Talk:Murder of Larry King/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Murder of Larry King. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested photo

Just to clarify, would the requested photo be a free photo of King, a photo of McInerney, or someone/something else? The school, perhaps? Please clarify. -kotra (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The perfect choice would be a high-quality freely licensed photo of the E.O. Green School shooting. --Damiens.rf 17:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The actual shooting? I'm certain there isn't a high-quality freely licensed photo of that. Or any photo, for that matter. It took place in a computer lab full of kids; I highly doubt anyone present would have had the presence of mind or a camera handy to snap a photo at that instant. -kotra (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What about a photo of the aftermath? I'm not talking about dead bodies, but about pictures of the school yard full of policemen, the press, people crying... but this is just a suggestion. There are so many better and informative ways to illustrate an article about the E.O. Green School shooting other than that with a headshot of King in the Smithsonian Museum... --Damiens.rf 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How about the school? I've looked for the school building as a free image, but no luck so far. Note that Allstar has emailed the family for permission to use a photo of Larry King Talk:Violence against LGBT people#image gone. — Becksguy (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't use by-permission images (they are not free). --Damiens.rf 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can upload any copyright image if the copyright holder gives wikipedia license to do so. Alternatively, the family has the option to upload the image themselves using free license tags. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission: To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licensed for that purpose, whoever provided it. To do this, we must often email or contact the copyright holders and ask them to allow us to use it under the GFDL or a GFDL-compatible license, which would be compatible with how we want to use it. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more. If the family agrees to allow us to use one of their images with a compatible license, there is no violation of policy. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You understand this quote says exactly the opposite of what defended before, right? --Damiens.rf 00:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rational has its own policy for use regarding images for which we do not have permission- specifically for situations where non-free images simply are not available-that is what defends the image being used via FUR. The text I quoted illustrates that with permission, we can easily use a copyright image with a proper license. My point is that with specific licensing, the issue of copyright becomes irrelevant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion on the violence article talk page was to ask the family to release it using CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, both of which are completely acceptable under any usage policy here. — Becksguy (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Minority viewpoints from Newsweek

RfC opened to address these issues. -- Banjeboi 12:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just reverted these additions by User:Hyperliner, all minority viewpoints from one piece in Newsweek. This article has been stable for about six months or so, and the consensus version was the result of some extensively debated discussions, resulting in edit wars and page protection(s). This is a controversial subject and any major changes need to be discussed here first, especially those from a single article that does not appear to reflect the reliably sourced majority viewpoints, and especially major changes to the lede. Lets keep the debate on the talk page rather than from impacting the article. — Becksguy (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it that Newsweek's point that this was "the most prominent gay-bias" case is an important quote to mention in this article, yet the next issue that Newsweek brought up, namely the fact that King "was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon" is not? I think that most people across the world will find questionable that this is "the most prominent gay-bias" case, and as such, that point is a minority point, so I am deleting it in the mean time until we discuss this. I will not revert my previous edits to give people a chance to discuss, but I would like this article to discuss also the notion that King was bullying McInerney. Otherwise, the article is a one-sided article by a group of people who are using this tragedy for political purposes. (Hyperliner (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Damiens.rf removed the blockquote, which I questioned him about below. He has yet to respond. Personally, I'm fine with the quote in the article. It has been countered by the prosecutor, which is also in the article. Damiens.rf removed the quote for NFCC violation, which boggles the mind. --Moni3 (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Banjiboi is already taking out edits without discussion. What gives? Are we discussing or are we editing? People below wanted me to discuss before editing, so I am trying to do that but it seems others like Benjiboi are not (Hyperliner (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

You're presenting somewhat of a half-truth: Newsweek did not say "the most prominent gay-bias" but "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard 10 years ago." And that much I agree with. No individual sexual orientation-related violence case has gained as much media coverage as the Matthew Shepard case. Secondly Newsweek states "How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior? Larry King was, admittedly, a problematical test case: he was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon—it was often his first line of defense." In effect, Newsweek is not conveying the idea "gay kids can't hit on straight kids" but that everyone regardless of sexual orientation, should have boundaries. There is no telling how King would have behaved had he not had an extensive history of being bullied for his orientation/gender expression in the first place. Lastly, in the interest of WP:UNDUE, king in this case is ultimately a victim of premeditated murder, and overstating altercations between the victim and killer in effect attempts to justify the killing. I'm not against including any documented evidence of harassment by King, but it should not be the primary focus of the entire article. Frankly I'm comfortable with the current text which reads: King also taunted boys in the halls, saying "I know you want me." However, prosecuting attorneys filed court documents that stated King was not sexually harassing other students in the weeks before the shooting. McInerney and King had been in several verbal altercations described as "acrimonous" by the prosecutor. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a prominent case. My point is that, in addition to being gay, King was killed because he was harrassing McInernay to the point that drove him to that. That is the alternative view that the Newsweek article discusses. and I don't think it is a minority view. Clearly, the "inappropriate, sometimes harmful" behavior refers to King's. While I agree with you that there is no telling how King would have behaved had he not been bullied, there is also no telling how McInerney would have behaved had he not been harrassed and bullied by King with unwelcomed advances. I am not trying to justify a killing, what I am trying to do is to point out that there are two sides to this coin. There are other gay students/people in the school, yet only one was killed, the one who, as the article stated "flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon" against McInernay. As a result, this is also a significant element to this article. However, it seems that there is a group of editors who would rather make that element of the story go away as they pursue their one-sided view. (Hyperliner (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Hyperliner. It's well known that Larry King sexually harassed Brandon McInerney. King's own father has said he believes his son sexually harassed Brandon McInerney. Students have also pretty much said the same thing. We will never know how McInerney would have behaved had he not been sexually harassed with unwelcome sexual advances by a an aggressive King. One can only imagine exactly how far King pushed McInerney. Like Hyperliner said, there are two sides to this story and it's important that both sides be given to the readers. Again, I agree with Hyperliner that there is a large group of editors who want this part of the story censored from the article in order to ensure their one sided POV. Wikipedia is not about censorship as so many have claimed to me. Wikipedia is also not about making King look like a martyr (which he was not) nor is it about making McInerney look evil (he was not).

It's about well balanced, biased free NPOV articles. Ned ^ac 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And that alleged harassment justifies murder? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't you ever put words into my mouth again, understood? I said no such thing! Ned ^ac 12:49 pm, Today (UTC−5)

