Talk:Murder of Larry King/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Valentine's?

I'm not sure where it says this, but apparently the victim offered the shooter to be his Valentine. Can someone confirm this? 72.138.179.125 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't give you a good source, but I did hear Ellen DeGeneris state that the victim had asked the shooter to be his Valentine. Tragic. Aleta ^Sing 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I'll try to locate a source and add it. P.S. The orignal message was removed with a claim that it was trolling. This isn't trolling as it is a legitimate question. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Valentine cause with a source, but if someone has another source that is better, feel free to replace or add it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Response Section

The grammatical structure of the response section is not befitting of an encyclopedia. "Thousands of people have" should be replaced with more permanent preterite phrasings such as "thousands of people did X," etc. The response section makes this wiki entry sound too much like a CNN report, and not an historical entry. I changed the conjugation of two verbs in the section, which I think makes it sound more like an element of history than a local news report. Also, I think the quotations may be excessive, the reader should be left to determine the severity of the act committed, we do not need an excessive amount of quotation by sympathetic citizens to tell us that this was a tragedy. Playing devil's advocate, and nothing more, the quotes might even push the boundaries of NPOV as they may take the focus off of the issue itself and go for a purely emotional response. Wikipedia is not a forum for engendering positive or negative emotions in readers, it is to be completely neutral and devoid of emotional rhetoric. Many of the quotes propose measures for dealing with violence against homosexuals, and are highly apologetic in nature. The issue of integrating LGBT issues into mainstream education is still highly controversial in much of the world, and putting up sentimental quotes to support a certain point of view is against the general NPOV sentiment of wikipedia. I think we have to be careful, even in tragedies such as this, to make sure wikipedia retains its core purpose and does not become an alternate news wire. We also must remember also that the accused is innocent before proven guilty. That being said, i do believe that this was a tragedy that could have easily been avoided through educational measures. (feel free to delete the previous sentence if it is deemed to be discussion in nature.) Whiteknight521 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)68.61.37.27 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is biased and not NPOV

Fairness is all I ask. The five quotes alone that are used in the article are excessive, biased and over kill. The article in general, from beginning to end, is POV. It does not read as neutral. It reads as propaganda to milk sympathy from the readers. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about that. The reader should be given an opportunity to decide things for themselves but that can only be done if the article were fairly balanced through neutrality. Both sides of the story should be looked at in order to avoid POV. The current article does not do that. CadenS (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the quotefarm was excessive, and I have removed it accordingly. Aleta ^Sing 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that the article continues to be both biased and not NPOV. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for the homosexual agenda, which the article clearly promotes. Furthermore, the article is damaging to both Brandon McInerney and his family. The article needs to be neutral but the content shows that it is POV. CadenS (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, as long as you have reliable sources and can keep from violating WP:BLP. Aleta ^Sing 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree but as it stands now the article violates the NPOV policy. CadenS (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true, but you seem to have missed the point of my last comment, which was "so fix it". :) Aleta ^Sing 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It clearly violates NPOV policy. It's POV from beginning to end. I did get your point. I just don't have the time right now to "fix it". I'm still writing my finals. CadenS (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandon McInerney may have been sexually harassed

Resolved

 – Issues have either been addressed or are being addressed in new threads. Banjeboi 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a reliable source that I'd like everybody to take a look at for open discussion. It's the only way to help this Wikepedia article appear as NPOV rather than POV. Based on this reliable source, the story looks a lot different now. It appears that Brandon McInerney was being sexually harassed by the other kid. This should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Both sides of the story should be briefly mentioned so that the readers can get a bigger and more neutral picture. Here's the link

I would like some feedback on this as well as on the following quotes below, which is text taken from this reliable source.

1. "Some witnessed confrontations between Larry and Brandon, with Larry teasing Brandon and saying he liked him."

2. "In the days before the shooting, Brandon had been heard telling Larry to leave him alone, that he would hurt him. Something was building, friends said."

3. "Eduardo Segure, an eighth-grader, said he saw Larry looking at Brandon the day before the shooting and saying he liked him. Brandon turned to Larry and told him to "F--- off" before walking away."

4. "At lunchtime that day, Hailey said, Larry went up to a table where Brandon was eating and asked to sit down. Brandon and his friends ran away, mocking Larry as they left." CadenS (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how adding any of this hearsay would contribute to the neutrality of the article. But then I also fail to understand your complaint in the first place. The article isn't perfect but doesn't appear to have any neutrality problems. If you would point to any specifics, rather than making sweeping generalizations, it might be possible to address your concerns. Rivertorch (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not hearsay. The current article is not neutral. It's one-sided and that's not right. I fail to understand you. I am not making sweeping generalizations, perhaps you may be doing so. I am trying to help this article. It's currently not NPOV and is in my opinion biased. It seems to me that your own POV has gotten in the way of seeing this. CadenS (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You know nothing about my POV. Please stop making assumptions about a fellow editor. You have made abundantly clear that you think the article is not neutral, but you have done so only by making sweeping generalizations, not by citing specifics. What I asked you for was to identify specific examples of non-neutrality in the article. Are you willing to do that? If so, great; we can have a conversation and perhaps improve the article. Rivertorch (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop assuming things about me and try assuming some good faith. I have not made sweeping generalizations. It's you who's doing that. I have made myself clear concerning the lack of NPOV within the article. Take a look at it. Read it. You will see that the content is POV and not neutral. Are you willing to do that? If not, please do not waste my time. CadenS (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but repeatedly stating your opinion about the article as a whole is unhelpful. If you can't or won't be specific, then casting aspersions on the integrity of the article is futile. No neutrality issues have been identified with the article in its current form. Apparently, it was a false alarm. Back to work! Rivertorch (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rivertorch somehow cannot see for himself how this article is biased, and asks for specifics. So let me try a few to demonstrate how this article lacks neutrality. First, the article states that "It was alleged that the suspect's motivation for the crime was that King was gay". However, it has also been alleged that King bullied, stalked, and harassed McInerney, and that McInerney was the victim of King's unwelcome advances, and that that could have been a motive. (Read Newsweek article of July 19, 2008), but that does not appear in this article. Second, the article states that "It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a femenine manner." However, it has also been reported in the same venue that King was shot because he was harassing McInerney and "he was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger." This also does not appear in the article. Third, the "Response" section lists a series of activities of support by some special-interest groups in favor of King. None of the activities by any other groups or people in support of McInerney are listed (for example, those of his own classmates). Fourth, the section also lists "sympathies" from some people for King, but none of the "sympathies" for McInerney from anybody who has expressed these sympathies (which also appear in the Newsweek article). Hopefully this is enough for Rivertorch to see the light. There you go. Ok, back to work! (Hyperliner (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

First of all, you're replying to an old thread citing new information, which is a little odd. I don't agree that some of the items you're listing aren't neutral, but if the Newsweek or other citation-worthy articles report that the victim-blaming has gone beyond the fringe and become newsworthy, then that absolutely should be noted in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's where you're very wrong Rivertorch. Every single item that's been pointed out by Hyperliner is dead on. Good job Hyperliner! Good to see some truth around here for a change. As for you Rivertorch, if you took off those biased glasses of yours, you'd see how biased and POV this current article is. It is far, far, from being neutral and serves only one side, your side. Caden S (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rivertorch, you say that it is odd for me to be replying to an old thread. Given that the page has been locked for a long time, I don't know how me exposing you as a biased informal agent of some special interest groups can be considered odd. (Hyperliner (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Lets assume good faith, and remain civil please. I don't see any evidence in the comments above, or in the Star article, that show sexual harassment committed by Larry toward Brandon. If saying that you like someone is sexual harassment, then everyone is probably guilty of that. In any case, however, it doesn't matter what we think one way or the other, as we don't characterize behavior or people, rather we report what reliable sources say. And no RS, that I'm aware of, has said that Larry was sexually harassing Brandon. To use the statements above to show that Larry was harassing Brandon would be original research and/or synthesis, and that is unacceptable. Don't forget, we really know very little of what happened here and there is much speculation and jabber about this. This is a tragedy for all concerned. Lets not make it worse and also lets remember that this is a potential WP:BLP issue if we are not careful. — Becksguy (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith and I believe I have been civil. It's not up to editors to decide whether or not these statements above show evidence of sexual harassment. That's up to the readers to decide for themselves. We are here to report what reliable sources say, and this is a reliable source that suggests that something more was taking place. Whatever it was we don't really know yet. Of course liking someone is not sexual harassment. However, if you were to continue to tell another individual that you liked them again and again even after they told you to "leave them alone" or told you to "F--- off"...then it becomes harassment. In any case, it's up to the courts to decide that. I only used the statements above for discussion. I thought it could help the article. Therefore, it is acceptable. CadenS (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First let me say, it a good thing to try and look at all aspects of a situation before coming to a conclusion, especially in the case of murder and motive. However, the source you've present violates the very NPOV policy you are trying to avoid for a number of reasons.

