Talk:Terry Bean

Accusation of Child Rape

Here is yet another citation documenting that Terrence Patrick Bean was accused of child rape. Materialscientist recently reverted, without discussion, a cite which identified Terrence Patrick Bean as an accused child rapist. I have found yet another article which identifies him as an accused child rapist: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/11/20/kiah-lawson-terry-bean-human-rights-campaign-gay-sex-obama-prison-column/70021560/ If you continue to revert documented facts, it would be better if you first discuss the matter on that article's TALK page. Frysay (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Frysay (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Its covered in Terry_Bean#Sex_abuse_accusation. Since its not what he's most known for there is no reason to put it in the first sentence. Please note that the reference used on the page doesn't say "child" or "rapist". Haminoon (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are a bit late at justifying the edits you have rudely made. Your first sentence, "Since its not what he's most known for there is no reason to put it in the first sentence.", even if true, would merely justify you changing the position of the child-rape citation to elsewhere in the article, rather than you removing it entirely. But no, you decided to sanitize the article, rather than to improve the article by making a constructive and informative edit. (This is proven by the fact that you didn't, previously, explain your prior reverts on the subject: You were merely being obstructive, not helpful.) That, therefore, is utterly bad-faith. Secondly, the citation I found, from usatoday, specifically DOES have a headline, "Shhhhh - Top Obama bundler accused of child rape: Column". It is a highly bad-faith act of yours to merely revert, rather than to correct in a way which employs the cites that you were already aware of, in the article. You are also quite wrong to say "Since its not what he's most known for...". That may very well have been true PRIOR to November 19, 2014, but things have changed immensely: As of that date, the thing that Bean is best known for _IS_ his child-rape accusation, and that will continue for the rest of his life. If you make the mistake of challenging that, I need merely ask you to Google-search the name "Larry Brinkin", a person who really became famous in 2012. The first 20 pages of the Google-search results (hundreds of individual citations; done just a moment ago) for "Larry Brinkin" virtually all refer to what Brinkin was accused of doing in 2012: Tellingly, Brinkin was claimed only to have possessed child-pornography, not engaging in child-rape. Astonishingly, a search in WP itself for "Larry Brinkin" now shows that references to him have become almost entirely removed, thus sanitizing the subject. This makes me wonder if the same people who sanitized the name "Larry Brinkin" in WP are the same ones who want to manipulate the Terrence Patrick Bean article now. No wonder people like you are repeatedly reverting expanded references to this incident, without any documentation or comment on the Talk page. If you've never read George Orwell's book, "1984", read it and tell me what you are doing is different that that of that book's protagonist, Winston Smith. If you think that Bean is being unfairly treated, his neighbor has been talking to the local media, telling them of the numerous young boys he let into his condominium. Frysay (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frysay, please don't misrepresent my editing. The editing history and my comment above are quite clear. Before you make any further accusations I suggest you read wp:blp and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Terminology so you can understand why many of your edits were grossly inappropriate. Pretending that Wikipedia has a category called "American sodomites" is not good-faith. Haminoon (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously confusing me with someone else. I was not involved with your long series of edit-warring, including weeks ago. I saw that you reverted references to Bean being a "child-rapist": You were right, to the extent that he wasn't convicted yet. But you were also wrong, because you should have inserted the word "alleged" into the text, rather than to completely revert it. (I was uninvolved in all of that, having never edited this article before.) But later, when I found that USAToday reference that specifically called the accusation 'child rape', I decided to get involved and revert the newly-proven edit, with the text that your opponent had attempted to compromise with. (with the "alleged" wording intact.) About the most charitable thing I could say about you is that I think when you continued to revert, you did so because your mind was "on auto-pilot" and you weren't thinking. The "weren't thinking" is proven when you said, above, "...so you can understand why many of your edits were grossly inappropriate". Many of my edits?!? Hey I only made TWO (2) edits, the same one! And it wasn't "grossly inappropriate". It was your revisions which were "grossly inappropriate". Unfortunately, WP has made it far too easy to revert, rather than actually correct an edit or remove misleading components. Frysay (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frysay: Apologies I did misremember who had made which edits. With regard to your own edits, please see my first comment above. I have added a sentence to the lede to summarise the abuse accusation. I haven't included the word "child" because to most people in the world a 15-year-old isn't a child. I also didn't include "charged with sodomy" because I have no idea what that means. Please don't tell editors what they should be adding - we're all volunteers here and have lives outside Wikipedia. When we are patrolling for bad edits we aren't obliged to improve the page straight away. Regards, Haminoon (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, one comment you made above was: "Pretending that Wikipedia has a category called "American sodomites" is not good-faith.". While you now remember that it was not me who used the term, "sodomite", here is a pointer to the indictment that charged Terrence Patrick Bean with three (3) counts of Sodomy. So, that makes him an charged sodomite. http://www.scribd.com/doc/249571281/TERRENCE-PATRICK-BEAN-SODOMY-INDICTMENT Frysay (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what "third degree sodomy" means, but I maintain that it is impolite to call people "sodomites". Haminoon (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a word I would ordinarily choose, either. I myself don't (or at least didn't until a moment ago, when I looked it up in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)) know what "third degree sodomy" is, but now I've found the legal definition: § 163.385¹ Sodomy in the third degree (1) A person commits the crime of sodomy in the third degree if the person engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age or causes that person to engage in deviate sexual intercourse. (2) Sodomy in the third degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §112]" Second degree sodomy is under age 14; First degree sodomy is under the age 12.

