Talk:Murder of Jesse Dirkhising/Archive 1

message: I found this article quite critical. :| --ILovEJPPitoC 16:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: critical of who or what? Adam 00:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it's more than just depict the event, but criticize the media for not paying enough attention on that event. --ILovEJPPitoC 04:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: The article is not really about the event, it is about the political issue which arose from the event. I have carefully quoted press and political comment from both sides of the debate. Adam 05:13, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical View of Media

message: This article is just conservative-bashing in disguise. For example, "Certain American conservative interest groups have long sought to link being a gay person or the larger gay rights political movement to a desire to sexually abuse children." Um, who? Proof? This article needs references, and shouldn't be laid out in a format of sections which seems to say "The wack-job right-wingers say this" and then "Rational liberals disagree". This is too POV and being used as a soapbox article. Harro5 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harro I wrote the original version of this article and my biases, as you know, are all in the opposite direction (ie, pro-gay). That's why I tried to be as fair as possible to the other position - plus I do agree to some extent that there was a consensus in the mainstream press not to dwell on this case for fear of being seen to be anti-gay, while the Matthew Shepherd case got very extensive coverage. Perhaps I have gone too far - if you can make the article more NPOV, please do. Adam 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just needs to tone down the anti-conservative rhetoric in the controversies section. Harro5 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having re-read the article, the issue is not the tone of the article, but rather a strong need to cite sources for the numerous quotes in the two opinion sections. I'd also try to name some of the anti-gay groups in the sentence I mention above, as it's otherwise a bit too general a statement about the right. Harro5 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This has to be the MOST POV article I have seen on Wikipedia.  It needs major work. --Strothra 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This is a tragic case. The fact that people have used it to malign gay people makes it even more tragic. It reminds me of Fred Phelps' numerous protests staged during the funerals of fallen soldiers. Have some respect for the dead, please. Do you want to blame this child's death on homosexuals? Given that most pedophiles are straight, can we blame every rape-and-murder where a young girl was the victim on all heterosexuals? Should we increase their families' pain by dragging their dead daughter's names through the mud just so we can attack straight people? Shall we have two categories, one for heterosexual pedophiles and one for homosexual pedophiles? If we did, would the fact that the heterosexual list is longer impress you? Would seeing that make you stop labelling all gay people as pedophiles? The sheer force of numbers alone is enough to label all you heterosexuals as perverts, if we are to assume that pedophilia is determined by their gender preference. Let Jesse Dirkhising rest. He's suffered enough, and so has his family. Stop using his dead body as your political soapbox. You are desecrating the grave.Wandering Star 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well everyone confirms that they were homosexual.  The fact that they molested and murdered a 13yr old boy would make them pedophiles under U.S. law.  They were found guilty of the murder.  That would make them both homosexuals and pedophiles.  That is why the case recieved so much attention. --Strothra 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they are adults and their victim was a child makes them paedophiles, probably, although the victim's age makes it more of a grey area, since he probably wasn't pre-pubescent.  However, there is a difference between homosexuality and paediphilia, and the term "homosexual paedophile" is not in common use.  In addition, once again, this term contradicts claims made elsewhere in the article.  The source provided for the claim that the two killers are "homosexual paedophiles" is laughably inappropriate. It is so non-neutral and non-academic that I'm removing it forthwith, along with the "homosexual paedophile" claim, until some reasonable sources are found. Exploding Boy 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, the term is used to refer to all adults who are attracted to individuals under the age of consent.  Homosexual pedophile was being used as a phrase, not as a term.  