You implied it, as noted below. You appear to be subtly pushing the "look what he made me do" argument. This appears to be a very hot-button, personal issue with you. Don't let that cloud your judgment. Murder is unjustified, no matter what the victim may or may not have said previously to his killer. However, prior harassment could be important in explaining the crime, in determining the motive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's well known that Larry King sexually harassed Brandon McInerney. What is WP:WELLKNOWN is that McInerey killed King. The circumstances of the killing are not well known by the general public. One can only imagine exactly how far King pushed McInerney. We aren't here to imagine. Like Hyperliner said, there are two sides to this story and it's important that both sides be given to the readers. That is problematic due to the circumstances which developed over time. King and McInerey, according to Newsweek harrassed each other for an extensive period of time before the killing took place and any evidence of that should be discussed in the body of the article, not thrust into the LEAD, which currently does not discuss the backgrounds of either student. The LEAD currently only discusses the shooting itself. Wikipedia is also not about making King look like a martyr (which he was not) nor is it about making McInerney look evil (he was not). Martyrs and evil are in the eye of the beholder. I consider any act of premeditated murder to be quite evil, but the article itself doesn't present either bias. The facts speak for themselves. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Many editors here are using Newsweek's line about "most prominent gay-biased crime since..." and including it in the LEAD. In my mind, the LEAD is obvious since a GAY person was killed by a NON-GAY person, therefore making this potentially a hate-crime. I am not talking about martyrs nor evils, or about "hot buttons," nor about "look what he made me do" arguments or any other personal opinion of which there seem to be many around here simply to justify a hidden agenda, either the "pro gay" or "anti gay" agendas. I am staying away from those two groups of folks here. I am simply highlighting that only ONE out of TWO of the major issues of the Newsweek article are promoted to LEAD, when in my mind, the two major issues of the article (and presumably the two major issues of this case) are the issue of 1) potentially a gay hate crime and 2) potentially sexual harrassment by a gay individual to a non-gay individual. Again, I accuse a group of editors here of being biased and trying to silence the second major issue of this case, mainly issue (2). User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult says that he "considers any act of premeditaded murder to be quite evil," but somehow he does not consider sexual harrassment to be quite evil. The LEAD currently says the article "brought up the issues of gay biased and gun control." I am proposing to add the obvious second point of the article, which is that it also "brought up the issues of sexual harrassment and bullying." (Hyperliner (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I've removed Caden's latest addition (something about "gay people harassing straight people") and also removed the subheading titled Harassment and stalking by King as unduly non-neutral: all the information in that subheading was attributed to "one source" in the Newsweek article. I've left the information in, but incorporated it into the Background section. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the version that had stayed stable for months. These are major changes, but there's no evidence that consensus has changed. That some parents thought a (named) teacher had a political agenda is hardly worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article and raises BLP questions. Just because the generally reliable Newsweek article contains a rumor or an allegation doesn't mean it's appropriate to reprint it here. In any case, a lot of painstaking work, back-and-forth, and compromise went into achieving the stable version, which is quite neutral and based on verified facts, not innuendo. No way should such major changes occur here without clear consensus, unless new events, such as in the criminal justice system, warrant it. Rivertorch (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An edit war is pending. Discuss it here before stuff has to happen to prevent it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do take steps to prevent it. It's clear that Caden is still unable to participate in editing this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's still very clear that you are interested in not only silencing me but all other editors who disagree with your political beliefs. Regardless, that's not the point here. The point is keeping the article NPOV. For the record I was not the one who added the NPOV edits, it was Hyperliner. I just re-added them once I saw that they had been removed by the same civil POV pushers for no good reason. I understand you're friendly with Moni. Feel free to use whatever influence you have in order to achieve what you're truly after but rember this..she's a very involved editor. Furthermore, please remember to remain civil and practice AGF. Ned ^ac 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion needs to focus on the content, not the actions or motivations of any editors. As such, everyone involved in restoring or removing content needs to discuss what goes in the article instead of simply reverting. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Comment refactored. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the Newsweek article is inaccurate? I have to ask, are there sources that refute the comments from Newsweek? I'm not sure the tone is correct, but the article does support the edits. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, as shown below. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't see support for the 'sexual harassment' portion of the edit. I'll remove it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What brand-new editor Hyperliner and Caden seem to be suggesting is a form of the gay panic defense, ie: McInerney killed King because King made sexual advances to him. There is no evidence to back up this theory, and isn't this exactly the type of POV pushing that got Caden topicbanned in the first place? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet more discussion

I'm not quite able to believe that we must go through this again, but here goes.

Problem section 1:

Newsweek also brought attention to the issue of sexual harrassment by gay individuals against others, stating that "Larry King was, admittedly, a problematical test case: he was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon—it was often his first line of defense."

This sentence is quoted out of context. The entire paragraph in the original reads:

What you might call "the shrinking closet" [this refers, according to the preceding paragraph, to the increasing social acceptance of homosexuality in the US] is arguably a major factor in Larry's death. Even as homosexuality has become more accepted, the prospect of being openly gay in middle school raises a troubling set of issues. Kids may want to express who they are, but they are playing grown-up without fully knowing what that means. At the same time, teachers and parents are often uncomfortable dealing with sexual issues in children so young. Schools are caught in between. How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior? Larry King was, admittedly, a problematical test case: he was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon—it was often his first line of defense. But his story sheds light on the difficulty of defining the limits of tolerance. As E. O. Green found, finding that balance presents an enormous challenge.

The way the excerpt from this paragraph is presented accomplishes only one thing: to cast King in a negative light. Newsweek says nothing about "sexual harrassment by gay individuals against others." That choice of words is non-neutral, a clear attempt to push POV, and original research to name but a few of the problems. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your first sentence, I'm not persuaded that we do need to go through it again. The editor who made the changes early today has not entered the discussion, and the other editor who restored those changes hasn't brought any new information or fresh, substantive arguments to the table. In the absence of new information or fresh, substantive arguments, I suggest that consensus remains to keep the article as it was. Since going over old ground is tedious and unnecessary, I propose that the longstanding version be restored (and, if necessary, protected). Rivertorch (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Once more there is a NPOV tag on the article. If it is not outlined explicitly by Caden what his issues are with the neutrality, I'll remove it in 24 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read it you would see where the issues are. I've explained it. Furthermore, I expected better behavior from you. Ned ^ac 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. Without any discussion of the issues, tagging here is no more than vandalism. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

Why is this at "E.O. Green School shooting"? I'm plenty familiar with this case, but when I saw a link to this title, I no idea what it actually referred to. Rebecca (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time, this was the most common title associated with the crime used by major news sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing this borne out in searches now; if it was at the time, perhaps it's changed. I think the title of the article should at least mention Lawrence King's name. Rebecca (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Lawrence King and Larry King (disambiguation) link here.—C45207 | Talk 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it's still a totally non-self-evident title. Rebecca (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's not self-evident, but as long as the dab page points people in the right direction, I'd suggest we leave the title alone for now. There's plenty drama here already, and I predict more if we go down this road (Lawrence vs. Larry, "murder of" vs. the name alone, notability of murder victims in article titles, etc). Rivertorch (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's easy to get to the article, as it seems to be now, there's no practical reason for changing its title. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not self evident, but please no more drama. And it was the most common title used by the press. And this title is the most neutral one I can think of right now. The trial hasn't even started yet. — Becksguy (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the title should be moved to some about the murder of Larry King but it also may make sense to wait until the current RfC runs its course. If the actual murder trial were sure to end within a few months then we could wait further but it seems liek it may drag on and depending on the outcome be contested as well. -- Banjeboi 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the article in violation of any wikipedia core policies? namely WP:NPOV

