Talk:Mary Ann Vecchio

message: I question the encyclopedic value of including information such as the sentence that as a teenager, the subject "continued her delinquency, however, and was later arrested on charges of theft and prostitution[1]." I previously had deleted this sentence on the ground that it was then unsourced negative information in the biography of a living person (see generally, WP:LIVING) plus it was only of the most marginal relevance even if true. This was reverted and a source has now been added, but I still do not see how this information is relevant to this article given the limited basis for notability of this individual. The subject of this article is currently living a private life and, while her presence at the horrific events described and depiction in an iconic photograph make her a reasonable subject for an article, there is no reason that she should be burdened by having her teenage indiscretions broadcast on a site like this one. Comments please. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the information should be deleted. TheMindsEye 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the fact Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting, Claude Allen did something similar, and is encyclopedic? We're trying to compile a fair, neutral synopsis of each person...neutral does not mean whitewashing. There is no indication that her prostitution was a "teenage fad". She is not solely "living a private life", I mean everybody does, yes...but she's not the innocent victim of circumstance, she does use her role as "That girl...in that photograph" to garner media attention Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, we must also recognize that Vecchio's incident occured 36 years ago, while Ryder was only 5 years ago and Allen was this year. The recent nature of the latter two's difficulties make those incidents more newsworthy. In addition, the article merely states that Vecchio was arrested with no information on whether she was found guilty. Ryder was convicted. Allen pleaded guilty, but the judge sentenced him to 18 months of "probation before judgment". No, I think the situations are entirely different and am comfortable with deleting the information about Vecchio, especially since it doesn't relate to the Kent State incident and we don't know if she was found guilty of the charges. TheMindsEye 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still contend that you are wrong to claim that just because it is "in the past" makes it non-notable, but I do concede that the lack of a verdict makes it questionable to include. I'll see if I can dig up anything further. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifying the information is fine, of course, but I still think this is one of the relatively rare situations where the information is inappropriate for inclusion even if true. It doesn't bear on the event that makes the subject notable, nor is it relevant or useful for any other purpose at this point. The only effect that including it has is damaging this living person's life when someone Googles her and this is the number one hit. Newyorkbrad 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevent to the fact that she was a runaway. It's relevent to her life after the incident. It's something a reader might want to know: what the person did after the incident that made them famous. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although best known for her photograph taken in 1970 at Kent State University, biographical article can and should include any verifiable information about the subject. The fact that she was arrested for prostitution may be meaningless in the greater context of the Kent State shooting, yet it still pertains to the subject at hand (if true). As someone stated earlier, "neutral does not mean whitewashing." Amen. -24.149.193.49 (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate, largely irrelevant negative content? 

message: In this story and the article about the photographer, John Filo, the world famous photo of Mary Vecchio is nowhere to be seen. 
Detailed descriptions of these two people are in Wikipedia only because of that photograph. 
Also, there might be some people who never saw the picture. Some people may have forgotten about it. Or, being too young, they don't know about the photograph's signifigance, it's historical importance. 
The articles on Vecchio and Filo tell us that the original picture had a section removed. That was  supposedly because it was considered distracting to the photo's emotional impact. Readers of those stories should see the original photo and the retouched one to decide for themselves if the alteration should have been made. 
Seeing at least the famous slightly changed picture could help readers be aware of how the strife over Vietnam was tearing the country apart. TomRoch17 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of discussion without the picture 

message: I am a few months younger than Vecchio and remember the day. I was angry of course fora many years. 
Much later I recall watching a made for TV movie based on the events of that day. It's now many years since I saw  movie, but one thing that stays with me even today is a court room demonstration made by the defense attorney in the movie in which he threw a rolled up piece of paper at a witness to demonstrate that the National Guard could very well have been fearful of the demonstrators - fearful enough to have used their weapons. The actual protestors threw rocks iirc.
The parallels with recent demonstrations are undeniable. Overreaction by both demonstrators and authorities are becoming grotesque. We need to chill as my kids say. 67.82.179.221 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV movie about the Kent State incident