This matter is important because it appears that Bean has engaged in sex with many underage boys than the mere existing charge would imply. See this article from Willamette Week: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-22648-terry_beans_problem.html See also this video in YouTube, at 1:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4427N0oIIc "But his neighbor tells me he's seen young men here frequently with Bean". Worse, for many months Bean ran a surveillance system, with a camera above his bed, which one victim discovered and reported to the police. Frysay (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the Sex abuse accusation section should be expanded a bit and the "third degree sodomy" explained (because the Oregon legal definition isn't one that many people would understand). Its important not to overload the lede though. Haminoon (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there are a number of bad-faith editors wanting to conceal the fact that the news media (CNN and USAToday, who are generally thought of as being Reliable Sources) identified Terrence Patrick Bean as being accused of child-rape. Moreover, these edits don't want to discuss the merits of this (and many other) edits, as clearly evidenced by the lack of entries into this Talk page since mid-November 2014, when these child-rape accusations were first publicized. Anyone who challenges such edits should discuss the matter BEFORE reverting, or at least at the time the edit is made, as I have done. Frysay (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frysay: A bad faith edit is when you revert someone who undoes you because of different POVs. Consensus has not been established whether to include the statement in the intro or not. Till then, it should NOT be added to the article. As stated by User:Haminoon, it is already mentioned further below. Till consensus is reached, I request you to please refrain from adding the statement to the lead. Undoing and telling people to read the talk page is pointless here because there is nothing in the talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have claimed that as of after November 19, 2014, the thing that Terrence Patrick Bean is _BEST_ known for is the child-rape allegations, as sad as that will make a class of people. I have demonstrated that quite effectively, by citing the case of Larry Brinkin, who well over 2 years after his arrest on child-pornography charges, is almost entirely 'remembered', by Google-Search, for that 2012 arrest, and almost nothing else that came before it. Bean will fare no better. You claim that "consensus has not been established", but it appears that during the period of November 9, 2014 through yesterday nobody even bothered to write a single word in this Talk page in an effort to establish that consensus. You said "Undoing and telling people to read the talk page is pointless here because there is nothing in the talk page.". Oh really? As in, nothing I have written here exists? The page remains blank, even today? The reality is, YOU DON'T WANT there to be anything in the Talk page! That's why you, and everyone else, failed to write ANYTHING here, until I did so. The people who are editing this article cannot fail to write into the Talk page, and then claim that the (now-counter-factual) lack of text somehow is evidence of a 'lack of consensus'. There NOW is text on the talk page, which unless you are blind you will be able to read quite readily. Frysay (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frysay:, Accusing me of not editing the talk page and not wanting anything is exactly what is again, an example of bad faith editing. The truth here is I don't know anything about the topic, and I am least bothered. I undid your edit because it seems to violate WP:BLP when it popped up in front of me on WP:Stiki. Accusing us of failing to write here until you did so is bad faith simply because this isn't some important article that everyone is monitoring on a per second basis. Please read WP:AGF and WP:BLP before arguing about what is good faith and what is not. Thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you admit that "The truth here is I don't know anything about the topic, and I am least bothered.", then maybe you ought to study the edit history here before involving yourself. My use of the word "you", above, was general, directed at all of the people who had been edit-warring on this article, yet simultaneously failing to discuss the matter on the Talk page. And no, my edit DIDN'T "seem[] to violate WP-BLP", otherwise you would have explained why. You just find that to be a convenient excuse at the moment. The accusation was well-documented by both CNN and USAToday. You say "this isn't some important article that everyone is monitoring on a per second basis.", but that is disingenuous because IT HAS _BECOME_ a moderately important article due to recent events. And no, I am not violating WP's policy of "Assume Good Faith". Facts and history can disprove "good faith", and collectively they have done so in this instance, even before you showed up. It's way too convenient for you to show up and revert my edit, when the other people who have been editing this article since about November 19, 2014 have been suspiciously silent on the subject in the Talk page. Among _them_, I think I have successfully demonstrated consensus, at least for the purpose of justifying the edit. Further discussion can occur, and will presumably do so. Frysay (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frysay: As I stated earlier, I undid your edit with Stiki. I did NOT come hunting for your edit specifically. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