1) According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

As such, I have not seen enough reports of King sexually harassing McInerney to give such information equal weight in this article. More importantly, the article itself refers to the alleged harassment as "rumors" twice. This also violates POV since it obviously has not been proven. Also, I personally see no violation of POV in the article as it currently stands. Nowhere in the article has McInerney been blatantly labeled an "evil/disturbed/bloodthirsty" etc or any other weasel word which could be deemed slanderous. In fact, the article says very little of McInerney at all except for the crime he actually committed. Because King is the victim in this crime, the majority view is naturally in his favor. Several other sources on McInerney would obviously bring more merit in including his background into the article, but there simply are none. Even if we are to include background information on McInerney, how does the information provided adequately correlate to King's murder? It places undue weight on the life of McInerney, rather than the murder of King. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First let me say, you are heterophobic. The source I have provided does not violate the NPOV policy. The Wikipedia article itself does that on its own with its biased content and sources that serve only the homosexual propaganda agenda. The lack of reports on the truth of this case is due to the biased liberal mainstream media, which is well known to cover up the truth on anything that is considered politically incorrect. I should know, it was done to me. Also the current article on Wikipedia violates POV since it implies that Brandon McInerney committed a hate crime because he was homophobic. Where is the evidence of this? It has not been proven and is nothing more than hateful allegations to serve only the homosexual agenda. McInerney, in my opinion, is the true victim in this case. I believe as many others do, that he was sexually harassed by that other kid and pushed to the breaking point. CadenS (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks against me. I am in no way heterophobic. Secondly, King is dead, so I hardly see how McInerney can be considered a victim. Third, you overlook the fact that McInerney is also painted in a bad light in the tone of the article you submitted.

"He was a good kid," Charvet said. "A lot of kids are asking questions, because it doesn't make sense."

But others said Brandon would use his physical prowess to intimidate others.

Conni Lawrence said her son has known Brandon since the second grade, and over the years she saw him alternately be charming and a bully. "Brandon picked on what was different," she said.

Jimmy Stanfill also remembers seeing Brandon's sometimes-aggressive side. Although Brandon was generally a mellow kid with a dry sense of humor, he wouldn't back away from a confrontation, Stanfill said. The two once got into a scuffle when both were in the Junior Lifeguard program, even though Stanfill was two years older than Brandon.

"He was a good kid, but he didn't take any crap," Stanfill said. "If you pushed him, he'd push you back."

This hardly gives the image McInerney was pushed to a breaking point because he felt harassed. The fact that "Brandon picked on what was different," is equal proof of his "homophobia" as King's "sexual harassment." Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bookkeeper says that "King is dead, so I hardly see how McInerney can be considered a victim." Let me say that an alternative view holds King as the perpetrator and McInerney as the victim because King was harassing, stalking, and bullying him. In that view, King died as a result of a reaction against his own actions. You may want to read Newsweek (July 19, 2008) (Hyperliner (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

I did read the article and I can clearly see there is strong evidence for McInerney's case. Keep in mind this murder occurred five months ago back in Feburary and the newsweek article you mentioned - Young, Gay and Murdered - which gives a very thorough in depth report of the entire situation, came out two days ago. The article can be expanded with real ease now, but don't assume we have an agenda on wikipedia. By our own policy we have very strict rules about articles concerning living people, especially when dealing with a murder case. Having a lack of verifiable information does not equal censorship. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, so if someone is stalking and harassing you, the correct thing to do is kill them? I really think you should step away from this article now, as you clearly have an agenda if you're willing to justify the actions of Brandon McInerney. Yes, there definetly was harassment on King's part and the situation is more complicated than 'angry homophobe kills gay kid'. But King was not a 'perpetrator' of his own murder. He was a kid acting out who died tragically. Kagechikara (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said that stalking and sexually harassing a heterosexual was justification for murder. You know what Kagechikara? I firmly believe that you should step far away from this article as you more than clearly have a political agenda hidden up your sleeve. If you are justifying King's criminal actions then you should step back and focus on somewhere else on Wikipedia. Let me remind you that King was indeed an obsessed/stalker/perpetrator whether you like it or not. He was a boy who pursued aggressively and sexually harassed (among many other things) another boy, Brandon McInerney. These facts have been reported and can not, and will not be ignored to please you. Caden S (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

HEY! This is not a SOAPBOX or a FORUM for political debate. NOTE TO ALL EDITORS: Do not engage in pointless discussion if you cannot act in a mature enough mannor to limit your comments to improving the artice based on reported evidince, not personal opinion. Do not make incivil comments, do not make personal attacks. I would like to remind all editors to keep in mind Wikipedia:Etiquette and wikipedia:civility. Personal opinions of the subject to not belong here. We are not in court, we are not the experts on what happened, we were not there to witness the event or any of the events which preceeded it. Remember that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOVing

In order to correct the somewhat one-sided brief mention of of the killer's motives, I've expanded the Overview section somewhat. I made sure to include several reliable sources, and present all views as speculation only, not fact. If there are any problems with it, please comment. -kotra (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of media coverage

Resolved

 – Source added to article confirms national press attention. Banjeboi 19:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the US but this wasn't discussed in the news in the Pacific northwest. Ellen was the first person I heard discuss it on television, and that's a syndicated daytime talkshow. I am not imagining this shit -- the story hardly got any media coverage for the first few weeks, and ultimately received very little. So... why isn't that mentioned in the article? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hate crime or not, evey murder commited in this country is not going to be brodcast with equal weight to every media outlet nation wide. Considering the amount of responses this case recieved, including public statements from both presidential candidates, this shooting recieved a fairly large amount of media coverage. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Unless you can provide a reliable source claiming the shooting should have garnered more coverage, its considered original research and will not be mentioned in this article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

News Week did a 6 to 7 page cover page on the subject, reveal alot of information leading up to the events to the shooting.Ripster40 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Got a link? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790&GT1=43002 There ya go, hope that helps Ripster40 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Was King a ward of the court?

Resolved

 – content added and sourced. Banjeboi 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This AP article mentions King "was a ward of the court and living at a shelter...". The article itself is about how King's parents are suing the school district. But if I am reading this article correctly, the court (and/or the state) was/were his legal guardian. Can someone find a source to confirm and/or explain this? I do think both the fact he was a ward of the court (if indeed he was) and the fact his parents are suing the school district are noteworthy enough to add to the article, but since this is clearly a "busy" article, I thought I'd discuss it here. So, do you agree or disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.255.209 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Both points appear to be noteworthy. Rivertorch (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Cleanup tags

Resolved

 – Issues addressed in newer threads, sources removed. Banjeboi 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrmcuker has placed these tags on the article. His reasoning behind the cleanup tag is because he feels that gaywired.com is a blog. I'm not sure why he feels that the article is NPOV, though his edits seem to emphasize charges of sexual harassment by the perpetrator. I disagree with both tags, but feel other editors should rebut or remove them. AniMate 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV must be corrected

Please start a new thread with any actionable items so that others can address these concerns. Banjeboi 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

Sadly, the E.O. Green School shooting page is, and always has been POV and that must be corrected asap. The article is misleading to the reader due to the fact that it lacks neutrality from beginning to end. Only one biased view is mentioned throughout and it is misleading to the readers as it appears to serve a political agenda. This goes against the NPOV policy we have here on Wikipedia. Let me share with you some of the POV issues facing the current article. The article claims, "It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a "feminine" manner." This strikes me as misleading and POV. Newsweek gives us another take on this which would balance things out concerning NPOV. It's been reported that the motive for King being shot was because he was sexually harassing and stalking Brandon McInerney. And I quote directly from Newsweek, "he (King) was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger." Why is this not mentioned in the article? Furthermore, the current biased Wikipedia article says, "It was alleged that the suspect's motivation for the crime was that King was gay". Well guess what folks? It has also been alleged that King bullied, stalked, and sexually harassed McInerney daily and that McInerney was the victim of King's unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances. Newsweek mentions this but yet none of this appears in the current, non-neutral, and extremely biased Wikipedia article. Why not? Whatever happened to the NPOV policy that so many editors on here scream and cry about? And there's still a lot more POV issues in the article, like for example the Valentine part. It reads, "The shooting occurred shortly after King had asked McInerney to be his valentine, and prosecutors took this as evidence that the shooting was a hate crime". This is misleading and stinks of POV, it falsely implies that McInerney was homophobic and there is no documented proof of this. Infact McInerney has not been found guilty of this hateful allegation. However, the Newsweek article says differently, it says:"And then there was Valentine's Day. A day or two before the shooting, the school was buzzing with the story about a game Larry was playing with a group of his girlfriends in the outdoor quad. The idea was, you had to go up to your crush and ask them to be your Valentine. Several girls named boys they liked, then marched off to complete the mission. When it was Larry's turn, he named Brandon, who happened to be playing basketball nearby. Larry walked right on to the court in the middle of the game and asked Brandon to be his Valentine. Brandon's friends were there and started joking that he and Larry were going to make "gay babies" together." I think this gives a clearer picture on the whole Valentine situation. I'm not sure how you can add some NPOV to the Valentine part but I believe it can and must be done. Also the Response section is biased and yet again stinks of POV, it clearly supports a political agenda, the homosexual one. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote an agenda. If this section must be included well then where's the support section for McInerney? Newsweek refers to him having plenty of support, "Hundreds of his classmates have signed a petition asking that he be tried in juvenile court." It's even mentioned in the article that he has support from teachers, one said, "We failed Brandon, we didn't know the bullying was coming from the other side—Larry was pushing as hard as he could, because he liked the attention." Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Wikipedia article for the sake of NPOV? The Newsweek article of July 28, 2008 should be used as a reliable source in order to maintain some NPOV and to solve the articles current biased, misleading and misinformed take on things. Caden S (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, you mean the homosexual agenda. Right. I must say, it's remarkable how different our readings of the Newsweek article are. I saw nothing in it to suggest that King bullied, stalked and sexually harassed his murderer. Indeed, and this is my own point of view, I don't think it could be any clearer that King was murdered as a direct result of homophobia, whether because McInerney personally found King's homosexuality intolerable, or because he feared others would think he himself was gay because of King's open crush on him (there are some creepy parallels to the Scott Amedure case). Your suggestion is what? That McInerney murdered King because King was bullying him?? I think, and again this is my opinion, that is ludicrous. If anything reeks of a political agenda, it's that attempt at spinning the story. But back to the facts. Properly cited, well-sourced information can of course be added to the article, as long as it's used properly, which is to say, not in an attempt to create bias. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I could care less what you think or what your personal point of view is. My suggestion to you is to stick to the content and to focus on the points I brought up concerning the POV in this Wikipedia article. As it stands now it stinks due to the fact that it is biased and lacks neutrality. The current sourced information in the article has been used to create a biased page and reads as such. Caden S (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Could you (or couldn't you?). I re-read the article and I simply don't see the problems you see. I don't think it is biased or non-neutral. In fact, I think it's quite neutral. Your point of view (which you discuss at length above) is that it isn't. See where I'm going with this? Your opinions about the homosexual agenda and your view of the case are as relevant to the article as my views of the case, which is to say not at all. So as I said, feel free to add properly cited, well-sourced facts to the article, but save the rants about political agendas for somewhere else. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Like I said before I could care less what you think or believe. I, too, have re-read the article and it still reeks of POV. It's far, far from being neutral. I have made some small changes to help fix the biased POV facing this page but I used the Newsweek article as the reliable source. As for your bogus accusation of me ranting about political agendas, that's just silly. The article alone does that. Stick to the content and not your POV agenda. Caden S (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) First of all, maybe you could tone down the hostility a little. Second, your entire argument seems to be that the article is POV because you disagree with it based on your preferred source. First, you removed the category Hate crimes, although the hate crime allegation was sourced here: "Ventura County prosecutors charged a 14-year-old boy with the shooting death of a classmate Thursday and said the killing in an Oxnard classroom was a premeditated hate crime." The Newsweek article you like so much also calls it a "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard" [1]. Then you restored that, but added the phrase "bullied and sexually harassed [by King]." There are two sources, one is the Newsweek article, which says nothing of the sort, and the other, the Ventura County Star, which also says... nothing of the sort (but also mentions "hate crime"). In your last edit, you again removed the hate crimes category. Perhaps you could enumerate your specific problems with the content here, because I fail to see how you have improved the neutrality of the article at all at this point. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I agree with Caden S, the article reeks of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.33.26 (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC) — 74.192.33.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Becksguy (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC) It seems the Newsweek article is cited three times. Have your POV concerns been addressed, Caden? Is it time to remove the POV template? --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I agree Moni, I think it's time to remove it also. — Becksguy (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I disagree with you Becksguy. No Moni, my POV concerns have not been addressed. The template remains until change is made to achieve a fair and clean NPOV. Caden S (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Ok. What remains to be added or altered, in your opinion? --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Moni, I think many of the points I mentioned in my first post above is a start. I think some of it should be added for the sake of NPOV. Caden S (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I read your post, and noticed you had made some edits to the article. The Newsweek article, which you had mentioned several times there, is cited three times, as I said. Between your original post, your edits, and the use of the Newsweek article, surely not all your points remain? If so, is there any particular reason you have not resolved this yourself? Clearly you feel pretty strongly about it, be bold and all. If there's something I can do to help remove the tag, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Yes Moni, some of my concerns still remain. In particular, the Response section. It's biased, POV, serves to promote a political agenda and is quite frankly, over kill. Furthermore, it implies to readers that King was some type of martyr which he clearly was not. Several news sources, such as the Newsweek article reveal that he was far from being a martyr. Also, the Criticism of the school section could be expanded a bit. I think that could be a good idea. If you feel you can do something to help remove the tag, then please do. Caden S (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) i sbave to agree with Caden. a lot of article seems to be wirten from a liberal/leftist POV, and while i am not accusing anyeditor of doing this on purpose, it is clear that this has to be corrected for the improvement of the qualite of the article. Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (resent indent)The best approach to this or any article is to state the facts as dryly as possible, although witness and expert quotes are appropriate. If the volume of news reaction was sympathetic to King, that should be reflected in the article. However, if there were more conservative articles in the news that cast doubts on King as a martyr, or devoid of any responsibility in the incident, then they should also be reflected. If you have access to the Washington Times, check their archives. FOX News is also a suggestion. The Response section on the face appears to be based on fact, although rememberinglawrence.org and Queerty do not appear to be reliable sources. It may not be difficult to replace them, however. Caden, it would help if you were able to highlight the passages that you think are POV. Ideally, in bullet points here on the talk page. We have to be able to agree where the problems are before they are fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I agree. I've read the article and contributed a few edits before, and I fail to see what exactly is POV. Smith Jones feels that this "seems to be wirten from a liberal/leftist POV." Again, what exactly is your objection? These kinds of vague statements do nothing to help editors see what your objections are. AniMate 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I have stayed away from this page lately because I find allegations of agendas counterproductive, but I want to weigh in here with two points. First, to Caden's credit, he has finally mentioned some specifics rather than merely claiming it's not neutral or questioning the motivations of other editors. This was a constructive change, and I sincerely applaud it. Second, I have downloaded, printed, and read the Newsweek piece very carefully and fail to see that it supports claims that the deceased bullied or stalked the alleged shooter. As for sexual harassment, that is probably too subjective a term to work here without being POV in and of itself; it's arguable but would require both a leap of faith and an extremely loose definition of sexual harassment, neither of which is justified by an objective reading of the Newsweek article. Given the strong feelings surrounding the topic, I suspect that POV allegations will continue to surface here regardless of whether consensus is achieved to remove the template now. Such is life, such is Wikipedia. Still, I think the template should go. Rivertorch (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Moni, I have already answered your question in my original post. Please take a look at my quoted passages taken from the Wikipedia article, these quotes are what I believe are POV as well as the entire Response Section. AniMate, I fail to see what exactly you are trying to say here. Your post is extremely vague and is not helpful due to the fact it lacks clarity. You need to explain why you believe the article is NPOV. You need to use examples to show why you believe this. Have a look at my original post and please do the same. Rivertorch, thank you for the positive feedback. It's great to finally have an editor compliment my work and progress. And Smith Jones, I couldn't agree with you more. Caden S (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Caden, I promise I read your post. When I weeded out what could not be addressed, these are the points that remain: three issues that have apparently been taken care of. Your claims Resolution "It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a "feminine" manner." is POV No longer in article Mention "he was sexually harassing and stalking Brandon McInerney" "In contrast, some individuals suggest that McInerney was stalked, bullied and sexually harassed by King, leading to a personal motive, or that McInerney's history of family turmoil may have contributed" in article. (although who "some individuals" are is vague) Response section McInerney's side? "Hundreds of his classmates have signed a petition asking that he be tried in juvenile court." in article. "We failed Brandon, we didn't know the bullying was coming from the other side—Larry was pushing as hard as he could, because he liked the attention." in article. If you are unable to enumerate specific examples of what you consider to be POV language that has not already been addressed, the POV template will be removed. You are the editor who has brought this issue to the attention of other editors. You placed the POV template at the top of the page. It is not up to those watching the article to prove how it is NPOV, but for you to justify the template. I'm willing to work with you here, but I do not know what more remains to be discussed. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I don't understand Moni. I am one of the editors that brought up the POV issus, however, I am not the editor that placed the POV template at the top of the page. It was another editor who did that and it appears to me that he or she may have been driven away from this article through frustration over those who insist this article is NPOV. Furthermore, I honestly don't understand the last part of your chart. Where's the Response section to McInerney's side? It's nowhere mentioned in the main article. Caden S (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Problems remain. Issue Problem "It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a "feminine" manner." claimed to be POV and no longer in article This is true. It is what is claimed, in various sources, some of which we're using for other citations. Removing factual information from articles is non-neutral. We can provide credible sources that refute claims made by other credible sources, but we can't just remove information we don't like because we think it makes an article biased. "In contrast, some individuals suggest that McInerney was stalked, bullied and sexually harassed by King, leading to a personal motive, or that McInerney's history of family turmoil may have contributed" in article." is in article This is both untrue and deeply problematic. Neither of the 2 sources cited support this interpretation, and extrapolating is original research and non-neutral. Plus I would note that Caden has now removed two "See also" links, one to Hate crime and the other to Gay panic defence. As I mentioned above, the "hate crime" allegation is supported by at least two sources. Gay panic defence is clearly related, since McInerney shot King after King publicly revealed his affections for him. Again, I fail to see how Caden's edits are improving the article's neutrality; on the contrary, they seem to be making it less neutral. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Exploding Boy, look, supported or not it has not been proven in a court of law. I should also note that your post to your LGBT project to rally others onto this discussion, appears to me as a thinly veiled excuse to insure your POV. That's not fair. Am I wrong? Caden S (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Personally, I think what is needed is a rewrite of the Overview section. Instead of speculating on his motives, perhaps we should just law out the facts and let readers speculate what his motive was. I've added this to the hate crime category, but haven't reinserted the see also hate crime, as the article is linked in the lead. AniMate 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I removed it again AniMate. See my edit summary. Caden S (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary section break I've altered the article quite a bit, reflecting what has been reported in the LA Times and the Newsweek article. I've removed the sources that are not reliable, including rememberinglarry.org and Queerty. Claims made in those sources need to be found elsewhere in better ones (specifically that Barack Obama expressed his sympathies). I can do that, but not for a couple hours or so. Much of the difficulty with the article is the poor construction of it. I hope that has taken care of many of the problems. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The rewrite helps, but I'm somewhat confused by your removal of the LA Times article that specifies that he is being charged with a hate crime. It specifically lays out that prosecutors are calling this hate crime. AniMate 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, hmmm. Well, I think I...what did I do there? Let me see if I can get it back..Although I pulled up all stories relating to King in the LA Times and that one didn't come up. Although the hate crime issue is cited twice in the text below the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Alright the article is beginning to look a lot better. Thanks Moni. Caden S (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry there, AniMate. Thanks for putting it back. One I took out because it was from a blog, but what is there now is fine. Caden, et al, are we about ready to take the POV template off? Sorry I thought that was you who put the template there. I'm reading through to consider taking off the cleanup template. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hate crime category

