she was born is a matter of public record. (Alphaboi867 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Birthdates are not notable. Nobody cares. Tempshill 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's links are broken; he/she probably intended to refer to WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information. —teb728 t c 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the person in question has no objection, and there are reliable sources stating her birth date then there is no reason the birth date should be excluded. Antivenin 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Notability isn't relevant here. A single piece of information is never notable. The question is whether it invades her privacy or if it's already widely known. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Adult public figures often have their birthdates listed. And this lady is about as public as anyone has been. Besides, someone might want to send her a friendly birthday card. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder?

There appear to be numerous reports on the web that she had been diagnosed with, and treated for bipolar disorder, for example [1], [2]. If this is verifiable, it probably belongs in the article. -- The Anome 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reaction of Samoan community?

In the years since this story broke, I've never heard a word from Seattle's large Samoan community or anyone living in Samoa, or elsewhere in Hawaii and the West Coast of the USA. They must have had something to say about it. Not surprisingly, there's nothing here on Wikipedia either. PSVY 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It Happened At My School Too

At my high school, we had a case of a young female teacher becoming romantically involved with a grade 11 student. They never kissed or had sex, but an inappropriate relationship developed between them. At the end of the year, the teacher knew she couldn't continue to see the student and teach there, so she moved to another school. During the student's grade 12 year, they continued thier romantic relationship, and upon graduation he married her. They are still currently married. I think this sort of thing happens far more than we think it does, and that its just kept secret. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

This isn't the place for random comments that have nothing to do with improving the article but I would point out that a grade 11 student would potentially be above the age of consent in some jurisdictions so no statutory rape may be involved if they did have sex. Being a teacher and in a position of power may make a difference in some jurisdictions but not in all. In any case, while their relationship during her time at school was problematic for a number of reason and would likely violate teaching ethic guidelines and school rules after she moved was it's far more questionable particularly since from the sound of it, the age difference was under 10 years, perhaps under 5 years not a 13 year old with a 34 year old. In other words, the case you mention is only minimally comparable to this Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary's original name

Mary was born Mary Katherine Schmitz. Shouldn't that be included in the article somehow? - NGC6254 09:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a source for this? Proxy User (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Classification as an "Incarcerated Celebrity"

Should she really be included in this group? Her sole claim to being a celebrity is for the acts that caused her to be incarcerated, and she has no fame beyond this. My thoughts on this is that to be included in the category of Incarcerated Celebrities, the person should be a celebrity before and/or after the incarceration, for reasons not directly related to the acts resulting in the incarceration.

AgreeManormadman (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder?

There appear to be numerous reports on the web that she had been diagnosed with, and treated for bipolar disorder, for example [3], [4]. If this is verifiable, it probably belongs in the article. -- The Anome 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the correct year?

From this article:

In 2000, Fualaau's family sued the Highline School District and the city of Des Moines, Washington for emotional suffering, lost wages, and the costs of rearing his two children, claiming the school had failed to protect him from Letourneau.[2] The jury ruled against them and no damages were awarded.

From the article about Vili Fualaau:

In 2002, Fualaau's mother filed a civil suit against the Highline School District and the city of Des Moines, Washington for not protecting him from Letourneau. The suit was dismissed.

Cuantar (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

The Filmography section should be renamed. This is not HER filmography, rather these are shows ABOUT her. Objix (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just did it. (Have to remember to be bold!) Objix (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Letourneau and Fualaau "Hot For Teacher" Nights