But above, you admitted that "I undid your edit because it seems to violate WP:BLP...". I put great emphasis on your own word, "SEEMS to violate...". Without any attempt by you to explain or justify that "seems", neither at the time nor later. Why, exactly, did you think that my edit "seem[ed]" to violate WP:BLP? Was it simply because you didn't like the content? A previous edit (by somebody else) called this guy a "child rapist". That edit was wrong, in large part because the allegation had not yet been proven, merely charged. To report that news media claimed he was charged with child rape ("sexual abuse of a minor") sounded then, and still sounds, like an accurate assessment of the facts. You have a responsibility to address these issues now. Frysay (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: I am still waiting for you to answer the questions that I have asked in the above paragraph. You said my edit "seem[ed] to violate WP:BLP. Naturally, I want to know why you claimed that. This article is, of course, a "biography of a living person". But not all edits into such an article even arguably violate WP:BLP policy. Frysay (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse" is called proper label by WP article Sexual Abuse if the person is under age of consent.

From the lede of the WP:Sexual Abuse article: "When the victim is younger than the age of consent, it is referred to as child sexual abuse." I will correct this. Frysay (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Haminoon: No, my edit wasn't redundant. Here's why: My addition of "child" to "child sexual abuse" indicates that the victim in question was under the age of consent. But the fact that the age was given as "15" doesn't inform the reader what the age of consent was in the jurisdiction in question. Unless the reader was already aware of the age of consent in Oregon, he wouldn't know that sex with a 15-year-old counted, legally speaking, as a specific level of offense in that state. In any case, I was following the instructions in the page "Sexual Abuse" when I added that word, "child". You didn't explain why you felt that rule was inappropriate to follow. Frysay (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also unsourced. The reference does not say "child sexual abuse". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct. It would be correct to say that the cited source didn't specifically say the words "child sexual abuse". But the facts of the underlying incident, and the fact that the article identified the age of the victim (15), indicated that the offense amounted to "child sexual abuse". And, do a Google-search for "terry bean 'child sexual abuse'" and you'll see numerous references to the Bean incident as being labelled "child sexual abuse". Examples: http://kxl.com/2014/11/20/prominent-gay-activist-lover-arrested-for-child-sex-abuse/ http://www.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/top-obama-donor-and-co-founder-of-gay-rights-group-indicted-for-child-sex-abuse-5822734701428736 Perhaps one of those news reports ought to be cited as a source, but I think it's anal (no pun intended, but I'll take what I can get!) to object to the use of the term "child sexual abuse" merely because one specific source doesn't spell out that term. Frysay (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Haminooon and NeilN: Do you concede? You haven't responded to my most recent comment(s) to either of you. Frysay (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we stick to what the actual charges are, not headlines. Per one of your sources, "Bean was charged with two counts of third-degree sodomy, a felony, and one count of third-degree sex abuse, a misdemeanor, according to the paper." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Above, you claimed "The reference does not say "child sexual abuse"". Immediately above, you said, "No, we stick to what the actual charges are, not headlines." Which is it? Frysay (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)