Generally, disputes have arisen regarding the neutrality of the last paragraph of the introduction, the use of Newsweek as a primary source for the article, and WP:UNDUE weight concerns regarding subject matter. Users are encouraged to respond after reading all information currently in the article to see if it is in fact violating any of the wikipedia policies mentioned. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Newsweek is an obviously reliable source, and the particular Newsweek article concerned seems to be both particularly comprehensive and representative of much of the media coverage. The undue weight concerns are plain silly; the hate crime angle has been by far the most-discussed aspect of the case, and there's about a million sources for that. Rebecca (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a Reliable source means you can trust the source for reporting facts. It has nothing to do with parroting it's opinions. The article needs to be stripped of all Newsweek's opinions (or those from any other source). --Damiens.rf 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sources policy. The distinction you're making does not exist. Newsweek is an indisputably reliable source, and we can thus quote statements made in that source in the article. You can't take out sourced material just becase you personally disagree with it; this is all the more strange considering that the quote being disputed is, well, pretty bloody obvious. It's hard to find a source that doesn't mention the hate crime angle. Rebecca (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the source cannot be faulted on reliability as to the type, notability of the case, suitability for the article, etc. However "The Larry King shooting became the most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard 10 years ago. But despite all the attention and outrage, the reason Larry died isn't as clear-cut as many people think." The thrust of the second sentence does not, however, challenge that this is gay-bias crime (all I have seen acknowledges that it was), but that what is not clear-cut is that other factors were at play, such as the increasing tolerance of diverse sexuality and gender behaviours and presentations in schools. The paragraph does touch on this, but perhaps not as fully as it could - especially as this features in the argument of the defense. Namely, whether the responsibility lay fully with the alleged killer, or also with the school for placing Larry in a position where he was at risk of being the victim of a gay-bias crime (and the killer at risk of killing him). The inclusion and quote is valid where it is, but ought to be unpacked a bit to highlight the context of the quote more fully. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Rebecca's comments, I agree that the article doesn't violate NPOV. Rivertorch (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Newsweek article should be used as applicable. If they promote the idea that King was flaunting his sexuality, fine. The prosecuting attorney denies these claims, which is also in the article. The article should not make up readers' minds for themselves. This is a complex case with two troubled kids. I have not read any information on the bulk of what McInerney's defense is. If it comes out to be gay panic, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up specifically. I am copying my comments from above in reply to your comment also above, but I think this is a better place to discuss it, so copy-paste: I believe the article is currently biased and lacks neutrality. Many editors here are using Newsweek's line about "most prominent gay-biased crime since..." and including it in the LEAD. In my mind, the LEAD is obvious since a GAY person was killed by a NON-GAY person, therefore making this potentially a hate-crime. I am not talking about martyrs nor evils, or about "hot buttons," nor about "look what he made me do" arguments or any other personal opinion of which there seem to be many around here simply to justify a hidden agenda, either the "pro gay" or "anti gay" agendas. I am staying away from those two groups of folks here. I am simply highlighting that only ONE out of TWO of the major issues of the Newsweek article are promoted to LEAD, when in my mind, the two major issues of the article (and presumably the two major issues of this case) are the issue of 1) potentially a gay hate crime and 2) potentially sexual harrassment by a gay individual to a non-gay individual. Again, I accuse a group of editors here of being biased and trying to silence the second major issue of this case, mainly issue (2). User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult says that he "considers any act of premeditaded murder to be quite evil," but somehow he does not consider sexual harrassment to be quite evil. The LEAD currently says the article "brought up the issues of gay biased and gun control." I am proposing to add the obvious second point of the article, which is that it also "brought up the issues of sexual harrassment and bullying." (Hyperliner (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Bookkeeperoftheoccult says that he "considers any act of premeditaded murder to be quite evil," but somehow he does not consider sexual harrassment to be quite evil. You're right, I don't. Inappropriate? Yes. Rude? Yes. Offensive? Yes. Evil? hardly, particularly in comparison to murder. There is a vast and frankly obvious difference in offending someone and ending someone's life. Had King been accused of raping or battering McInerney, I would have an entirely different point of view. That being said, I believe "brought up the issues of sexual harrassment and bullying." is the most non-biased way of presenting that facet of information in the lead, and I see no problem adding that phrasing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do: undue weight. If I understand Hyperliner correctly, what Hyperliner is calling the second "major issue" seems to have little or nothing to do with the notability of the subject. The subject is notable because there was a homicide alleged to be a hate crime at a school. Not surprisingly, such an incident received much attention around the world and has a Wikipedia article devoted to it; it was an unusual and noteworthy incident. Sexual harassment, while always objectionable, is neither unusual nor noteworthy; it occurs every day in society at large and in schools, in every combination of genders and sexual orientations. So, the presence of alleged sexual harassment preceding the incident does not contribute to the notability of the subject and is of subsidiary relevance to this article, at best. Like many magazine articles, the Newsweek piece has more than one angle, but its raison d'être is clearly that a young person was violently killed in a notorious incident for which another young person is charged with committing a hate crime. I've read the Newsweek article at least half a dozen times now, and that seems reasonably clear. Might sexual harassment have played a role in pushing a potentially violent person over the edge? Sure. But that's speculation; it cannot be verified at this time, and, true or not, it would be a gross example of undue weight to insert it into the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rivertorch, sexual harassment of a high shool student that results in the death of the subject IS noteworthy. Can you think of another case like this? (Hyperliner (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

But we don't have a reliable source stating that sexual harassment resulted in King's death. And is it likely we would? King's death resulted from a gunshot wound to the head, not from sexual harassment. That other factors may have contributed to the alleged shooter's rage is beside the point as far as the lede is concerned. And no, I can't think of another case exactly like this, although there have been quite a few cases of LGBT people being gunned down in alleged hate crimes. As I noted above, sexual harassment is a daily occurrence. Much of what has been termed sexual harassment in this case seems pretty much par for the course in school settings; that the person on the receiving end allegedly committed murder because he objected to such conduct certainly would be exceptional and noteworthy if we could verify it. Since we cannot, it is speculative and has no place in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, people, reliable sources. I've not seen anything that would suggest the sort of prominence for this Hyperliner would claim; if he wants it in the article, he needs to be able to solidly back it up. Rebecca (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you read the full article, those are the two main themes in it. (Hyperliner (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Just thinking up another way of phrasing it: Newsweek has described the shooting as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard", bringing attention to issues of gun violence as well as the role of public schools in protecting "legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You would then be eliminating two major points: "gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers." I don't think the current paragraph is incorrect. What I think is missing is the other issues brought up by the article: "sexual harassment and bullying" (Hyperliner (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

...er, of who? The article only refers to sexual harassment in about two sentences on the last page, and there's far worse material in there about King being bullied - death threats, attacks on his house, vicious rumors, than of your apparent concern with King's taunting of his harassers. You're going to have to come up with more than this if you expect your claims to go in the lead. Rebecca (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing somewhat with all three of you: Part of the overall coverage (in Newsweek and in other sources) points to the responsibility of the school (Criticism of the school) and their role in all this. Perhaps:

Newsweek has described the shooting as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard", bringing attention to issues of gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers, as well as gun violence and the role of public schools in protecting "legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior" and bullying.

In this context, I believe equal weight is being given to bullying by both parties (and bullying by other students which is also what the article discusses), giving the reader a general introduction without pinpointing either student's exact actions, which are discussed in the body of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is generally okay, but I'm not sure that the last bit of that is particularly representative of the sources if we're using this as summary. The general thrust of the sentence is fine, but I'm uncomfortable with letting it stand alone when "inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behaviour" is undefined. Larry's father's definition of "inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behaviour" here, I suspect, is rather drastically different from most of the LGBT community, and it's unclear just which one it's implying. I'd agree if that sentence was taken out of a direct quote and reworded to something that's both clearer and less disputably neutral. Rebecca (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote is the opinion of Newsweek writer Ramin Setoodeh, not King's father, unless I'm mistaken. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the quote is from the Newsweek journalist. I'm just pointing out that, if we're going to use his quote as a general summary, I have a problem with the wording of that particular phrase. Rebecca (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind I'm not proposing an immediate changes. The LEAD will remain unchanged as long as the RfC is in place and I intend to keep this RfC open the full thirty days to ensure community involvement, specifically point out WP:LGBT cannot be falsely accused of WP:OWNING the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then, following my earlier comment, in order to reflect the source to some extent, we need simply to quote the relevant part of Newsweek about the type of killing, and a comment such as 'which raised other issues about how schools accommodate LGBT teenagers'. That provides a lead into more detailed discussion in the text about what that discussion was - which would include ensuring safety and guidance on appropriate behaviour (i.e., teasing classmates who might feel threatened by overt homosexual advances). If the bracketed comment at the end turns out to feature in the trial, then there could further discussion about whether this needed to be specified in the lead. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. Rebecca (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I continue to believe that a group of people are trying to prevent a major element of this article from being discussed or highlighed in the article. A major point of Newsweek's article is that, just like it brought up the issues of gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers (which are already discussed in the article), it also brought up the issue of King's bullying of McInerney and King's potential personal responsibility for those actions (which are not discussed yet here). The main thing I think the article should convey is that there are three major issues here: the issue of gay-bias and hate-crime as well as the issue of King's potential responsibility as a person who pushed another one so hard that he resorted to killing him, in addition to the issue of the school's inability to do anything about anything (teachers that did not see the warning signs, a potential biased lesbian school administrator "advising" King, other teacher's lack of understanding of the constitutional rights of King's, etc). Again, McInerney did not kill anyone of the other potential gay individuals in the school. If we believe that from 2% to 13% of the population are homosexual (according to Homosexual), then there are from 14 to 91 homosexual students in the school, and I am not even counting the teachers, which at least one (Joy Epsten, who took King under her wings) is openly lesbian. McInerney did not kill ANY OTHER ONE of those individuals. He killed King. And that is the point that Newsweek's article openly struggles with, as evidenced by the following lines, taken directly from the article:

He dressed flamboyantly; he hit on a classmate. His murder made clear that issues of sexuality, at such a young age, can have heartbreaking consequences.