For instance, if I saw a dog that was black in the corner I would say, "Hey look! There's a black dog!"  Just because the phrase "black dog" is not a common use term doesn't make the grammar usage incorrect.  Besides, who are you, or any of us, to deem what is common and what is not?  You seem to hardly be making an "academic" argument. --Strothra 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you need to take it down a notch.  I find some of your comments verge on being confrontational (such as when you accused me of edit warring earlier).  See my answer to your first comment at the bottom of this section.  As to your second, your analysis is way off.  Phrase, term, the result in this instance is the same.  We need to be both neutral and correct here.  There's sufficient doubt about both those individual terms to make the combined "phrase" unsuitable for the article.  Exploding Boy 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, the term is used in the United States to refer to all adult individuals who are sexually attracted to individuals below the age of consent.  I will give you point A, however.  There is no way of proving that either individual was never attracted to females or that they could not actually be described as bisexual or whatever other terms may be used to describe non-traditional sexual orientations. --Strothra 02:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any U.S. law that defines child molesters as pedophiles. -Will Beback 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Age of consent in the United States is a complicated thing, I'll admit.  The federal government has passed laws in the past two decades which have almost effectively raised the entire country's age of consent to 18 regardless of state or local laws that are on the books.  All individuals under 18 in the United States are considered minors.  In the United States, it may often be observed that individuals who have sexual relations with minors are considered pedophiles.  I've never heard of a single state in the Union where the age is below 14 for females or where the age is below 16 for males. Regardless, pedophilia in the United States has nothing to do with the age of consent but the age of adulthood.  These things are not related in the United States where adulthood is associated with political and economic independence.  Insurance companies and even the Internal Revenue Service consider individuals to be minors until they're 21-my own family discovered this only when attempting to write a final will and testament.  Also, you can't even rent a car in the United States at a decent price unless you've reached the age of 22-24.  --Strothra 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well which is it? First you say the killers are paedophiles because their victim was 13. Then you say that all adults sexually attracted to people under the age of consent are considered paedophiles in the US. Then you say that anyone (I presume you meant any adult) who has sex with a minor (someone under the age of consent) is considered a paedophile. Then you say that age of consent has nothing to do with it... Exploding Boy 03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said nothing inconsistent.  The boy was a minor.  He was molested, raped, and killed by two older men who very well knew what they were doing was heinous and deviant.  They were clearly pedophiles.  They had sex with a child for God's sake. It saddens me that there's actually a movement out there to normalize pedophilia as if it could be justified in a contemporary civil society.  --Strothra 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that my last edits are probably the best compromise.  I'm just saying that a child who does not have the day-to-day experience that an adult gains through life cannot possibly enter into a consentual sexual agreement.  An adult who preys on that innocence is a pedophile.  --Strothra 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I rarely, if ever, hear the word homosexual be put together with pedophile. When abusing children, whether they abuse boys or girls isn't relevant. Skinnyweed 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Homosexual pedophile" was used as a descriptive phrase, not a term.  The two individuals were homosexual and they were sexually attracted, and acted upon that attraction, with a minor thus they were also pedophiles.  The phrase homosexual pedophile would describe an individual who did those things.  We decided, however, to take out homosexual because there is no clear proof that they have never liked females and thus qualify as bisexuals so perhaps homosexual is too specific. Homosexual was referring to a presumed prexisting factor concerning their established sexual preference, not because they molested a boy.  --Strothra 03:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexual paedophile 