On what grounds was this repeatedly deleted? It apparently took the editor two days after reading it to decide to delete it on the grounds that it is "unencyclopedic." WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC redirects to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not. That policy states, "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." This is recently verified information from the news. It's stated neutrally and non-judgmentally. I think it should be in the article. Blackworm (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The original link, IIRC, was to a promotion for the event, not a news article about the event, and wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for free advertising. Secondly, what makes this particular event noteworthy vis a vis her biography? We do not discuss every time she goes out to a bar or visits her parole officer. Can anyone explain what makes this one event notable enough to be added to her bio? Wikipedia is neither supposed to be a running journal of a person's life nor the on-line National Enquirer. -- Avi (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So, you're employing the "this is sensationalistic" argument again? The same one you used to block the mention that infant foreskins from male circumcision were ground up and used in anti-wrinkle cream for women (finally restored after a long fight, as "skin-care products" which at least sounds medically necessary, better than "cosmetics")? Is it that this fact, the fact that in the U.S. a convicted child rapist teacher can go on to host (not attend, as you imply, but host) an evening with a child-teacher sex theme, embarrasses you also? Blackworm (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am employing the "encyclopædic" requirement. Not every detail of everyone's life is notable. We have to separate wheat from chaff. I also fail to see what wrinkle cream has to do with Letourneau; is she acting as a corporate spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson? Lastly, you seem to have an emotional reaction to this woman; while her actions are reprehensible, and criminal for that matter, you should be careful not to view Wikipedia as a vehicle by which to crusade, even against the obvious evils of child molestation. We are an encyclopedia; not a soapbox or pulpit, and have to take care that we edit that way, even in in articles which offend our sensibilities, which this one most certainly does, at least for me. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you're suggesting I'm on some crusade? Don't invoke the strawman of an emotional response -- the only emotional response I have here is due to your again countering my edits here, and again for no valid policy reason. This edit is reported fact, not in a "National Enquirer" as you imply but in an Associated Press (AP) story, and not apparently countered or contradicted anywhere else. The news item is important to this article, it informs the reader on the realities of modern society and on the reality of this person's life. It's certainly not "scandal-mongering" as described by WP:SOAP -- whether her actions or that of those around her are scandalous is up to the reader, who reads the neutrally stated facts. On the contrary, editors like you who want to bury facts they may consider unpleasant are in fact the ones responsible for weakening the quality of this encyclopedia; specifically by imposing your POV that this AP story is "unencyclopedic chaff" (to paraphrase) that the reader should be kept in ignorance of (but of course in contradiction to reliable sources, verifiability and other policies). I'm going to put this back in. Please RfC this or follow dispute resolution if you continue to believe consensus will demand the non-inclusion of this AP story about Letourneau in this article. Blackworm (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should put it up for an RfC, but I believe it should stay out in the interim. The fact that it is carried by the AP certainly makes the source reliable; the question is is the fact that they are hosting these events relevant to the article. Wikipedia's purpose in this article is not to "inform the reader about the realities of modern society" We can leave that for preachers and those on a soapbox. We are not even supposed to document every event in this woman's life, only the ones that are notable and help make the article more encyclopedic. On one hand I can see that her participating in these events demonstrates a continued lack of remorse for her actions, on the other, that is amply clear by her marrying the boy. So, let us see what others have to say. Lastly, you are coming off somewhat like a preacher, that may indicate a lack of objectivity, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since two editors apparently want this in, and one want it out, I suggest we leave the reliably sourced story there in the interim. If at worst it's "preacher" material from the AP (in what circles are the AP known for that, Avi?), it can't be that harmful to leave it there while the reader helps decide its appropriateness. I'd suggest some kind of tag on it to help attract readers to the discussion, however -- I'll go ahead and add that. Let's leave others to decide the more objective view. Blackworm (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I won't be the one who takes it out during the RfC. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit relies on a blog, which is not a reliable source, but it's nice to see that several other editors view this as worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Clearly the weight given to this issue does not match the interest of editors, but then we must be careful to reflect the interest of sources, according to my current understanding of Wikipedia policy. Blackworm (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the content to provide strictly factual "non-tabloid" information, referenced from a reliable source (the Seattle Times). Just the facts, as they say. What can be wrong with this? Nothing, of course. Now, this activity of Letourneau and spouse may offend some people. But there is no question that it exists, and is relevent to the article subject. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude it, other than clearly POV reasons. Good grief! Proxy User (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Title -> Mary Kay Fualaau

Suggest the title should change to her legal name, with a redirect from Mary Kay Letourneau. Blackworm (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Her notoriety occurred as Mary Kay Letourneau, and most mention of her is as "Mary Kay Letourneau". A redirect is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Blackworm (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like how the country officially known as Myanmar by that country and the UN is still called "Burma" here. What is it with facing reality? Her name is no longer Letourneau, and she doesn't go by it. Letourneau should redirect to Fualaau, not the other way around. But who am I to stand in the way of Reality According To Wikipedia... Proxy User (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reasons that make her notable occurred when she was Letourneau. The vast majority of media and sources that refer to her do so as Letourneau. So does wiki. We have a redirect and her married name in the first sentence. -- Avi (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article mention the "HotForTeacher" nights?

Should the article mention the "Hot for teacher" nights hosted by Mary Kay and Vili? -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Include the material, per my comments in the above discussion. Sources other than the cited Associated Press/Seattle Times include:

• Seattle Post Intelligencer
• Chicago Tribune
• Marin Independent Journal

Note also that removal fails the WP:HARM#TEST (essay). Clause 1 may be most disputed, though I would claim it's met; this is discussed in reliable sources from at least Seattle to Chicago, so it's not "local newspapers" or anything less reliable. Clause 2 seems met (no one apparently doubts the facts), and Clause 3 is met (can't get any less weight than one sentence). The essay says, If all of these apply, then it is reasonable for the information to be included. If none of them apply, then it should be removed. I agree, and claim they do all apply, with ample evidence. Blackworm (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what's the point of detailing the first part of her life up to her release from prison and then dropping the article dead? It's entirely relevant to the whole purpose of the article in the first place (i.e. her activities with this person). Plus it's of interest as they're essentially celebrating their story. ~~Matt < Sorry I don't know how to sign these off anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.105.171 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is not "should the article include" this information, but why should it not? Of course it should. It "offends" someone? This is a criteria of what is or is not included? BS, nonsense, hog wash. It's relevant. End of story. Next issue. Proxy User (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and considered notable, why not? If nothing else, it suggests a lot about her character - unrepentent, despite those years in prison. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Include I've thought about it some more, and I think that as long as it is reliably sourced, and not linking to the advertising poster, one sentence is appropriate to show how, post incarceration and post marriage, she and her husband are handling their notoriety. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)