But despite all the attention and outrage, the reason Larry died isn't as clear-cut as many people think.

Kids may want to express who they are, but they are playing grown-up without fully knowing what that means.

How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior?

But his story sheds light on the difficulty of defining the limits of tolerance.

Larry King was, admittedly, a problematical test case: he was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon—it was often his first line of defense.

how to balance his right to self-expression while preventing it from disrupting others

Larry, being Larry, pushed his rights as far as he could.

the school didn't seem to know the extent to which he was clashing with other boys.

teachers were baffled that Larry was allowed to draw so much attention to himself.

"All the teachers were complaining, because it was disruptive,"

Some teachers thought Larry was clearly in violation of the code, which prevents students from wearing articles of clothing considered distracting.

One teacher asked him why he taunted the boys in the halls, and Larry replied, "It's fun to watch them squirm."

One student remembered that Larry would often walk up close to Brandon and stare at him.

Larry had studied Brandon so well, he once knew when he had a scratch on his arm—Larry even claimed that he had given it to Brandon by mistake, when the two were together.

least two teachers tried to formally protest what was going on.

She was approached by several boys in her class who said that Larry had started taunting them in the halls—"I know you want me," he'd say—and their friends were calling them gay.

Larry walked right on to the court in the middle of the game and asked Brandon to be his Valentine. At the end of lunch, Brandon passed by one of Larry's friends in the hall. She says he told her to say goodbye to Larry, because she would never see him again.

There are many rumors of another confrontation between Larry and Brandon, on Feb. 11, the day before the shooting

The obvious question now is whether Larry's death could have been prevented.

For them, the issue isn't whether Larry was gay or straight—his father still isn't convinced his son was gay—but whether he was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger.

They're not blaming Larry for his own death—as if anything could justify his murder—but their attitude toward his assailant is not unsympathetic.

"We failed Brandon," a teacher says. "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."

Greg King doesn't feel sympathy for Brandon, but he does believe his son sexually harassed him.

He's resentful that the gay community has appropriated his son's murder as part of a larger cause.

"I think the gay-rights people want it to be a gay-rights issue, because it makes a poster child out of my son," King says

"Brandon was being terrorized," says Bill, who has set up a public defense fund in his son's name. "He was being stalked almost, to the degree of the school should have never let this happen."

On Valentine's Day, Larry King gave away his heart, but not in the way he thought he would.

So, to finalize, Newsweek's article did not just bring up the issues of gay-bias, gender expression and sexual identify of teenagers (already in the LEAD), but also, it brought up to light the tragic consequences of harrassment and bullying, unwelcome advances, and the limits to tolerance when sexual expression is used as a weapon. Repeating, the issue brings up three themes:

Gay-bias, homophobia, and hate-crime by McInerney against a gay kid

Bullying and harassment by King against a straight kid

School's inability to cope with the challenges of this case

Again, I am not trying to justify the killing, just to state that the article brings up more than the obvious arguments in gay-bias cases, namely that this could also have less clear and more difficult issues than what one would tend to think. And so, I take issue with the fact that only one of the three main points of the article is elevated to LEAD.

I hope people target my argument and not be fallacious (as Exploding_boy is above by calling me the "new author" and grouping me with Caden). Again, I think people are trying to frame this issue as part of their agenda setting effort of this tragedy with the ultimate goal of obscuring or censoring a key element of Newsweek's article. (Hyperliner (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)).

Most of the quotes you just cited don't even support your own contention. There's quite a bit about him being seen as attention-seeking, and of how to manage freedom of expression issues, and a handful that could be argued as him harassing other people. It also, in a rather more prominent section which you don't cite, outlines the far greater harassment dished out to King by fellow students, up to and including physical violence, death threats, attacks on his house, and severe verbal harassment. The first one of your three points is obvious. I think the third should also be in the lead. But the second one is bollocks. Rebecca (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Rebecca is clearly one of the individuals I am referring as biased. She is the person who asked above "...er, of who?" when talking about bullying (as if inclusion of such comment should depend on who is actually doing the bullying). As a member who is obviously vested in the radical side of GLBT talk, she obviously cannot see that I am listing only some of the points to support "all" of the arguments I believe should be included, not just the one she thinks I am "pushing," because I clearly stated all other points are well documented. This is unfortunately having a negative effect on the quality of this article, and brings this article from a neutral basis to the level of political propaganda, which is a shame given all of the work that the rest of the GLBT community has put on this and other efforts. After doing a little research on her talk page, it seems her favorite claim is that an argument is "bollocks," which is in itself an argument of questionable quality. I am starting to doubt her ability to see things in an unbiased manner, and as such, would refrain from replying to her future remarks on this article. (Hyperliner (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

You can attack me personally all you like, but it doesn't change that your own cited sources don't back up your argument. Rebecca (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking you personally. I am bringing up references that call out your potential motivations and conflicts, as well as limitations as an unbiased editor. (Hyperliner (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

She does bring up a valid point though. If I (LGBT activist or not) came across this page for the first time, completely unaware of any aspect of the situation and I saw "sexual harassment by King" as a focal point of the lead, its going to frame my thinking for the rest of the article to look for biases against King, because 1) the lead (as of now) offers no background of either student, so I have no idea that 2) both boys came from troubled backgrounds 3) King, in realistic comparison to his killer, received far more harassment/bullying than he was able to dish out to anyone up to and including physical violence, death threats, attacks on his house, and severe verbal harassment 4) McInereny was known to have bullied other students 4) the school's ambiguity in the situation due to the sensitive issue of separating constitutional rights vs disruptive behaviour. I've been trying to come up with a way to cover all aspects without turning the lead into a repeat of the entire article, which is why I think "bullying" in the context of the lead should inherently include any actions, be it verbal, physical, threats, or sexual. details should be saved for the article body. The body currently discusses the boys' backgrounds as individuals but I think it should include a subjection "Altercations between King and McInerney" (neutral framing) followed by "The murder". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to all of this. I think "interactions between King and McInerney" would be a more accurate framing, however; altercations implies physical, and something like King asking McInerney to be his valentine doesn't really fit as an "altercation". Rebecca (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating that harassment by King be the focal point. I am stating that the newseeek's article drives the 3 points above, yet only of of those is in the LEAD. The altercations are divided in two behaviors, one by King and one by McInerney. Now, let me use exactly your same language but in reverse: Right now the lead is one sided because if I (activist of any side or not), completely unaware of any aspect of the situation and I saw "gay-biased" as a focal point of the lead, its going to frame my thinking for the rest of the article to look for biases against McInerney. Fact is, the article struggles with the three points I mention above, yet only one is listed in the LEAD. The word interactions fails to drive the personal responsibility that each actor bears in the case (McInernay, King, School), all of which are established by Newsweek. (Hyperliner (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

The problem is that the sources only substantiate the first and third of those three points. The Newsweek article doesn't "drive the personal responsibilities" of anyone behind McInerney for shooting King; while it does discuss a lot of the controversies surrounding the case, it doesn't engage in the sort of blame-sharing you're trying to have this article engage in. Rebecca (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try one more time. What do you think Newsweek is trying to do by saying the following:

.