message: Would you care to state exactly what you find to be non neutral about the intro? None of the statements in that intro are disputed which is why I worded it like that.  Even the Washington Post admitted that the Dirkhising case receieved less attention but they explained why - this is elaborated on in the article hence why this is just an intro. Also, the two individuals were admittedly homosexual lovers - this was reported in court and in the affidavit. The other two sentances are merely what you left in there merged into the additional info. The intro must tell why the case is even notable.  --Strothra 04:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the intro simple.  It's not necessary to introduce the Matthew Shepard argument in the intro, since the very comparison is controversial.  It's best dealt with in its own section.  The issue of how much media attention each case received is also controversial, as is stated in the article.  We should not be presenting it as fact in the introduction.  Also, the part where you say "as a result of the torture, described below" is unnecessary, tasteless, and sensationalistic in tone.  Exploding Boy 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that "as described below" is tasteless or sensationalistic.  It's a statement of fact.  He died from the torture.  Are you denying that the asphixiation was part of the torture?  Because that would be interesting seeing as that's completely not what the police or coroner reported.  The into is simple in that it introduces the rest of the article as succinctly as possible and draws the reader in. I could see perhaps rewording it to remove the Matthew Shepard part but I feel that your introduction to the ensuing controversy is simply inadequate. --Strothra 04:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have expanded that quote to "as a result of the torture..." I still see it as a statement of fact since he died as a result of the torture.  Asphyxiation was the cause of death.  Asphyxiation was part of the torture.  Torture --> death.  That's all the sentance says. We shouldn't be afraid to allow the intro to state what is elaborated upon later.  The purpose of the intro is to introduce what comes later, isn't it? --Strothra 04:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, I believe I misread you.  What do you mean...why is "as described below" offensive? --Strothra 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that the actual description that's given below is objectionable, that the fact that it directs the reader's attention below, or that the actual words or somehow offensive? --Strothra 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, I think I agreed to that earlier...gimme a sec and I'll propose something. --Strothra 04:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whoa, someone new.  I'll agree to that.  I took out describing the homosexual lovers and introducing Matthew Shepard since I was trying to compromise. --Strothra 04:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Capitalist's version is not neutral.  The end of the above version is also problematic: we cannot say there was a lack of media attention, since that claim is controversial; and the debate was not about the media per se, but about coverage of homosexuals in the media.  Exploding Boy 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no controversy over the fact that there was a lack of attention.  The Washington Post even admitted to there being a lack of attention but they presented reasoning for it.  From what still remains on the internet, most conservative bloggers and journalists were condemning the media for it's sympathy to homosexuals and political correctness. --Strothra 05:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, so you're proposing that we leave out just how much media attention there was altogether? I can agree to that since I do see how that may be subjective--Strothra 05:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jesse Dirkhising (May 24, 1986–September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999.  Dirkhising's murderers were two male lovers.  Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals.
ok...with or without male lovers? --Strothra 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The supposed evidence that the two men were homosexual comes from one affidavit in which they were stated to be lovers. However, their relationship seems to have been of a sadomasochistic and paedophile nature (and their paedophilia includes abusing boys and girls). I think any reference to the men as 'homosexuals' needs to be heavily qualified for that reason. Unfortunately, any references to this, or to the fact that their child molestation was of both sexes, or that the death had strong signs of being accidental are immediately being removed by other posters - hence the need for this article to be reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.227.58 (talk • contribs) 
::The peer reveiw request is fine.  However, a compromise has been worked out regarding the introduction to this article at considerable cost in terms of the personal time and effort of individual users.  Please discuss proposed changes on this page before making them.  Exploding Boy 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: The second sentence currently reads: "Controversy ensued over the lack of coverage in mainstream media outlets of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was the result of the homosexuality of the perpetrators."
This reads: "the murder... was the result of the homosexuality of the perps", not "the lack of coverage... was the result of the homosexuality of the perps."  I think the latter is what's intended (if not, it's very problematic).  I'd fix it myself, but I haven't followed the history and don't want to step on any toes.  Fireplace 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision isn't any better, honestly. The last sentence "This lack of coverage was attributed to the homosexuality of the perpetrators" doesn't present the impression of a debate; it makes it sound like a clear consensus that this explanation was the correct one. Also it should probably be mentioned in the intro that this crime became big news specifically because of the comparison to the Shepherd case and that coverage of the bias debate dwarfed the initial coverage of the crime itself by orders of magnitude. --squirrel 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence 

message: I'm removing the statements about Dirkhising being "kidnapped." The www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382abf9f7001.htm affidavit does not mention kidnapping, and they were not charged with kidnapping. [This] article says Dirkhising was "...at the Rogers, Ark., home of a family friend..." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026 This one states "Earlier that summer, Jesse – with the permission of his mother and stepfather, Tina and Miles Yates – had begun spending weekends with the homosexual couple." DejahThoris 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidnapping, again 

message: I am very hesitant to see the Free Republic used as a source for anything on Wikipedia becuase it is a highly partisan forum. Is there no other way to obtain the information, and are we certain that it is correct? -Will Beback · † · 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indegay Forum is also a partisan "forum."  The way the source is used - for the affidavit is fine, however.  It's a legal document which wasn't altered, however, if you can find another source for the affidavit then feel free to replace it.--Strothra 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of Indegay, but it looks like both it and FR are violating copyrights by reproducing Southern Voice articles. This website  has the same affadavit (plus a second one) without the commentary. -Will Beback · † · 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the sources should be replaced by better sources. A hint, if you click on the source and Christian crosses are a main feature there might be some issues there. They might be good unbias sources but there is likely better sources for the same information. We're all aiming for a better article so better sourcing is a part of the solution. Benjiboi 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic