Talk:Murder of Jesse Dirkhising

Critical View of Media

I found this article quite critical. :| --ILovEJPPitoC 16:33, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Omg! Homos can be disgusting! But the media won't tell anyone because its "politically incorrect" Its sick.

critical of who or what? Adam 00:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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)

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)

What happened to Jesse Dirkhising is unimaginably horrible, but this article has some serious problems. It has been plagiarized word-for-word from various anti-gay websites. The article's connection to this poor kid is tenuous in that, as stated above, it is really all about comparing the media's coverage of this heinous crime to the coverage in the Matthew Shepard case. The premise of that comparison is questionable at best, because while the murder of Jesse Dirkhising was heinous, heinous, heinous, it cannot arguably be called a hate crime. If you disagree with that, perhaps you should take that up with the United States Department of Justice. It was the hate crime aspect of Matthew Shepard's murder that garnered all the attention when compared to Jesse Dirkhising, not that one person's life is worth more than another's. Ultimately, this article should be rewritten so that it is about Jesse Dirkhising and the crime in a non-POV way. Grabbing an entire article off of websites cheapens the value of Wikipedia, for sure.

This article needs verifiable sources, preferably with links to reputable news sites etc. covering the story. Mistercow 15:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

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)

It just needs to tone down the anti-conservative rhetoric in the controversies section. Harro5 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

The largest issue that I see with the manner in which this particular article is written is not the lack of objectivity, but the lack of resource citation. I believe there really needs to be more formality involved in the citation and less "so-and-so said this". Etoulania

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.203.147 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC2)

• I have tried to go through the article and provide some citations. It probably needs someone to go through it who has access to more US media sources than I have for the response from the Washington Post and other sources cited. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Victim's Sexuality

I read that Jesse was gay. His mother spoke to a newspaper or media outlet and said that her son was gay and told her about the two men he met several weeks before he died. (Anonymous User) May 30, 2006

homosexual paedophile

Is there any hard evidence that this is exactly what his killers were? If someone in the media or in court said that this is what they were, then we can include it with an appropriate citation, otherwise, just stick to the facts that it was two men. --Hetar 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is likely the murderer in question was neither a pedophile (Kenning), nor a homosexual (Groth). This term shouldn't be used in the absense of hard evidence the killer was both a) exclusively attracted to the same sex, & b) sexually preferential for prepubescent children. Wikipedia's here to assert facts, not uneducated guesses. JayW 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm not aware of any U.S. law that defines child molesters as pedophiles. -Will Beback 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true either. Age of consent laws in the US range from a low of 12 to a high of 18. Few would call an adult sexually attracted to 18-year-olds a paedophile, or probably even an adult sexually attracted to 17- or 16-year-olds. Exploding Boy 03:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe there is, but that has nothing to do with this article. The question is what the two men should be called, and as of now we still haven't come up with anything appropriate. Barring some new, reliable source, let's just leave things as they are for now. Exploding Boy 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

The murderers were clearly both homosexuals and pedophiles. However, if you want to mention this fact, it would be better to do so in a manner that reports objective facts. --SpinyNorman 22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Intro

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)

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)

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)

I'm not objecting to the description, but to the phrase "as described below." Exploding Boy 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

actually, I believe I misread you. What do you mean...why is "as described below" offensive? --Strothra 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"As a result of the torture is fine." It's "as described below" part I'm objecting to (as, um, described above). Exploding Boy 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

The part where you say "as a result of the torture, described below" is unnecessary, tasteless, and sensationalistic in tone. Is this really so confusing? Exploding Boy 04:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes because you haven't explained yourself. You're simply repeating the same empty, non-specific, words. "as a result of the torture, described below" is merely a statement of fact. Nothing more. He died as a result of the torture. The torture is described below the introduction. Either way, the description of the murder is still written below so I don't object to removing the words "as described below". --Strothra 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about now? --Strothra 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. Now how about the business about Matthew Shepard? Exploding Boy 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I think I agreed to that earlier...gimme a sec and I'll propose something. --Strothra 04:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this?:

Jesse Dirkhising (May 24, 1986–September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999. Dirkhising died as a result of the torture. Ensuing controversy over the media-attention given, or lack thereof, to Dirkhising's murder struck up national debate regarding the mainstream media and what some percieved to be its political correctness toward homosexuals.