Categories must be supported by article content. In this case, it is. Banjeboi 02:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

I've reinserted the hate crimes category. Having this shooting categorized as a hate crime isn't a reflection on McInerney's guilt or innocence, and it isn't a judgment on whether or not he is guilty of a hate crime. Rather, he has been charged with a hate crime and debate about whether or not this is a hate crime and the eventual resolution of the trial with the hate crime special circumstances makes this page relevant to the hate crime categories. A category isn't hateful, and as this isn't a biography of the suspect there's no reason for this category to be removed that I can see. AniMate 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Having this as a category is both misleading and POV. Being charged and being guilty are two separate things. This is not a hate crime. There is no reliable source that can confirm that this has been proven to be true in a court of law. Your reasonings appear to me as an accuse to insure your POV. This category you keep re-adding is hateful and it's not true in this case. Only the courts can decide that, not you. Where you there? How do you know what Brandon McInerney was feeling or thinking? Did you see the murder? I think not. Caden S (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC) What's the distinction that must qualify an article with the designation of hate crime category? That the case is prosecuted as one or that the hate crime prosecution must be successful? --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I don't know what the distinction is for that. I would think the case would need to be successfully prosecuted as one before such a misleading and hateful category is added. Caden S (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC) According to Category:Hate_crimes: "This category contains articles about incidents that either were prosecuted as hate crimes or were clearly and reliably reported as such." We can ask on the discussion page, but the difference between past and present tense to me sounds like semantics. It is currently being prosecuted as a hate crime. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Okay, that's a little too confusing. The "or were clearly and reliably reported as such" part is bizarre. Caden S (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) It's a good thing wiki policy doesn't have to hold up in court. You can still ask for clarification, though. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Guys don't over think this. There's nothing bizarre about the statement. Alexander Koptsev, who was heavily influenced by Neo-Nazi literature walked into a synagogue and stabbed several people. Russia has no hate crime laws, but most reliable secondary sources referred to it as a hate crime. I suppose there could be some arguments made for removing him from the category, but this article clearly qualifies as it is being prosecuted as a hate crime. It's clear cut. If you want to remove it, I'd suggest changing the qualifications for the category, though arguing that a crime being prosecuted as a hate crime shouldn't be included would take some amazing arguments. AniMate 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Ani, it's not clear cut as you pretend it to be. Please stop pushing your POV on this matter. Cut it out already. Now, Moni where can I get clarification on this? Caden S (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (unindent) I do so love being dismissed and called a pov pusher from someone who is so obviously neutral himself.</sarcasm> You can choose to take this up on the category talk page, but there isn't much traffic there. You might do the same at the talk page for the article on Hate crimes, but that doesn't strike me as the right venue either. My suggestion is to either file a request for comment or seek out a third opinion. We'll get more eyes on this at any rate. AniMate 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I have to agree Caden. Please don't make me remind you again, not to be incivil to other editors. Practically every edit you've made to this talk page includes accusing someone of pushing POV, which could easily be interpreted as pushing an agenda of your own, since you expressed absolutely no simpathy - but, instead, complete condemnation of King. In contrast, you've continually painted a picture of McInerney as being completely innocent in this entire matter. If you can't stop yourself from outright accusing everyone of whose opinion is different from you from having an agenda, you really shouldn't be editing this article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC) AniMate, regarding your suggestions, none of them appear helpful at this point. Nevertheless, I sincerely do appreciate the effort. Booker, that's not fair and untrue. I resent your allegations. Why is it others can be incivil towards me and your perfectly fine with that? Why is it that it's okay for other editors to receive a pass for that? I'm not accusing others, I'm just being honest. Please do not accuse me of things I am not doing. It's wrong, not true and it's your own POV. Caden S (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Because accusing someone of POV for merely giving an interpretation of a policy guideline is being incivil. Since you've started editing on wikipedia, you've had a particularly hostile attitude towards anyone who gives you the slightest disagreement. And I'm speaking from personal experience, so I'm not making-up a case against you. I've stated on this talk page repeatedly to all editors not to engage in pointless debates, but no one ever seems to listen to me. Whatever. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC) This is too much fuss than what it needs to be. A Request for Comment will get more views on what constitutes a hate crime, and if this article should be categorized as one. --Moni3 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the problem. "...Prosecuted as [a hate crime]" seems pretty straightforward to me. Regardless of any other verbage in the sentence, that portion clearly means this case qualifies for the category. If you want to change the specifications for the category, that discussion needs to take place at the category talk age rather than here. Aleta Sing 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

POV, continued

This seems to have run it's course, if not please start a new section with actionable items to be addressed. ::Banjeboi 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed.

There are still problems created by this POV-pushing. The "Reaction" section is misleading, making it seem like responsibility for the murder lies with the victim: the second paragraph reads: "In contrast, teachers at the school noted King's intense focus on McInerney, and that King often retaliated against male students who teased him by flirting with them." "In contrast" to what? Sympathy for King? How is a bullying victim's reaction to bullying relevant? Also, in the "Criticism of the school" section, what possible relevance does the sentence "King often wore make-up and feminine clothing, and purchased and wore to school a pair of stiletto heeled shoes that some teachers were concerned he would hurt himself in while walking" have? All in all, the article was much better written and much more neutral before this latest spate of edits, all of which seem to have been driven, as noted above, by the pushing of a pro-McInerney agenda. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Criticism of the school by teachers and King's parents was focused on the fact that he was allowed to wear feminine clothing and 3-inch stiletto heels. Some students and parents complained; Newsweek reports even Larry's younger brother asked the school to step in to get him to stop or make it less flamboyant. An email was sent out by administrators saying that King was within his rights to wear what he wanted to wear. This comes from a reliable source. I understand your point though, Exploding Boy. I don't care if he wore fishnet swastika stockings - it doesn't give anyone justification to shoot him in the head. There's more than what's being reported right now. I think we have two very messed up kids here, with two very messed up families. The more I read about this the more disturbing it gets. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC) i realize that this is a controveral subject, but but POLEASE try not to refer to other editors who dont agre with your political views as being some sort of agenda pushers. if you disagree with NPOV policy, then revert the page back to the lopsided version that it was before. dont assume bad faith on the part of other editors since we all want a netural article I hope! :D Smith Jones (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC) And look at that! See how Exploding Boy is allowed to make personal attacks towards those who disagree with him? What a double standard we got here. However, well said Smith Jones! It's great to see another bold editor such as myself who wants a neutral article. But I am happy with Moni's edits. Her edits are NPOV, unless somebody can prove me wrong. Caden S (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not trying to attack anybody, but I see this article becoming very skewed on the basis mainly of one editor's complaints about the article's alleged pro-King, pro-gay agenda. However, I'm not about to get involved in an edit war, which is why I haven't reverted to the version from a few days ago, which as I said above, was better written and more neutral. I may do some copyediting at some point, but for now I'm discussing here. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (interject) Exploding Boy, I've been watching the article since the incident happened. The original version was neutral at that time, because there was very little information released from the press on the events which took place prior to the shooting. Basically all we knew was "hetero shot homo", end of story. At this point I believe the article is still neutral. While there is never a justification for murder, there is obvious information that both children were very disturbed (which has nothing to do with their orientations, but the home life they both suffered). The only thing which is bias, at this point, in my opinion, is that the media (not any wikipedian editor) is trying to blame the entire shooting on Kings transgenderism-including members of his family and the school faculty, which (again, in my opinion) is Ludicrous. If this were a born female child who was raped or murdered for wearing provocative clothing, would we say "oh, well, she was dressing provocatively, she was asking for it, case closed"? While I'm getting somewhat off topic, my point is that currently there is an undue emphasis of Kings sexuality/gender identity- just like before - but in the reverse attitude. Reporting that shift is not the fault of wikipedia, but the numerous people involved in the situation in real like who may be far less objective than we are. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC) can you please cite afew segments of where the article has degraded from its previous tate? I my view, I see the article is getting better through all of our hardwork. The way it was before resembled some sort of memorial to King mixed with a promotional piece on fringe political views even though the viewage of this event was decisively more complex than it was portrayed here. Despite what some politcians seem to think, it is possible to disagree on the interpretaiton of a given event but still come together like we are doing here to improve this article for the better instead of improving it to teh worse. Smith Jones (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I agree Smith Jones, the article is getting better and better from all our work. So, Exploding Boy, you say: "I see this article becoming very skewed on the basis mainly of one editor's complaints about the article's alleged pro-King, pro-gay agenda"? Yet again you attack me! Please refrain yourself from making personal attacks against me. You are being incivil once again and I will not tolerate this from you. Focus on the article's content and not on other editors. Caden S (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Simply, King was a martyr and a victim and McInerney was a bully. The first reports of King's death depicted a picture close to this image. Or, simply, King was a tease, a sexual harasser, and McInerney was boxed in an unable to defend himself against King's onslaughts, except only by such violence. What is becoming clear from reading more, and what will probably be issue during the trial, is that there were two very angry boys; King was probably gay and perhaps transgender, but neither really had any concept of how to handle stress, and neither really seemed to be comfortable with themselves enough not to seek attention by acting out. King acted out, as 15-year-old boys do, by flirting; McInerney's grades has plummeted recently. King was small and not able or willing to physically intimidate the boys or girls who teased him, so he retaliated with flirtations. Neither appear to be angels. McInerney's cognitive trail from being embarrassed to believing he could solve his problems by shooting King is something I would like explained. I can only imagine a home life where violence was often the main solution to problems is the best explanation, and I hurt for both these kids. So, if we can for this article keep in mind that these were kids and nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If we can also keep in mind that what happened King and McInerney is a horror. Those who are claiming to be victims of another editor's attack, please revert your attention back to the reason you're editing this article. Please keep in perspective what injustice actually is. The quality of the article is the issue is at hand. Making it about ourselves is a distraction. --Moni3 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC) One of the policies we need to remember is WP:UNDUE. Since the vast majority of the coverage is sympathetic towards King, then that is what we report in about the same proportion. WP:NPOV does not mean every side gets equal prominence. Like it or not, there are prominent people and organizations that are supportive of Larry King, including Barack Obama, Larry King (the TV host), Hillary Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres, several organizations, and the Day of Silence for 2008. Many label the murder as a hate crime, including the prosecutor. McInterney as a victim of bullying, stalking, or harassment by King is clearly a minority view. From WP:UNDUE: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. I don’t see support for Larry being called a bully in the Newsweek article, or elsewhere. How one small non-aggressive feminine acting gay kid could bully a much stronger kid, who was known to be aggressive, boggles the mind. Here are some quotes: A friend's mother characterized McInerney as a bully and said "Brandon picked on what was different". Someone else said "...Brandon would use his physical prowess to intimidate others". Yes, apparently King teased and flirted, as that was the only way he had to protect himself. McInterney obtained a gun, brought it into school, and murdered King in premeditated cold blood. And that is the ultimate act of bullying. — Becksguy (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC) see my comments above where it says (interject). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I read them and I disagree to a point. Generally hate crimes percentage-wise have decreased while the level of violence of those crimes has magnified. King just happens to be one of the younger and more widely reported cases. LGBTs, I would say mostly G and T are still violently attacked with murders of trans women quite common. Many men feel threatened, for various reasons, by anything perceived as gay, or like McInerney, anything seen as different - and an openly gay boy wearing women's clothing in school is a very big deal with very few exceptions. King, apparently, was also the center of much attention - much of it quite positive - and his trangenderism coupled with his being openly gay and behaviour issues could be quite troubling for anyone who isn't secure in themselves. And many (most?) teens simply aren't. Banjeboi 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote in lead

While the article seems to be in pretty good shape at the moment, I see one potentially POV statement, the quote in the lead:

The shooting became "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard" in 1998 and brought attention to issues of gun violence as well as gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers.

While this statement is verifiable (from the same Newsweek source that has done much to reduce the POV), it presents the incident as unquestionably a "gay-bias crime". But since the trial is ongoing and no determination by the courts yet been made of the actual motive, the article accurately states that "the motive for the shooting remains unknown". These two statements (the verifiable "gay-bias crime" and the accurate "unknown motive") seem to conflict, so I recommend the following wording instead:

Though the motive for the shooting remains under investigation, Newsweek described it as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard" in 1998, bringing attention to issues of gun violence as well as gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers.

How is it? -kotra (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Better. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Rivertorch (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! -- Banjeboi 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've gone ahead and made the change. -kotra (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Betterer. — Becksguy (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues: actionable items

Since the neutrality tag has been replaced I am inviting all editors who feel that there are still actionable neutrality issues with this article to enumerate them here. Please be specific. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:CadenS writes below that the following is a problem:

"In contrast, some teachers at the school noted King's intense focus on McInerney, and that King often retaliated against male students who teased him by flirting with them. King had told his friends that the two had dated and broken up, and threatened to tell the school about the relationship. McInerney's attorney denied the two had a romantic relationship, and King's father believes that his son sexually harassed McInerney"

It's in the Newsweek article. King was so focused that he even knew when Brandon had an injury and he would walk extremely close to him. It's been reported."

Here are some of the problems with this. In the first place, King did not "tell his friends" that he and McInerney were dating. According to Newsweek (page 3) "Larry told one of his close friends that he and Brandon had dated but had broken up. He also said that he'd threatened to tell the entire school about them, if Brandon wasn't nicer to him." This was extremely misleading as written in our article It suggested that King spread rumours about himself and McInerney, and threatened to spread them further by telling the school. In fact what happened is, King told one friend that he had a relationship with McInerney, and that he told McInerney to be nice to him or he would out him.

Regarding the allegations about King's "intense focus on McInerney" and his "flirting with male students," please explain how not including these items non-neutral. The item about King's father believing that his son sexually harassed McInerney is in the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, he told one friend a big lie. In the same article one of King's teachers mentions he was lying. We can simply correct the sentence and re-apply it to the main article. Caden S (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How does not having that particular information in the article as it stands make it non-neutral. Please be specific. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, but, unless you were that friend how do you know it was a lie? Both these kids have had a rough time and they may have dated. We don't know so we go by reliable sources. McInerney is no angel here and, just maybe, he lied as well. Banjeboi 02:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One of King's teachers comments, in the article, that he was probably lying when he told his friend that he and McInerney had dated. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, I give up. And Benji, lots of gay kids lie about heterosexual boys they like. I've seen it firsthand. And remember neither kid is an angel just like you are no angel, Benji. Caden S (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS, please stop, taking little digs at me, or anyone, isn't helping improve this article. You could have let it go with Exploding Boy's comment that indeed another person in the source stated it was likely untrue. And just as some gay kids lie about heterosexual boys, heterosexual boys lie about such things as well. Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else. People lie, let's stay on to improving the content. Banjeboi 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove neutrality tag

• remove. Considering the amount of sources the article is drawing information from, I don't believe there are any current problems with the article. The article give points of view from pretty much everyone: families, lawyers, the school and each of the sections are balanced. I say remove the tag. Having the tag in place gives anyone reading the impression that there is a gross misrepresentation of of the facts, which I do not see. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Consensus does not mean every editor agrees. I believe consensus has been achieved and the tag should be removed. — Becksguy (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. No evidence that neutrality problems continue. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep. There is still some problems, in particular Exploding Boy's removal of this that was added by Moni and is needed for NPOV:

"In contrast, some teachers at the school noted King's intense focus on McInerney, and that King often retaliated against male students who teased him by flirting with them. King had told his friends that the two had dated and broken up, and threatened to tell the school about the relationship. McInerney's attorney denied the two had a romantic relationship, and King's father believes that his son sexually harassed McInerney"