But despite all the attention and outrage, the reason Larry died isn't as clear-cut as many people think.

Kids may want to express who they are, but they are playing grown-up without fully knowing what that means.

How do you protect legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior?

But his story sheds light on the difficulty of defining the limits of tolerance.

Larry King was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon.

how to balance his right to self-expression while preventing it from disrupting others

.

the school didn't seem to know the extent to which he was clashing with other boys.

.

.

.

One teacher asked him why he taunted the boys in the halls, and Larry replied, "It's fun to watch them squirm."

One student remembered that Larry would often walk up close to Brandon and stare at him.

Larry had studied Brandon so well, he once knew when he had a scratch on his arm—Larry even claimed that he had given it to Brandon by mistake, when the two were together.

.

She was approached by several boys in her class who said that Larry had started taunting them in the halls—"I know you want me," he'd say—and their friends were calling them gay.

Larry walked right on to the court in the middle of the game and asked Brandon to be his Valentine. At the end of lunch, Brandon passed by one of Larry's friends in the hall. She says he told her to say goodbye to Larry, because she would never see him again.

There are many rumors of another confrontation between Larry and Brandon, on Feb. 11, the day before the shooting

The obvious question now is whether Larry's death could have been prevented.

For them, the issue ... was whether he was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger.

They're not blaming Larry for his own death—as if anything could justify his murder—but their attitude toward his assailant is not unsympathetic.

"We failed Brandon," a teacher says. "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."

Greg King doesn't feel sympathy for Brandon, but he does believe his son sexually harassed him.

He's resentful that the gay community has appropriated his son's murder as part of a larger cause.

"I think the gay-rights people want it to be a gay-rights issue, because it makes a poster child out of my son," King says

"Brandon was being terrorized," says Bill, who has set up a public defense fund in his son's name. "He was being stalked almost, to the degree of the school should have never let this happen."

On Valentine's Day, Larry King gave away his heart, but not in the way he thought he would.

(Hyperliner (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

The problem, once again, is that these sources don't support the point you're making. I'll remind that what you're actually contending is that alleged bullying of Brandon by Larry should take a prominent position in the lead. Yet two thirds of this is focused on Larry's flamboyant behaviour in general - his gender expression - than anything regarding his interactions with McInerney. Your choice of some of the few here that actually do concern McInerney seem to bely an odd homophobia; how in the heck is a teenager asking another teenager to be their valentine bullying? And once we get back to the few that actually do concern McInerney, we get around to the point Bookkeeperoftheoccult made above; that while there had been taunting on both sides, Larry had endured bullying far more severe than anything King is alleged to have done. Rebecca (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Altercation: a noisy heated angry dispute ; also : noisy controversy Synonyms: quarrel, disagreement, clash; squabble, tiff. They didn't have simple "interactions" they intentionally pushed each others buttons and had been doing so long before the Valentines Day question came up. These Altercations led up to the Question, which led up to The Murder. Second point: McInernery shot King - that fact, in and of itself, already frames a bias against McIneney, whether the prominence of a gay-related hate crime is mentioned or not, because of the mere fact he committed a murder. Taking everything into account mentioned above, I agree all aspects of the newsweek entry should be covered, but as I said before, "inappropriate behaviour/bullying" mentioned in the lead should cover all aspects by both students with regard to personal responsibility and other students involved. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-visiting my second proposal: *Newsweek has described the shooting as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard", bringing attention to issues of gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers, as well as gun violence and the role of public schools in protecting "legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior" and bullying. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Still not thrilled with the added piece there. This quote is being used in the lead as, in essence, a neutral summary; everything up to "gun violence" is more or less undisputed. The proposed addition here, in inserting the additional text about "inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behaviour" is opinion, and opens the door to questions about what exactly we're implying here. This is even stranger now that "and bullying" is randomly tacked on to the back of a direct quote. I said it above, but I think it would be better to come up with a compromise wording here, rather than using dubious language from one source Rebecca (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"... and bullying and unwelcomed advances." (Hyperliner (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

The sources simply don't support the contention that this had anything to do with it, except as a somewhat minor point. The standard you're trying to apply to King here is original, doesn't come from the sources, and rather unreal; if a boy asking a girl to be their valentine was provocation to shoot them, there would be rather a lot of dead teenage boys around. Rebecca (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see "inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior" (which was clearly directed at King) and "unwelcomed advances" to be the same insinuation. So we should use one or the other. Rebecca, any flirtation, male/female gay/straight, whatever which is not appreciated is generally "inappropriate". He didn't just politely ask for a date, its evident he had been taunting McInerney for quite some time before that and vice versa. The last half of the statement is trying to convey the bigger picture of the whole situation, the altercations between both boys, harassment by other students and the school's role. Thats not unreasonable in my opinion and I don't believe it to be original research. And once again, I'd like to see other editors input - perhaps we should post friendly notices on relevant Project talk pages (Bio, Law, etc). I don't want to see this argument come up every 6 months. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it a different way. On that last point, the Newsweek reporter is essentially weaseling around whether he's talking about King's gender expression (in which case, labelling it "inappropriate" is contested in a whole bunch of reliable sources) or King's provocation of McInerney. This might be good enough for a Newsweek piece, but our policies on avoiding weasel words are there for a reason. I would much rather see a version of that phrasing that avoids the weasel words and cannot be disputed. Rebecca (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

