Talk:Murder of Jesse Dirkhising/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Birthplace and middle initial

According to this link the memorial stone of Jesse Dirkhising shows his middle initial to be "W". In the newspaper clip (death notice), it shows his middle name as "William" and states his birthplace as Oxford, Ohio. CadenS (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Here's the link

Pat Buchanan reference

Pat Buchanan's book The Death of the West is used too many times as a citation. The book only offers a few opinions, and quotes other sources (AP, Brent Bozell, Andrew Sullivan) to lay out most of the facts and arguments. But in this article, it has been used to back up several statements that it did not make (and others that it only made as a tertiary source, by quoting others). For example, it does not claim that Dirkhising was drugged (in fact, as far as I know, none do: other sources only say he allegedly was drugged).

The entire two pages about Dirkhising can be found on Google Books: [1]

So if there are no objections, I will remove the Buchanan citations on all the statements except for the one where he is quoted. Also, the statements that say Dirkhising was drugged will need citations or will have to be removed. Did the jury (or anyone else) conclude that he was drugged, or was that just an allegation put forth by the prosecution? -kotra (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: the book does quote the AP quoting "police", saying that he was drugged. But I'm not sure if "police" via Associated Press via Pat Buchanan is a reliable source. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would accept it although I would also support adding "according to police" unless we feel either AP or Buchanan are misrepresenting this, in which case we could further qualify the statement. Buchanan is a well-respected American commentator who, I believe does regular Sunday political talkshows so is seen as somewhat influential and amongst the more well-known conservative voices. I don't see anything in those pages that seems off in some way accept that it's a more conservative POV which is OK for what they're quoting. And even though he's quoting other news sources we are relying on his version so do have to source it here. If we have the original sources, switching out in those cases would be fine as well. -- Banjeboi 05:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to verify the AP quote myself; of all the AP articles on the topic, I've only been able to find online a few, and none of them are the right one. But I would say it's unlikely Buchanan misquoted the article, so there's probably no problem. I would prefer to cite the AP article directly, though. Buchanan gives the following citation:

• David A. Lieb, "Two Men Accused of Murder, Rape of 13-Year-Old Boy," Associated Press, November 2, 1999.

Any objections? -kotra (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We have to keep Buchanan as the source per policy but we certainly could add that site within that ref as a note for clarity. If we switch over to the Harvard style that will be a little easier but for now you could simply created a new ref and add "as noted by _____" and add the link. -- Banjeboi 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure I understand you, you're saying we have to still mention "as noted by ____" because none of us have actually been able to verify the source, so essentially we are still relying on Buchanan's book as a source? If so, that makes sense to me. When I get a moment I'll make the citation as you suggest, using the {{cite news}} template. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Buchanan is the reliable source we are relying upon. If we had the original then we could replace it. -- Banjeboi 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made some of the Buchanan citations more specific, giving the specific citation first, then "as quoted by" followed by the Buchanan citation. I haven't seen this format used before, but I think it will serve. Also, I noticed one of the Buchanan citations was used redundantly beside the Andrew Sullivan citation it itself cites, so I removed it. Finally, I changed "He was also drugged" to "According to police, he was also drugged", to be more specific. I did not add "according to police" where it says he was drugged in the lead, though, because I couldn't think of a way in which it would flow well, and because I think we can probably be reasonably sure the police were not mistaken (I'm a bit uncertain about this, but I'll leave that up to someone else). -kotra (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Those all seem fine. Thanks for doing it. -- Banjeboi 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose move

This article is currently titled around the victim but the main body of the article generally revolves the crime itself as well as the events around and resulting from it; on that basis I propose that the article be moved to something like "The murder of Jesse Dirkhising". WP:BLP1E states "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event...Cover the event, not the person." this is already done in the (by all accounts very good) article, it is just not represented by the title (and first sentence in the lead). Guest9999 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we should drop the "The" and just have it be Murder of Jesse Dirkhising. -kotra (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Somehow I didn't notice that BLP doesn't apply in this case (subject is not living). Change position to neutral. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here as it's for protecting living people from being the subject of an article when they are only known for one event. The article is much better contextualized by talking about the murder victim rather than just the act itself. -- Banjeboi 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I should've noticed that the policy doesn't apply here. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article should remain as it's currently titled, "Jesse Dirkhising". Caden S (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Content changes

Looking into the recent edit war over the word "homosexual" and other changes to the prose, I checked the citations.

The CBS News article does in fact say "In police interviews, Brown characterized the assault on Jesse as "horesplay" and claimed Jesse was a willing participant." So I think the original version is better (though we may want to paraphrase it instead of saying it word-for-word unless it's a quote, for copyvio reasons).

The Randy Newman citation, on the other hand, is slightly more suspect. The statement "There is also speculation that Dirkhising was openly gay with some stating it." is apparently supported by this quote from a fictional character: "Okay. Jesse Dirkhising was also a young gay boy. He was only thirteen, and he, too, was killed in a terrible way. But he was killed by two older gay men." and the subsequent footnote: "This is a true story. You can read more about it in many places by doing an Internet search. Note, especially, how gay writers agree with the version of the story presented in this dialogue." Besides the quote not actually saying he was openly gay (just "gay", which can be a big difference), the quote is from a fictional character. While the author claims that "gay writers" agree with the version of the story described by the character, he doesn't say which gay writers, or assert that they actually agree with that particular detail of the story (the fictional character describes the story in much greater length than I quoted above). So I think both "There is also speculation that Dirkhising was openly gay with some stating it." and "There is differing speculation over Dirkhising's sexual orientation, with some believing he may have been confused." should both be removed, since neither is adequately supported by the citation, in my opinion. At the very least, though, "openly" should be removed.