It's in the Newsweek article. King was so focused that he even knew when Brandon had an injury and he would walk extremely close to him. It's been reported. Just as important, ALL editors need to agree before the tag is removed. Furthermore, Benji's quote above concerning the burn book would only turn this article into a page on King. It's not about him as a biography. This is about two kids and a shooting. Caden S (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've asked you repeatedly, please enumerate problems with neutrality in the section provided above. This item is very misleadingly written, as I will discuss above. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit more than just two kids and a shooting. It's tragic but King was murdered in the middle of a classroom by McInerney and the article should give context of where each was coming from. And the general public has made the case for balance quite clear as the media is filled with stories about the case but then a massive round of coverage about King specifically addressing the hate crime and gender issues. The coverage of McInerney has always been in relation to his shooting King and McInerney's trial. As that case works itself through the system more stories will emerge. Personally I feel transgender and sexuality issues are generally less understood so need more explaining. Drilling into each of their backgrounds a bit more is called for, IMHO, but it doesn't have to happen ASAP. We should avoid painting McInerney as a simple homophobe or King as a predator - neither is fair or accurate as far as I can tell. The book burn content, in the section above, actually helps explain some of the hostility King faced even as a 10-year-old. We can leave it to the reader to decide if it was a contributing factor or not. Banjeboi 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true that all editors need agree. From WP:DGFA: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). The paragraph removed by EB violates WP:UNDUE as it is used to bolster a minority viewpoint and presents an unbalanced view that King is to be blamed for being a victim. — Becksguy (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm in no rush to remove the tag although it seems most every concern has been addressed. CadenS has offered one actionable item, to re-add some content, but absent any other specific items presented I think it could go. Banjeboi 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per my earlier comments. Also, there is way too much surmising about motives and contributing factors going on here. One of the two key players in what happened is dead, and we will never know what he thought; we cannot even know with great certainty what he said or did, and must rely on third-party reports, some of them little better than innuendo. The other key player is subject to WP:BLP, and the less said about him at this point, the better. I have believed for some while that it would be better to simply state those undisputed facts that have been reported in the news media and and not go off on tangents based on conjecture. The spirit of the quest for neutrality doesn't depend on painstakingly presenting multiple sides of every issue. Sometimes one side outweighs the other, at least initially; sometimes that changes over time and sometimes it doesn't. McInerney is alleged to have committed a murder and a hate crime. At his trial, the state will have the opportunity to prove its case against him and he will have the opportunity to rebut it. Until that happens, I think we're treading on thin ice, ethically, to go into detail on the circumstances of his alleged crimes. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with much of what you say, but McInerney isn't alleged to have committed a murder, he was witnessed to do so. I don't think there's any question about that. But I do agree: we should not be conjecturing. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm ok with removing the POV template for now. What remains is interpretive in my opinion. The sources are now reliable (although depending so much on Newsweek makes me nervous). In several weeks, there will be more news stories and more opportunities to add detail to the article. Particularly McInerney's views and background on both kids. The article will be expanded as the trial goes on. I hope everyone who is putting their .02 here will assist with ensuring that both King's and McInerney's stories will be given weight reflected in reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove per above comments, if any actionable POV issues are presented then deal with them in context that the one subject who is still alive is currently in process of a murder trial. Banjeboi 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm fine with removal as well. More information is bound to come out as the trial progresses. As a side note, CadenS, I keep track of this page because it is on my watchlist. I'm sure that both User:Smith Jones and User:Mrmcuker have this on their watchlists as well since they've both edited the article in the last 48 hours. You seem so intent to make this the victims fault. That's disturbing. AniMate 06:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I thinkt hat removeal would be a good ieda. the reaozn of the tag was because of the pervasie and widepsread bias, and most of htat is gone now. the article isnt perfect, but its good enough that reaeders and editors shouldnt have to read it nervously. we can keep imrpoving it even without the tag at this point. Smith Jones (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Very good points, Rivertorch. Although it's not policy, there has been discussion that BLP also applies to the recently deceased, as brought up in deletion discussions and ANI reports. In this article, since the actors, families, and others are tied together by the shooting (and events leading up to it), we need to be careful with potential BLP issues since they may tangentially affect others. Clearly BLP applies to McInterney, and all the rest of those living, including King's famly, but it should also apply to King himself. In any case, WP:UNDUE applies, as I've said before. Overall, the article is now overly slanted toward Caden's viewpoint, I believe. Also, I think it now has too much negative information on both, especially on Larry King. I agree with Moni about the prominance of the Newsweek article as a single source for so much. It was cited 15 times, not a good example of multiple independent reliable sources. But that's a WP:RS issue for a separate section. — Becksguy (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm less concerned about the one source being used so much as the trial will undoubtedly result in all manner of details being published. -- Banjeboi 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I will not tolerate any more personal attacks by those of you who hate me for trying to do the right thing concerning the POV issues we had eralier. I do not appreciate the hateful attacks made by AniMate, Benji and now Becksguy. The hell with what you think of me personally. Why don't you all do what you really want to do? Open a new section on this talk page and why not call it, "Let's all hang Caden upside down by his balls". You editors are far more interested in me than you are on the article itself. Thanks for making me feel so very welcome as a member of the Wikipedia community! I am not the bad guy here so please stop painting that kind of picture of me. I was only trying to do my best as an editor. If you don't want a NPOV article, then by all means go back to the POV one we had before, since that's what most of you truly want. Caden S (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We want a neutral article, not one that paints the victim as somehow deserving of being murdered. Only you seem to have had major problems with the article's alleged lack of neutrality, so editors have naturally addressed their concerns to you. Yet after posting a long rant about the "homosexual agenda" and making some edits that were decidedly non-neutral (such as adding claims about King's behaviour that were not supported by the evidence) you essentially refused to discuss what the alleged problems were, despite being asked repeatedly. At any rate, I think even you must now agree that consensus is to remove the POV tag. To avoid similar situations in the future, if you are going to challenge an article's neutrality, please enumerate your concerns with specifics rather than generalized statements. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS, what personal attacks! You stated I was no angel (or something similar) but I didn't return any attack but simply asked you to desist from taking jabs at me or anyone else. Do you really think I attacked you in some way? If so please point it out so I can understand where this is coming from. -- Banjeboi 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay panic defense link

Has Brandon McInerney or representatives made any comments concerning gay panic defense. As the murder happened days after Lawrence King asked Brandon to be his valentine is it even applicable. I believe the link under "See also" should be removed, it seems to only serve as a boiler plate link given during LBGT violence issues and isn't applicable to this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.102.236 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:See also I'll try to add a neutral explanation as may not be used in the defense of this murder but is a related concept used in similar cases where a gay person had expressed interest in someone then later was murdered by them. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "gay panic defense" is much related to this article. "Gay panic defense" has not been invoked in this case yet, and since it would involve "temporary insanity" on the part of the defendant, I doubt it will. So I wouldn't consider it a related concept, at least no more related than something like Hate crime laws in the United States or gun violence. -kotra (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of which are directly related... Exploding Boy (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, bad examples, since those are related to actual aspects of this article (hate crime is one of the charges, and gun violence was committed). "Gay panic defense", on the other hand, has not been invoked by anyone (notable) in relation to this case. Better examples: Voluntary manslaughter, American juvenile justice system, Racism. None of these are likely to be directly relevant to this topic, but one could (using original research) make the case for some sort of relationship. -kotra (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay panic defense has no business and no direct relation to this case. It's POV and yet once again, misleading to the readers. It serves as an agenda, a plitical one at that. Caden S (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to have that link, since the defense hasn't raised that issue yet. If and when they do, with reliable sources, then we can. — Becksguy (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The evidence so far very strongly suggests a link between King's public expression of attraction for McInerney and his subsequent murder. McInerney has not yet stated either a motive or given a defence, but the concept of gay panic as a legal defence against a murder charge is clearly related enough to the circumstances of this case that it makes absolute sense to include it in the see also section. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A crucial part of the gay panic defense is that the homosexual advances led to a very rare state of temporary insanity. Given that McInerney seems to have been resolute and sober in his behavior prior to the shooting, I doubt they will try to use the gay panic defense. In any case, this is my opinion against yours, and either, if used to add content, would constitute WP:OR. I agree with Becksguy, we should wait until some third-party source makes the connection (not us). -kotra (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, somehow I missed the thread. If you look at any article it will have dozens if not hundreds of wikilinks (like bail and gun violence) that are here to serve our readers. The See also section is a waiting room of sorts for wikilinks that are in some related to the subject of the article but not yet introduced into the main body. It's no big stretch of the the imagination to see gay panic defense as somewhat related to this topic. It's not suggesting they are or should use or not use the defense. It's a related article and as such is fine. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Becksguy. Wait for the defense to use the term "gay panic" or its definition: McInerney was put in such an anguished mental state by King's flirtations that he was unable to control himself. Otherwise, defining for ourselves what McInerney's motivations were borders on OR. I know it's just a link, but we have yet to hear McInerney's side of the story. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some editors are confusing article content with see also sections. "See also" sections, also known as "related articles," are not repositories of links directly connected with the article content. They are for links that have some other relevance to the subject matter. That is why, for example, the see also section in the Ronnie Paris article contains a link to Violence against LGBT people, even though the victim was 3 years old at the time of his death and there's no indication that he was in fact gay. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." -- Banjeboi 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difference between See also sections and article content. My issue is that I do not feel "gay panic defense" is related enough to this topic. To me, peripherally related subjects would be "murder", "media bias", and "gun violence". These topics are not the main focus of the article (which is much more specific), but they could reasonably be expected to be used in the article content once it's become a good article. As Benjiboi noted, See also sections are a waiting room for such links. Since this link is unlikely to ever be used in the article, it should not be included in the See also section. -kotra (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Media bias? How do you figure? Exploding Boy (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I must have confused this article with Jesse Dirkhising, another article I'm currently involved with. Example struck. -kotra (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay panic defense is about someone who kills another after being publicly embarrassed regarding the victims stated romantic infatuation. This article is about McInerney who killed King after being embarrassed publicly regarding King asking him to be his valentine. It's perfectly reasonable that this this is seen as related and can be worked into the article as the trial proceeds. -- Banjeboi 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of gay panic defense is incorrect. Gay panic defense is about someone who kills (or assaults) another in a state of temporary insanity after being made the object of the victim's romantic or sexual advances. There is nothing in it about "public embarrassment", and a crucial point is that the defendant acted in a state of temporary insanity (which has not been claimed, and in my opinion, is not the case). So it's not as related as you make it out to be, and in fact I would say it's not related at all because it's too specific, in the sense that Applesauce is too specific for Fruit's See also section. We could just as easily theorize the incident is related to Mercy-killing or Lynching, but neither has been claimed by reliable sources or seems common sense to me, and so with Gay panic defense. -kotra (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Both links for Gay panic defense and Gay bashing are POV and misleading for the readers. These links do not belong on the main article since neither has been proven nor used in this case. I think some editors (Benji and EB) are confusing the see also sections with this case due to their own political beliefs. Regardless, it doesn't belong here. Caden S (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think political beliefs are being put ahead of Wikipedia policy here, but I agree that "Gay panic defense" does not belong. I'm undecided about "Gay bashing", because King was in fact teased and harassed about his sexual orientation, but I'm not sure if that was harsh enough to be considered "gay bashing", and I'm not sure how relevant it was to the actual shooting (which is what this article is about). -kotra (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Gay panic defense does not belong here. As Kotra explained, its invoked to explain a murder or assault in a state of temporary insanity, which doesn't explain this case at all. King was a victim of premeditated murder - McInerney had ample time to acquire a firearm, bring it to school, kill King, and leave the campus (in what we could assume to be a sane state of mind). A better example of "gay panic" would be if he were hit on by a complete stranger who is gay and happened to have a gun or knife, or using his bare hands to kill them. Gay bashing would probably be ok for this article. Even though it does not relate directly to the murder, it is an aspect of King's history which led/contributed to the event. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. We have no idea what actually was in the murderers mind, premeditated or not, and we have no idea what defense(s) will be used and cited. Gay panic defense is a term used to describe a rare but high-profile legal defense against charges of assault or murder. seems clear enough to me that this is related. A "See also" section need not write the content or provide references to simply exist. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay panic defense is a term used to describe a rare but high-profile legal defense against charges of assault or murder. seems clear enough to me that this is related."

By that logic, wouldn't any "rare but high-profile legal defense against charges of assault or murder" be related? The Matrix defense, for example? Since you haven't given any undisputed reasons for including the link, though, I have removed it. If it can be shown to be related (instead of simply asserting it is, against the stated opinions of other editors), feel free to re-add it. Citations placed beside See also links may not be necessary, but something resembling consensus is. -kotra (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Cleanup tags returned

Mrmcuker‎ (talk · contribs) has replaced both tags without explanation. I have invited him to justify his reasoning on the talk page. If none is provided within 24 hours, I will remove the tags. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree — Becksguy (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Realist removed the tags and obviously I endorse. There was consensus above that these tags should be removed as not needed. No content was changed enough nor enough time passed to make going through this process again worth while. — Becksguy (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

The paragraph that begins "However, by the time he met McInerney," is currently uncited and is very poorly written. I've removed it asking for justification or citation, but I have just been reverted. I really feel this should be rewritten with sourcing or entirely removed as it is inappropriate. I now note that this paragraph has been reverted back into the text 4 times today already. Verbal chat 15:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That needs to go if it's without citations. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph under discussion (in the Background section), was added on October 1, 2008 by Mrmcuker:

However, by the time he met McInerney, King had started to use "his sexuality as a weapon" and was known to watch other boys as they were forced to undress for P.E. and tell them how attractive they looked.[citation needed] It was this sort of thing that motivated King to give McInerney a valentine.[citation needed]

was first removed by Bookkeeper with the following edit summary: "removing questionable statements altogether. its also written in a very POV way, ex: "forced to undress"."

I endorse the removal of this POV and unsourced content by several editors now. Just because something may be reported somewhere does not make it NPOV. Sorry, but reverting based on "It's been reported so it's not POV" does not cut the mustard. Note that the {{fact}} tags were added by a different editor. This is speculation as to McInerney's and/or King's motives, using semantically loaded words/phrases (e.g.- "sexuality as a weapon", "forced to undress", "known to watch"). Also, passive voice is inappropriate as it dilutes accountability. Who said King was "Known to watch other boys..." Someone reliable? I don't think so. Who "forced [the other male students] to undress", as if that was done on purpose to provide a venue for King to look and/or make comments, if he actually did. Also, phrases such as "sexuality as a weapon" are inherently POV as they frame the issues. And King's motive for asking McInerney to be his valentine, if he did, may have been a game being played with the girls as reported. Or, maybe because it was just before Valentine's Day, and that's what kids do, ask someone to be their valentine. Again, speculation, as we don't really know. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, per various policies, including WP:BLP and WP:RS. Sorry, this paragraph does not belong in the article because it's POV, even if it becomes sourced, and in any case, unsourced content is grounds for removal per WP:V policy. — Becksguy (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the editor who keeps reintroducing the material of the 3RR, as they have done 4 reverts of this material today. It is, in its current form, totally inappropriate. Verbal chat 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has become absolutely ludicrous. It was only the other day that CadenS was at ANI. Nothing happened, he's still behaving in a disruptive manner. He effectively rolled back my edit when I was acting in the correct manner. Unsourced info like that should be actively burnt off the face of wikipedia with boiling hot water. This is utterly unacceptable behavior and frankly I have seen people blocked for a lot less that what Caden does. — Realist² 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Brandon McInerney Defense Fund

To view both sides of any issue. Please consider this external link.

Brandon McInerney Defense Fund Information http://brandonmcinerney.com/

Thank you for a fair review, Sdjoslin (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure how it can be used in this article, though. That website doesn't actually present much information, aside from the fact that the defense is seeking to raise funds. -kotra (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That link itself isn't helpful but there are other links on that page that are. Banjeboi 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

Is that the most up-to-date picture we can find? Does anyone have a more recent image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.10.153 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Burn book

“ "I said, 'Larry, are you gay?' He said, 'Yeah, why?' " He was 10. Averi remembers telling Larry she didn't care either way, but Larry started telling other students, and they did. They called him slurs and avoided him at recess. One Halloween, someone threw a smoke bomb into his house, almost killing the family's Jack Russell terrier. In the sixth grade, a girl started a "Burn Book"—an allusion to a book in the movie "Mean Girls," where bullies scribble nasty rumors about the people they hate—about Larry. The Larry book talked about how he was gay and falsely asserted that he dressed in Goth and drag. And it ended with a threat: "I hate Larry King. I wish he was dead," according to one parent's memory of the book. "The principal called my wife on the phone and she was crying," Greg says. "She found the book, and said we needed to do something to help protect Larry." His parents transferred him to another elementary school, hoping he could get a fresh start before he started junior high. ”

This can wait until NPOV issues have been addressed. However the above text, from the Newsweek article, that King had other prior strong reactions, at 10 no less, and was the subject of a "burn book" would be, IMHO, good additions. Banjeboi 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there still NPOV issues even after the major overhaul? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue but the tag is still there. Frankly I'd like to close and archive the entire discussion and start a new one with any actionable items. Banjeboi 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support that, especially since whoever put it there hasn't ever discussed his or her reasoning here on the talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs expanding

I've been thinking this for a while now, the lead really doesn't sum up the content of the article very well. Is the plan to wait until the event unfolds in it's entirety? — Realist² 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Up to now, I don't think there has been any plan. Only damage control. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much, it might only cause further flame wars. There is plenty of time after all. — Realist² 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is not the best, but it was the result of some give and take, and I think we should leave it alone until the trial starts, or something major happens that requires other changes to the article. The preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for October 14, 2008. There will be enough drama at some point, and we may still have the issue of the "sexuality as weapon" content to deal with. Or not. Moni is right (as usual). — Becksguy (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi/white supremacists materials found in McInerney's bedroom

Resolved

 – Clear consensus is to not include at this time.— Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Investigators seized white supremacist materials, including doodlings of Nazi swastikas, from the bedroom of Brandon McInerney...

Before getting into a brouhaha on the article page, lets first discuss here if/how to include this information. Also see the additional sources I added above to Benji's list. There are several sources for this particular new information, I just included the two listed, as Associated Press and LA Times are sufficiently reliable. — Becksguy (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the articles yes, but think it should be mentioned if the articles have bearing on how McInerney was being raised. Did his parents know about this? Did they condone it? Was this something he was doing completely on his own, or was systematic racism the way he was being raised? I don't think 12-year-old racists decide they want to draw swastikas just because. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It has almost no context, Moni. See my comment below. — Becksguy (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not blow this out of proportion Becksguy. Both of the sources you have provided mention that the items found in Brandon McInerney's bedroom were items that Brandon was using to write a school paper on Adolf Hitler. Both sources further say that Brandon had best friends in school who were black and Hispanic. Let's not twist the story here and mislead the readers. The last thing we need is for the main article to become the horrible POV mess it was in before I managed to save it and help get it to be NPOV. Furthermore, you must remember the BLP policy in this case. These allegations that the prosecution are making are damaging to McInerney and his family and these same allegations have not been proven as fact in a court of law. Wikipedia has no business using allegations as a proven fact. Caden S (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking for opinions on how and if to include new information is not blowing anything out of proportion - being labeled/associated with white supremacy is a very serious allegation. However, I agree its far too early to add this info to the article. I'd rather wait until its actually introduced in court as evidence. Also, Wikipedia is not concerned with discovering truth; it is a medium to report verifiable evidence: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. And to be clear, that doesn't mean that we add information from every source on earth just because its available we have WP:WEIGHT, WP:VS and WP:BLP to consider as well. If the neo-Nazi Paraphernalia is used as evidence in court to establish a motive, at that point it should be added to article to reflect that, just as any evidence that is introduced against King by the defense should eventually be added as the trial progresses. In both cases, if any evidence is deemed inappropriate/dismissed, that would also be reflected in the article via a reliable source as well. My basic opinion: lets not add anything until the trial starts and we have concrete information. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to fall under the umbrella of WP:BLP. I'm inclined to not include this unless it can be shown to be relevant in his prosecution. I would like to note that the prosecution hasn't actually alleged that McInerney was a white supremacist, just that they found the materials in his room. This information was actually released due to a request by the defendant's attorney, not as an attempt to smear him and his family. Still, this information can wait until or if it comes up in his trial. AniMate 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I brought this topic up for discussion, I also feel that it's too far soon to add this new information to the article. At this point, this is not much more than the reported fact of discovery and a few statements by both sides with very little context that would add to a readers understanding of the subject. There is also the issue of WP:BLP in this case since it's a serious allegation. McInerney's former lawyer (William Quest) claimed without collaboration that the material was being used for a school paper on Adolf Hitler and said that it's disclosure by the prosecutor is a "stunt" to hurt his client. The prosecutor said it was a primary consideration in the hate crime charge. We all need to remember that everything people are saying, even if reliably sourced, about McInerney's possible motives are speculation at this point. And that includes the theory about King asking McInerney to be his valentine, or any other theory. So no to inclusion. — Becksguy (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread has been up for five days now, and we have a surprising amount of agreement among the contributing editors that the content should not be added now. Therefore, I'm marking this thread as {{resolved}} with clear consensus to not include this information. If the situation changes sufficiently, for example during the trial, then we can obviously reconsider. — Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

McInerney to undergo psychiatric tests

Resolved

 – Clear consensus to not include now. Revisit if used at trial. — Becksguy (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to add this new information to the article as it has no context at this point, and is just part of the preliminary legal proceedings. Also in light of the agreement to not include the information on the Supremest/Nazi findings. This is essentially just for completeness now, and as a possible source for later, should it be appropriate. If, for example, he is found to be incompetent to stand trial.