I don't know what this discussion is about anymore. Look, we can neither disparage nor give importance to any source. It simply says what it says. It should be represented accurately. If there are sources that counter what one says, they should be included. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there; out of the tens of thousands of words that have been written about this case, it is proposed to select use this source in the lead; in essence, using this one opinion as neutral summary. I have no objection to what's actually there right now, but the piece proposed to be added is problematic if we're presenting this as representative summary instead of "something some guy said." The suggestion I'm making would also eliminate the rather strange wording of having "'direct quote blah blah' and bullying", by allowing us to work this into a compromise text that actually makes sense. Rebecca (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rebecca. King's reported behavior towards McInerney is not the main thrust of the Newsweek article, which at this point is our main reliable source. Therefore, it would be undue weight to mention it in the lede. I'm also troubled by a phrase of Hyperliner's: "King's potential responsibility as a person who pushed another one so hard that he resorted to killing him". The notion that King was in any way responsible for his own death strikes me as bizarre and reminds me of the stereotypical blaming of female rape victims for dressing or acting "provocatively". In terms of pure cause and effect, sometimes people's own behavior does contribute to their being attacked, but to assign "responsibility" is something else again; it smacks of retribution and value judgments and is something we need to be very careful about in this or any article. The known facts of the case are few and easily verified, while all the potential contributing factors are not. Let's not elevate hearsay to the lede, just because Newsweek slipped it into a lengthy article. Rivertorch (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Except you've got it backwards. If a female rape victim kills her assailant, she's considered a hero in some circles, for standing up for herself. Likewise, if the killer here felt like a victim of harassment by the one he killed, then he is put in the same position as the rape victim - standing up to his assailant with deadly force, "striking back", as it were. That's the point, presumably, of making a thing out of the dead kid having allegedly harassed the killer. This is not an issue to be swept under the rug. This is where political correctness implodes - because you can't have it both ways. The behavior of all concerned in this case should be presented - not as justification, but as explanation. That assumes it's been covered by reliable sources, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All of which adds up to the gay panic defence. Except that there is no defence yet, because the trial hasn't got underway. I've just re-read the Newsweek article for about the 8th time, and I simply don't see the evidence. Yes, in one section the article quotes unnamed "parents and teachers" who say "They're not blaming Larry for his own death—as if anything could justify his murder—but their attitude toward his assailant is not unsympathetic. '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.'" But the larger article doesn't fully support this idea, and we already cover these issues in our article. What the article does suggest is that King was severely bullied, and that the way he fought back was by behaving outrageously and by flaunting his gay identity. For instance, he was routinely bullied in the locker room, so (according to an unnamed mother in the article) "he got even by telling the boys, 'You look hot.'" In other words, the best defence is a good offence, and the strategy seems to have worked rather well: King was bullied for being gay, but when he taunted boys in the hall, their own friends would start calling them gay. Was King a problem child? Obviously, as we document in the article. But I don't think there is any justification so far for the claim that King is "potentially responsible" for his own death "as a person who pushed another one so hard that he resorted to killing him," and so far no such claim has been made by McInerney. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors want the alleged harassment by King emphasized, and the purpose for that could be (neutrally) to suggest a motive or explanation; and/or (politically) to play the "look what he made me do" card. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, and what I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support that claim. Suggesting a motive or providing an explanation is fine, and we report it if reliable sources explicitly do so; so far they don't, and we don't do original research or novel sythesis. We also report it if it's presented as a legal defence; so far no defence has been submitted either. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy is spot on here. Rebecca (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One point I'd like to make: "inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behaviour" I don't believe is a criticism of King for crossdressing, but dressing in a manor which is distracting. If I'm a corporate executive, I can wear a pants suit to a business meeting and be appreciated for my sense of style, but if I walk in wearing a halter top and a miniskirt, I could be fired for wearing "inappropriate" garments to work. Students, gay/straight or transgender must comply with the school dress code. Granted, we have no idea if what King was wearing was a violation of the dress code, but some teachers obviously did. Newsweeks exact wording is protecting "legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior". I don't believe this is a case of attempting to blame the victim, but teaching children boundries so they understand how to protect themselves, and in general understand what is "appropriate" from what is "inappropriate". One of the points Newsweek also stated was "They're not blaming Larry for his own death—as if anything could justify his murder—but their attitude toward his assailant is not unsympathetic." To use the rape analogy, is dressing "provatively" a justification for rape? No, never. Should women be taught at an early age how to dress appropriately for certain situations and be aware of their surroundings and the company they keep? Of course. And I think that is where the school got stuck between a rock and a hardplace. Its less about "blaming the vitcim" and teaching someone "how not to be a victim". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- But all of this is heavily contested - on both sides - in reliable sources. It's hardly neutral to present this as summary fact in the lead section. It's getting into connotations that Wikipedia really shouldn't be delving into unless they're impeccably sourced, let alone in the lead section. Rebecca (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  - If the young women in his school were banned from wearing makeup then this might be convincing. However we have no information about that. To paralel your arguement it would be a male wearing a skirt suit to a business meaning. Would that be 'crossdressing' or 'dressing inappropriately'? Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying his gender expression (make-up and other garments or otherwise) itself was the problem - obviously there wasn't a ban or else he wouldn't have been able to wear such garments in the first place. I'm saying there was a question as to if he was using his gender expression as a way to purposefully distract other students - and I'm not saying there was any answer to that, there was simply a question raised. There is a difference in wearing beauty make-up (for a male or female) and wearing make-up that looks as if you're about to play a role in star trek. The same issue with the skirt: I'm not saying any skirt (worn by someone male or female) would be inappropriate, but there is a difference in wearing something that is designed to be worn as sexually alluring or provacative and wearing one that is designed for business or business-casual attire. I know from an original point of view that businesses which welcome transgender workers still have dress codes in place; being a male who wears female clothing, I must conform to the women's dress code in a place of work. In a school setting, teachers are required to make that kind of judgement call on a regular basis. Again, I'm not pointing blame at King, but being transgender myself, I do understand Newsweek's analysis of the the school's ambiguity and confusion in trying to make a possible transgender student comfortable in expressing themselves while at the same time teaching them what is generally considered inappropriate (for a male, female, or transgender student) for a classroom setting. And again, I'm not saying there is any kind of definitive answer, this was simply a question Newsweek decided to highlight. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But this wasn't a point that the article even specifically covered, let alone focused on. There wasn't even a single sentence talking about what Larry wore in comparison to the average female student, so why are we having this conversation? Rebecca (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am simply providing rationale for the inclusion of Newsweek's statement of the school's responsibility to protect "legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry but these changes, or at least the laundry list of very important "facts" laid out twice suggest we are the judge and jury which is not the case. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. This is a current trial with a teen being tried as an adult for murder. I'm not keen on quickly fixing anything that doesn't seem broken. Is this article predominantly about bullying? Then a neutral way to state that the case brought bullying issues to wider attention could be introduced. We should purposely avoid laying blame on anyone and let the court decide how to treat the murder. This is not a forum to wedge in evidence to sway public opinion in any direction. With dozens of school personnel and hundreds of students and community members I'm willing to bet a very descriptive but no less definitive picture will develop that bears a startling similarity to what we already have which seems quite NPOV. Efforts to add McInerney's Nazi material or King's alleged (gasp!) retorting back to McInerney have been rebuffed for good reason up to now. Our policies on NPOV, RS and, in regards to McInerney, BLP. We've even strayed from adding a see also link to gay panic even though we have reliable sources that speak of this to avoid POV issues until the case is settled. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking I Agree with Benji. I don't like the fact that this issue is being brought up yet again. In my opinion, the current article is NPOV as is, even though I think it could use more detail - but, I'd be perfectly happy to wait until the trial is actually over to make those kind of adjustments. My purpose in opening a RfC is to get community input to see if outside editors view this article as being NPOV so we don't have to go through this agonizing process everytime someone wants to slap an neutrality tag on the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps as part of this process we include a hidden note ala  -- Banjeboi 02:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

People are still missing the point. Any unbiased reader recognizes that the article drives three points about this case. Let me repeat them here from above:

Gay-bias, homophobia, and hate-crime by McInerney (and others) against King

Bullying and harassment by King against McInerney (and others)

School's inability to cope with the challenges of this case

However, given this, it is unbiased to, in the lead, include ONLY the opinion about the prominence of the case in gay-bias cases, and not, for example (just picking another opinion from the article), the text that say that "Larry King was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon." I am going to repeat what I said before. A group of social operators of the extreme wing of the LGBT movement like Rebecca, Exploding Boy and Banjeboi and others are hijacking this article to the detriment of the whole LGBT movement and to the detriment on the neutrality of this article, only adding to the notion that this case is being used for political purposes and giving a bad mark to the whole movement. (Hyperliner (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I think there are two choices. Choice 1 is to remove the current statement that says Newsweek has described the shooting as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard", bringing attention to issues of gun violence as well as gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers. Choice 2 is to add, after that statement that Newsweek also brought attention to the issues of sexuality used as a weapon, and of schools' inability to cope with these challenges. Those three issues then become part of the outline of the article, and we will then have to discuss these three issues individually. I don't see any other choices. (Hyperliner (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
- Sorry, not interested in inserting a WP:Soapbox statement into the lede nor entertaining the conspiracy concept as there is none. -- Banjeboi 18:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I find your comments unhelpful, Hyperliner, not just because they focus on other editors rather than on the content of the article, but because they fail to respond to or address the relevant discussion above, instead merely repeating your opinion about what should be included.

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to a more recent article, this one, from February 11, 2009 in the Ventury County Star, which reports Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox's statement, based on documents filed in the court case, that “Larry King wasn’t sexually harassing him (McInerney) and taunting him.” The statement of facts states that King and McInerney had "an acrimonious relationship that was characterized by typical 8th grade back-and-forth insults," and that "In the months and weeks before the shooting, King had begun to retort to the ongoing teasing" directed at him. It further adds that "Although King didn’t specifically target McInerney in his verbal sparring, he had words for other classmates, 'many of whom tried to degrade and humiliate him to varying degrees on a daily basis.'"

This article is both more recent than the Newsweek article, and based on court documents. It undermines what I understand to be the suggestions Hyperliner would like to see added to the article: that King bullied and/or sexually harassed McInerney and was therefore responsible or partially responsible for McInerney shooting him. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

- I would like to point out that a "statement of facts" is not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Many lawyers may make implicit arguments in a statement of facts, using a variety of tricks to sway the reader to one point of view or another. Typically these arguments are designed to paint someone in a favorable light, or to dismiss the reliability of someone else.. Lawyers and prosecutors are trained on how to write one to their advantage. In this particular case, the prosecutor is obviously doing his job of painting the defendant in the worst possible light, and he should. However, we cannot take his opinion as more valid than, say, that of the defense, at this state of these events. (Hyperliner (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
- Please also note that I am not advocating that King was "partially responsible for McInerney shooting him," as Exploding_boy incorrectly states. What I am advocating is for full coverage of the 3 major points that the Newsweek article brought up, probably the most important piece of information available at this time (before trial). At this time, this Wikipedia article currently cherry picks Newsweek's quote of "most prominent gay-bias ..." in the lead without the other two major points, which are "the school's responsibility" and "people using sexuality as a weapon." It is that fact that makes this article tendentious. (Hyperliner (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

It's not cherry picking; it's assigning appropriate weight, as opposed to undue weight. Newsweek brought up major points and minor points, and there has been consensus for quite some while that weight has been assigned appropriately. You believe there are three major points in the Newsweek article, but despite repeated attempts you have failed to build a new consensus around that idea and are now beating a dead horse. It may be that you're perfectly right and we're all wrong, but sometimes that's the way it goes at WP. Suggest we please move on. Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have documented above, the Newsweek article made 20 points related to King's behavior. Hardly a "minor point." (Hyperliner (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Restating, the "statements of fact" that Exploding_boy includes above are simply arguments by the prosecution, not 'facts' (Hyperliner (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Bookkeeper, I propose this edit to your proposal #2: 'Newsweek has described the shooting as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard", bringing attention to issues of gender expression and sexual identity of teenagers, as well as gun violence. In addition, it discussed the role of schools in protecting legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior. Finally, it discussed the aspects of "sexuality used as a weapon." (Hyperliner (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I would not agree to using the phrase "sexuality used as weapon" as I believe it to be a dramatic use of words to bring across sensationalism to a news story. As I've stated several times before, my stance is that "protecting legitimate, personal expression while preventing inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior" neutrally covers any inappropriate behavior by King. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard" is also a dramatic use of words to bring sensationalism to the story. Why is that in the wikipedia article then? If we are going to quote the article, then we should add all the quotes. Or None. (Hyperliner (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

As Rivertorch stated above, it may well be that you're right and we're all wrong; it's an occasionally frustrating aspect of working on Wikipedia, but despite repeated attempts you have failed to build a new consensus. Simply repeating your conviction is unlikely to work, so now would be the time to either come up with a new argument or new information, or perhaps move on to working on other articles for a while and returning to see how this one is shaping up in a few weeks, and possibly with fresh perspective. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated my arguments and not heard any good arguments back in reply. I have stated why the article's coverage of the second or third elements (school's role and King's bullying actions) are relevant to the lead (I listed at least 19 statements straight from the article, which given the length of such article, would make those points appropriate weight and not undue weight). I have stated why I believe this article is biased (because it covers only one angle -bias against King- of the major source, namely the Newsweek article). I have dismissed other information by other editors such as Rebecca, Exploding_Boy and Rivertorch as tendentious. I have also addressed specific comments from you and Rivertorch (for example, the introduction of another article as "statements of fact" is incorrect because "statements of facts" in Law are not necessarily "facts." I have also stated that addressing me as "new" to dismiss my arguments is fallacious. It is true: I just got here, so I am new. But I am not the only one that has brought up these issues. Others have too. And when you say "we" you really talk about a few folks who are have decided to be the "enforcers" in this article. Again, I am new. But at least I am not trying to influence other editors in off-side conversations like Rivertorch did here and here. Then again, I am new and was not aware that is the way things work around here. (Hyperliner (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

While other editors' arguments may have failed to convince you, you are the one arguing a minority (which is to say, non-current-consensus) opinion, and your arguments have failed to convince anybody else. Regarding your characterization of Rivertorch's posts on another user's talk page as "secret," that's just nonsense. Talk page posts are not secret (you apparently had no trouble finding them), and the posts to which you refer had nothing to with influencing other editors. As to my referring to you as "new," you are relatively new, and thus far you appear to be a single issue editor: you started out at Wikipedia with a handful of edits to one article in 2007. In 2008 you made 2 edits, both to this talk page. Since you returned early this month, all of your edits have been to this talk page, with the exception of three to the article itself (none of which survived). Being a single issue editor is unlikely to work in your favour when it comes to changing consensus on this or any article. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exploding_Box, It would be great if you addressed my comments from right above your comment, specifically. Don't just try to portray an incomplete image. You say my arguments have failed to convince "anybody else." However, there are some supportive comments by others here. You also say that being a single editor is unlikely to work in my favor. Well, I expect my arguments to work in favor of the quality of this article, not on "my favor." Could not care less about that. (Hyperliner (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

In my previous post, I indicated that Rivertorch had "secret" off-side conversations to influence another editor to change her previously stated opinion in this article. Rivertorch has indicated to me that, while his intentions were in fact to influence such editor to change her opinion, Talk Pages are not secret and are in fact a tool in Wikipedia to discuss things without adding drama (I agree we have enough here. Note to self: Next time, pick a less controversial article to "warm up"). As the new guy, I take responsibility for my rookie move and have deleted the word from my comment. Like I mentioned, I am not aware of the procedures here and would take some of the issues here to Talk Pages. I am not sure I like the practice as I would prefer the discussion about a topic to be contained within the topic to ensure all ideas are discussed in a single place, but it seems to make sense in some cases. I am not sure I am supposed to "delete" things or "talk about them" so for the purposes of transparency I am coming out clean here, hopefully. (Hyperliner (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Random section break #2

This follow-up to Newsweek's article, not currently in the list of references here, goes into the issues I am trying to highlight. The follow-up article point to the controversy of the original article's quote of "sexuality as a weapon." It says: "Many responded to reporter Ramin Setoodeh's assertion that Larry was a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon." The follow up also says that "While some saw the story as a saga of self-discovery, others viewed it as a tale of sexual harassment--in which King's taunting of McInerney, including rumors of a relationship as well as a valentine, crossed the line." Now, if 4000 readers of the article (in just one week, no idea how many more after that) decided that they needed to reply via email to the original article's writer, then it follows that the issue is clearly a significant controversy as discussed in the original article, and as such our Wikipedia article should include and discuss. It is not a "minority POV" and clearly represents appropriate weight. Again, I am not saying who is right or wrong, just saying that this is a controversy that is relevant to the article and that is driven out of the most relevant reliable source we have in this Wikipedia article. (Hyperliner (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

That's a great source and contradicts what you've WP:Cherry-picked to support your POV. You missed - "If a girl who was extra flirtatious, incredibly forward and very aware of her sexuality, was shot to death by a guy who didn't want her attention, would we be considering [her] a victim, or blaming her for [the] murder[?]" wrote Seabasstin. "A better analogy would be a black kid who was perceived as 'too uppity' and got shot by a white kid," adds KevinVT. "And then Newsweek writes a story about it being, OK, really, because he was acting too black, because one of his principals was a black woman, and because the African American community found the situation to be evidence of racism." Unfortunately your missing the consensus here to avoid conflating and keep the entire article a bit more conservative. Once the trial and appeals are over we'll have plenty to work with and even then we'll need to stay NPOV. Thus we also won't be using - Yes, he was a flamboyant kid who wore high heels and makeup. But many commenters felt this characterization suggested that Larry deserved to die. "It's a sad thing that the story isn't about how our society could create such a diabolical, cold-blooded, 15-year-old-child killer." - anytime soon. This isn't an article about the Newsweek coverage of the subject but about the murder itself. We're in no rush to inject any POV especially as a teenager is on trial as an adult for murder and this is the world's encyclopedia. We don't lead or make the news, we follow it's direction, and do so conservatively. -- Banjeboi 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a good reason that source isn't included in our article: it's not an article, but a commentary on reader reactions to an article. Also stated in that commentary, by the way, is the remark by Maeve Fox, the prosecutor in this case for the Ventura County District Attorney's Office, that the Newsweek story was "rife with inaccuracies." Exploding Boy (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Benjiboy for agreeing with me that it is a great article. I thought so too which is the reason I included it. And thanks also for highlighting the controversy I have been trying to shed light on with those quotes (I did not cherry pick since as I have stated before a couple of times I believe one side of the story is very well covered already and so I don't dup). I think you have recognized now that there ARE two views stemming from the original article that is the main source, and while the quotes may not be used in this encyclopedic forum, the controversy itself is relevant. Others have said before (PLEASE GO BACK AND RE-READ FOR CONTEXT, I DONT WANT TO BE ACCUSED AGAIN OF COPYING STUFF OUT OF CONTEXT): "Look, we can neither disparage nor give importance to any source. It simply says what it says. It should be represented accurately. If there are sources that counter what one says, they should be included" (Moni3). "That's the point, presumably, of making a thing out of the dead kid having allegedly harassed the killer. This is not an issue to be swept under the rug. This is where political correctness implodes - because you can't have it both ways. The behavior of all concerned in this case should be presented - not as justification, but as explanation. That assumes it's been covered by reliable sources, of course" Baseball Bugs. "Personally, I see 'inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior' (which was clearly directed at King) and 'unwelcomed advances' to be the same insinuation. So we should use one or the other. Rebecca, any flirtation, male/female gay/straight, whatever which is not appreciated is generally 'inappropriate'. He didn't just politely ask for a date, its evident he had been taunting McInerney for quite some time before that and vice versa. The last half of the statement is trying to convey the bigger picture of the whole situation, the altercations between both boys, harassment by other students and the school's role. Thats not unreasonable in my opinion and I don't believe it to be original research" (BookKeeper, though s/he does state later s/he does not believe the article is currently non neutral). It would be great if those editors made their current views clear now just to make sure. I am not sure what their views are NOW. And it would be great if Exploding_Body would not put words on their mouth and let them do that themselves. My proposal is to incorporate a "Controversy" section in this Wikipedia article to raise these issues. (Hyperliner (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

comment: automatic NO to labeling the proposed section "Controversy" as that phrasing is yet another way to frame the argument. Nonetheless, as I stated long ago, I find it a bit odd the article is arranged as two separate biographies, as the two boys are not WP:NOTABILITY as separate individuals but for the murder itself (or at least that is what the name of the article implies). If the section is to be included it should be "Altercations between King and McInerney". As of now, it still reads NPOV, even if the altercations are summarized and I wouldn't mind waiting to change that until the trial is over (as I've also stated before). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
comment: I've been rethinking the lead section a lot and I think its odd to have any quote in the lead of any article versus a summary statement. As a way of taking emphasis on Newsweek out of the picture altogether (as at some point when this trial ends there will probably be a world of sources on the subject), maybe: The incident has drawn comparison to the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, and has raised issues in the role of public schools in protecting the constitutional rights youth concerning gender expression, while safeguarding students from bullying, inappropriate behavior, and gun violence. Or something to that effect. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A big no to a "criticism" section from me; they are to be avoided generally, and are far too prone to problems with UNDUE, NPOV et al. Again, the item linked above is not an article but only a summary of reader reactions to an article, and therefore is, I would say, ineligible to be included as a proper source. I think our article is fine as it is, for now. I don't see an issue with the lead either. I think it would be unwise to make any of the additions Hyperliner is advocating at this time: the issues are covered in the current version, and we're coming dangerously close to speculation and violations of several policies and common sense as it is. Until new, reliable information comes to light, probably via the trial, I see no pressing need to add these things. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with not changing the body of this article at this time, but I would prefer to change the last paragraph of the lead to summary statement versus a quote, as that is a norm for all quality leads. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bookkeeper, your recommendation is the most sensical thing I have heard in this long discussion. I support it. (Hyperliner (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I agree with replacing the quote with a summary statement but strongly suggest we draft it here on the talk page first. I know that doesn't follow the Be Bold paradigm, but getting consensus on the wording first is likely to save considerable time and trouble in this case. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Before everyone gets all excited, there is no restriction against quotes in lead sections, and they're quite common in Wikipedia articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, there is nothing wrong or abnormal about not having quote in the lead. WP:QUOTE leans towards using quote conservatively anyhow. I think its better to exclude direct quote from the lead of any article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I fail to see how removing this one quote will improve the article's neutrality. Indeed, changing a direct quote to the phrase "has been compared to the murder of Matthew Shepard" would actually be making the lead less correct: there haven't been comparisons to Shepard's murder; they were very different circumstances. What the quote establishes is that King's murder is the most prominent murder of a gay person since Matthew Shepard. Let's not chip away at the article's neutrality for the sake of satisfying one objector. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A comparison is simply that: a comparison. It doesn't imply the circumstances are exactly the same. As a gay-biased crime, its obviously being given direct comparison to Shepard's murder. And changing a direct quote to a summary statement is hardly chipping away at neutrality. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing a direct quote to an incorrect summary of the quote certainly is. The quote does not compare the two murders--it does not claim that their circumstances, victims or perpetrators are similar; it establishes that this murder of a gay person in America has received a large amount of attention, more than any other since the very high profile murder of Matthew Shepard. To say that the murder of King has been "compared to" the murder of Shepard is misleading and unclear at best. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I still have no objection to a summary statement, but the wording has to be precise. We could say that this murder "has received more attention than any other murder of an LGBT victim since the murder of Matthew Shepard"—or something to that effect. Rivertorch (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...which would be better, however I still don't see why we can't just leave the original quote where it is: it's unambiguous and complete, and prevents any suggestion of OR/interpretation, or POV. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above: to take emphasis off of Newsweek, as you noted above: Maeve Fox, the prosecutor in this case for the Ventura County District Attorney's Office, that the Newsweek story was "rife with inaccuracies." If we don't want to be exploring every aspect of the report, then lets take the prominence of the story out of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By removing a direct quote from the article but replacing it with a summary of a quote from thee article instead? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. To remove emphasis on Newsweeks point of view, which will be only one of several sources at some point when this trial ends. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Such a statement will still need to be attributed, and the source will still be Newsweek, so I fail to see how using an actual quote (which is preferable anyway) is supposed to be better than summarizing a quote from the same article. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely think that Exploding Boy's point is valid, and in the abstract, I agree: the lede is better as is. However, I think we are really close to a compromise which should end this very long discussion while doing no significant harm to the article. Clearly, this may need to be revisited as the criminal proceedings proceed, but I think it would be terrific if we could have consensus (however grudging) and a stable article in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I concur with Exploding Boy, it's quite quibbly to get caught up in that this is from Newsweek - no one is disputing any of what we are citing from that article and if there is some "rife with inaccuracies" issues we can sort those out. The prosecutors job, by the way, is to cast doubt on anything that doesn't win their side's case so casting doubt towards the Newsweek story is simply part of the game. We are bound by a different set of goals and standards. -- Banjeboi 12:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Random section break #3

For the record, an RFC on the question titling this section closed today. It was posted for thirty days here and here but prompted little new input and did not change the apparent consensus that this article does not violate WP:NPOV. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)