As for the "homosexual" vs. "gay" dispute, I'm leaning towards "gay", not because I think "homosexual" is necessarily used pejoratively here, but because that's the term most of the sources use, and that's the term a proposed guideline prefers. -kotra (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kotra that the statement "There is also speculation that Dirkhising was openly gay with some stating it" should be removed. It does not support the source and is misleading to the readers. It's also POV in my opinion. I tried to replace that statement with "There is differing speculation over Dirkhising's sexual orientation, with some believing he may have been confused" but I think now this should be removed as well. In regards to the "homosexual" vs. "gay" dispute, I firmly believe that "homosexual" is the proper correct english word to be used here. I have not used this word pejoratively in the article and I would like to stress that here. Although the term "gay" seems to be the choice by the proposed guideline, I disagree. However, I'm open to hearing what other editors have to say on this matter. Caden S (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the whole sexuality speculation statement, and its Randy Newman reference which is now unused. Since there was no objection, I re-added the claim by Brown. I haven't changed "homosexual" back to "gay" since I don't feel strongly about it either way. Other editors are invited to give their opinions. -kotra (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the following discussion below from my user talk page and added it here at the request of Booker. Caden S (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual is almost always pejorative on biographies, gay, lesbian, bisexual or a self-descriptor is best. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello? It's the correct english word to use. Oh, and on a side-note please try to keep your biased POV in check when working on the Jesse Dirkhising article. Try to remember we have a NPOV policy that must be followed and respected. Caden S (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Random observation: Benjiboi is right on terminology - there has been a historical bias in using the word "homosexual" with a negative connotation to describe people, with an underlining motive to de-humanize them. Encyclopedias will use the terms gay, lesbian or bisexual/Bi; "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are typically used to describe the subject (sexual orientation), not an individual. Its the same grey area as using "black" vs "nergo" vs "African-American" - all of which have been appropriate for people of African decent at one time or another. For Gay and Lesbian individuals, its best not to habitually use the word "homosexual" to describe them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CadenS that homosexual is a correct and unambiguous english adjective. The problems that some perceive about using it, such as it being perjorative or being (for some) unacceptable when used as a noun, are due to intolerance of the sexual activity described and not to any misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. The same comment applies to the word lesbian. The popular(?) substitute word gay is ambiguous and it is a recent construction intended as a euphemism and/or political rallying term. An encyclopedia should use homosexual except when correctly quoting a proper name that contains Gay. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cuddlyable for sharing your thoughts here. You explained them quite well. Regardless of what the editors above say, "homosexual" is indeed the correct english word (much like the word heterosexual) and it should be used as such. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia should use it, instead of using the more (political correct) common slang word. By the way, I think you should express your opinion on this issue over at the AN/I page. I'm no longer paying any attention to the thread, but a complaint was filed over this matter. Caden S (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if we're using print encyclopedias as a role model for wikipedia (such as the text books and encyclopedias used in universities and junior colleges to instruct students), that fact is they don't use "homosexual" to describe individuals. Homosexual is used to describe a form of sexual orientation, but if a text book or encyclopedia begin speaking on a specific individual, they will substitute the word gay or lesbian to describe them. For instance, my text book for my Human Sexuality class Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity states (bolding and italics are as seen in the book):

A homosexual orientation refers to an erotic attraction to, and interest in forming romantic relationships with, member's of one's own sex. The term homosexuality denotes sexual interest in members of one's own anatomic sex and applies to both men and women. Homosexual men are often referred to as gay males. Homosexual women are often called lesbians. Now that we have defined homosexuality, let us note that the term is somewhat controversial. Some gay poeple object to it because they feel that it draws attention to sexual behaviour. Moreover, the term bears a social stigma. It has also been historically associated with concepts of deviance and mental illness.

— page 287, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With The Bookkeper I think it reasonable to use print encyclopedias as a guide for Wikipedia. However I do not say "role model" since that would neglect Wikipedia's pioneering inovations such as it's free distribution, free input, timeliness and expanding scope.

The textbook cited by Bookeeper refers literally to Homosexual men, with an obvious implication that one can refer to A homosexual man. It mentions a minority's (Some gay poeple[sic]'s) preference to substitute "gay" for homosexual. It does NOT claim that "print encylopedias..don't use homosexual to describe individuals".

It is easy to show a counter example:

By early 1894 Queensberry concluded the Wilde was most likely a homosexual...after the trials homosexuals were seen more as a threat.

— http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/wildeaccount.html, The Trials of Oscar Wilde: An Account by Douglas O. Linder

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the "adjective is acceptable, noun is pejorative" thing

Sorry to butt in, but I just want to offer my two cents on that one aspect of this. My father has cerebral palsy and has been confined to a wheelchair his entire life. I am certainly not one of those who prefer the term "differently-abled" (that's actually a bit insulting.. it's not like my father can walk differently than everyone else, haha), and I have no problem with saying "My dad is handicapped." However, I occasionally will hear a handicapped person referred to as just "a handicapped," i.e. the adjective has become the noun. It always makes me cringe when I hear that. I really, really, really don't care for it. By making the adjective the noun, you make it the central defining characteristic, taking precedence even over "person" or "man".

You are certainly not going to see me siding with the PC police in general, but on this one issue, I gotta agree. Using an adjective as a noun to describe a person is not preferred. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)