--Strothra 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• How about "lack of media attention" given that it received very little media attention. Capitalistroadster 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

What about this?:

Jesse Dirkhising (May 24, 1986–September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999, and died as a result. Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals.

? Exploding Boy 04:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Capitalist. I can't really go that far. I really prefer "Dirkhising died as a result of the torture" and the following final sentance. I really see nothing wrong with since it's neither false nor POV:

Jesse Dirkhising (May 24, 1986–September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy who was kidnapped, raped and tortured in 1999. Dirkhising died as a result of the torture. Ensuing controversy over the lack of media attention to Dirkhising's murder struck up national debate regarding the mainstream media and what some percieved to be its political correctness toward homosexuals.

--Strothra 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals" is a better way of putting it. Exploding Boy 05:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Just in the introduction, yes. I've just re-read the article, and the entire issue of how much coverage there was is controversial. Best to deal with it in the article than to try to explain it in the lead-in. Exploding Boy 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Kidnapping

I'm not completely sure if he was kidnapped. I've been reading some things in the past couple days which refer to a history of the boy having pseudo-sexual encounters with at least one of the two men. You may want to check into whether he arrived on his own will or not. Although, I think it may also be feasible to say that once the torture began it was probably kidnapping. --Strothra 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I agree, although I don't know what you mean by "pseudo-sexual."

Also, would you please stop reverting things in the article? The term homosexual agenda does exist. Whether it's specifically mentioned in the sources is irrelevant; it's clear that those who accused the media of pandering to "homosexuals" by playing down this murder were accusing them of pandering the so-called "homosexual agenda." Exploding Boy 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well we'll say that it exists but I believe that the fact that you're putting words into other peoples' mouths would make your edits POV thus we're back to having a POV dispute over this article. By pseudo-sexual I meant that the descriptions I was reading of their previous encounters were of a sexual nature but not actually sex. What I read stated that neither of them had ever penetrated the boy before the night in which he was murdered. That may have actually been in the affidavit now that I recall. --Strothra 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Look, if you don't know the term "homosexual agenda" and you don't know what it is, you can't make the claim that I'm putting words in other people's mouths. It's absolutely ridiculous that you'd replace the POV tag on that basis. The article is fine now that we've spent hours discussing it and working on it. I'm asking you to remove that tag.

As for "pseudo-sexual," a lack of penetration does not make sexual activity any less "sex." But whatever. As long as you're not planning to put that in the article, we can deal with it later.

As for "kidnap," the definitions are somewhat unclear in some cases. It's my understanding that Dirkising went to and entered the house voluntarily, so I'm not sure that he was actually "kidnapped," although he was confined. The question is whether his confinement was voluntary, which we'll never know, so let's get rid of this word altogether. Exploding Boy 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't do that in this case. I prefer things to be as empirical as possible. If the facts don't point to them stating an objection to the "homosexual agenda" then it shouldn't exist. It's an outside idea being put into the article and is origional research. I no longer claim that the term doesn't exist but I don't feel that it should be applied here since there's no citation of these parties referring to the "homosexual agenda." --Strothra 17:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true at all given the number of uncited claims made in the article. It's not an "outside idea" and it's not original research. Again, you don't seem to know what the term means. I think you're being unnecessarily strident about this. There is absolutely no reason for a POV tag to be on this article, so I'm removing it.

By the way, even if it was original research, a POV tag wouldn't be appropriate. Exploding Boy 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to edit war over it so you may do that. I'd like to see more voices weigh in on this article now though. You should keep in mind, however, that an ongoing dispute over POV means that the tag should remain. --Strothra 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. So what's non-neutral about the article? Nothing that I can see. The big remaining problems are the lack of citations (there's a tag for that) and the format of the references. Exploding Boy 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just work on those for now. --Strothra 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The victim was not kidnapped, he met them four weeks prior. During that four weeks they had sex together regularly. He told his mother about the men sometime in the four weeks. (Anonymous User) 19 June 2006 -- posted by User:66.212.40.155

Were either of the perps actually convicted or even indicted on kidnapping charges? If not, do the verdicts against them mention kidnapping or false imprisonment as an aggravating factor? The findings of a court would go a long way toward solving this dispute. --squirrel 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

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)

Second sentence

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)

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)