A judge appointed a psychiatrist and a psychologist Tuesday to evaluate 14-year-old murder suspect Brandon McInerney of Oxnard after his defense attorneys asked the court to take the action.

McInerney's lawyers, Scott Wippert of United Defense Group of Studio City and Robyn Bramson of North Hollywood, filed the motion requesting that the court appoint a psychiatrist to determine whether the teen is competent to stand trial.

Ventura County Superior Court Judge Kevin McGee appointed psychiatrist Ronald Thurston and psychologist Marlene Valter to examine McInerney and determine whether he has the ability to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings and assist his lawyers in his defense.

Hernandez, Raul (2008). "McInerney to undergo psychiatric tests". Ventura County Star. Retrieved 2008-11-03. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 22, 2008

If anyone disagrees, please lets discuss. Otherwise done for now. — Becksguy (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a lot of info is wait and see until some conclusions have been made by McInerney's trial. If anything is to be added by this, it's a sentence fragment mentioning it in passing. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Moni. Obviously I agree about waiting. BTW, I know I could have just deleted the FORUM post earlier, but I found that nifty {{Deletethread}} tag while rummaging around and just had to try it out. Did it result in being included in a "Special page" somewhere, or did you see the talk page pop up on your watchlist? Just curious. Regards — Becksguy (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page watchlist. --Moni3 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to add such information. I think we should wait until more on this matter is reported on. On a side-note it's disturbing to see that Moni has become the PC police. Caden S (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens, I suppose, when I miss the watchlist. I end up missing a juicy comment such as this. Juicy, but confusing. Is this PC such as politically correct? Personal computer? Primary caregiver? Plow control? Plutonium carrier? Peruvian cheese? I think a bit of all of these. I like to think I'm all-inclusive in my....policing, apparently. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LETS nto get into this., there is no need to drag poitics into this article; its a story about an aleged murder and it should remian that way. dont try to stifle other peoples opinions or "polic"Ethis sarticele. Smith Jones (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a point: politics entered the article when McInerney's bullet left the gun. Smith Jones, if by you're referring to my removing the article on the talk page when you said stifle other peoples opinions, per WP:Forum, I disagree. The addition in question was a letter to the editor to The New York Times. A search of The New York Times showed no such letter. I did find the writer, Dr. J. Boost, who wrote a few letters to the South China Morning Post, but nothing about this topic. So it wasn't even the anonymous IP's views about the article that were removed; it was a letter someone wrote that didn't match up to the source that was tangentially related to the topic. As per WP:RS, there was no way it could have been used in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt evne talking to you okay i was talking to the poeple who were trying to acuse people of being politicaly corect or whatever htat is all really uncessary at this point and something that oulshod be avoided in order to mkae this talk page discussion more informative and recuprative rather than venomous and toxic. regardles of your view on tohe motives of other editors that is all beside the point; the point is fact-based, verifiable, and policycomplaint additions to the article. speculating that another editor might be the "politcaly corect police" is pointless adn more inflammatory than shooting people with regards to the internet. does that clear it up??? or do we need to break out the handpopetrs? Smith Jones (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok. Let's see the (what I assume you meant as) handpuppets to illustrate your point. I didn't get it from your words. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

your kidding me wright??? my ONLY purpose was to ask that the people acusing you of being a "political corect" police or whatever to just stop rrying to derail the discusinon with unnecesary political stuff. and your suggestion that is resort to the abusive use of WP:puppets is not caled for. there are several legitimate uses for altenraitve accounts but using it as a puppet to win a debate is definitively unallowed. Smith Jones (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets calm down, this is a reasonable discussion about content that everyone so far agrees should not be in the article. Lets not get off on a tangent and lets assume the best intentions here, because that's what I see. Peace. — Becksguy (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones what's your frigging problem dude? If you have an issue with me being honest, well that's your problem. Quit accusing me of such bogus accusations. Caden S (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Caden and Becksguy. We are woring very hard to remain reasonable and it would be ahsame if certain aforemtnieoned parties were to derail the debrate. Moving on topic, i see no reason to hurry re: the psychiatirc defense issue. IF McIntirney's lawyers take more steps towards wmploying this defense that cn be adequately codumcented, we can incporate it then forthwith. Right now, i t is not necessaire a drop the gun on this so quickly. Smith Jones (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been up for 11 days and no one thinks it should be included, so I'm marking this thread as {{resolved}} — Becksguy (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

excelent work Becksgfuy. this discusion and your part in it ian particular has been an exemplary method of illustraiton of how Wikipedia diascusions should progress. I hope that we can also continue to work wothegtheer are effectively as we have previously before., Smith Jones (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it's appreciated. I try. And I wish all discussions would work out as well. — Becksguy (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality as a weapon paragraph

The paragraph that was previously removed on October 4th, as un-cited and POV, has been just reintroduced. Here it is again:

However, by the time he met McInerney, King had started to use "his sexuality as a weapon" and was known to watch other boys as they were forced to undress for P.E. and tell them how attractive they looked.[5] It was this sort of thing that motivated King to give McInerney a valentine.[6]

As I wrote back then, this paragraph is POV. This is speculation and synthesis as to McInerney's and/or King's motives, using semantically loaded words/phrases (e.g.- "sexuality as a weapon", "forced to undress", "known to watch"). There is nothing in the Newsweek article suggesting that Larry King was "known to watch other boys..." Nothing in the Newsweek article suggests that someone "forced [the other male students] to undress", as if that was done on purpose to provide a venue for King to look and/or make comments, if he actually did. Also, phrases such as "sexuality as a weapon" are inherently POV as they frame the issues. And King's asking McInerney to be his valentine was reported to be part of a game being played with girls, not by the motivation implied by the content above. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, per various policies, including WP:BLP and WP:RS, and since the provided references don't sufficiently support the content, the paragraph doesn't belong in the article as it is. This paragraph needs to be overhauled and consensus gained here on the talk page before being adding to the article again. Paragraph removed per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH. Again. - Becksguy (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's one thing User:Mrmcuker likes to do, it's getting this talk page all up in arms by inserting the information you removed, and adding that beloved POV tag at the top of the page. He removed the hidden edit tags I put there while editors were discussing it. He also likes to remove the image of King as the page is "not a memorial". I've addressed his talk page about that before. I agree with the removal of the blockquote above. It is quite POV and does not adhere to the source. Poorly written as well. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

he is right in that the aritlce is not a memorial and thus the picture is nunnecsarry and neadlylessly infalmmatory emotionally. its the same reason why we dont have an image of Matthew Shepard on the Matthew Shepard killing article. why drag the persons face all over the Internert and ruin his life by putting up his picture on the Intenret for people to gawk at??? Smith Jones (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Matthew Shepard's article does have a photograph. In both cases the subject is no longer living. I understand the concern about gawking at photographs, but I think these photos are tasteful head shots and do not sensationalize the person or the death, otherwise I would agree with Smith Jones to remove them. People seem to need photographs in news articles and biographies, here and everywhere else. But that is not really the topic of this thread. — Becksguy (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The basis for Mrmcuker's removal of the image is that the article is not a memorial, which I assume he means that the image makes the article a memorial to King. It is clearly not a memorial. Mrmcuker's M.O. is that he comes by once every other month to put up a POV tag, remove the image or insert POV info and not appear again for another month or so to do the same thing. Since WP:Memorial does not apply, the only reason to remove the image is its relevance or its justification or licensing. Whose life is being ruined by King's image in the article? How is his face being dragged anywhere? --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the person and the family whose person got kiled would not want to se their image being used as part of some sor tof game or entairtainment for other people. Lary King does not deserve to have his life and his privacy showed all over the Internet for unecssary stuff. Smith Jones (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what game or entertainment you're referring to, and I really have no idea how it would be possible to "ruin [the] life" of a dead man. At any rate, it's not up to us to speculate what murdered people or their families would want to see. The photo is relevant and, assuming there are no copyright issues, it apparently runs afoul of no WP policies or guidelines. In the absence of any new and compelling rationale to remove it, can we consider this resolved now? Incidentally, a little spel chek goze a long whay. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't understand how using an inoffensive, accurate photo in a serious encyclopedia article about him is in any way disrespectful. I can't see how this is an issue. I would consider this resolved unless a better rationale is given. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. If this is such an issue, shouldn't the people arguing that his photograph makes this article a memorial be clamoring for the removal of all photographs of dead people? AniMate 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SORRY i dont think it was clear at all what i mean't oaky. What I meant, was htat the user: who objected might have a point. personaly, i dont have an issue with this article the way it is because it hinkt hat everyone who had contributed so far as worked extmrely hard to make this article very, very good to make this a better article. Smith Jones (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)