Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Wikipedians in California may be able to help!

1, 2, 3

Sadly, the E.O. Green School shooting page is, and always has been POV and that must be corrected asap. The article is misleading to the reader due to the fact that it lacks neutrality from beginning to end. Only one biased view is mentioned throughout and it is misleading to the readers as it appears to serve a political agenda. This goes against the NPOV policy we have here on Misplaced Pages. Let me share with you some of the POV issues facing the current article. The article claims, "It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a "feminine" manner." This strikes me as misleading and POV. Newsweek gives us another take on this which would balance things out concerning NPOV. It's been reported that the motive for King being shot was because he was sexually harassing and stalking Brandon McInerney. And I quote directly from Newsweek, "he (King) was allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger." Why is this not mentioned in the article? Furthermore, the current biased Misplaced Pages article says, "It was alleged that the suspect's motivation for the crime was that King was gay". Well guess what folks? It has also been alleged that King bullied, stalked, and sexually harassed McInerney daily and that McInerney was the victim of King's unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances. Newsweek mentions this but yet none of this appears in the current, non-neutral, and extremely biased Misplaced Pages article. Why not? Whatever happened to the NPOV policy that so many editors on here scream and cry about? And there's still a lot more POV issues in the article, like for example the Valentine part. It reads, "The shooting occurred shortly after King had asked McInerney to be his valentine, and prosecutors took this as evidence that the shooting was a hate crime". This is misleading and stinks of POV, it falsely implies that McInerney was homophobic and there is no documented proof of this. Infact McInerney has not been found guilty of this hateful allegation. However, the Newsweek article says differently, it says:"And then there was Valentine's Day. A day or two before the shooting, the school was buzzing with the story about a game Larry was playing with a group of his girlfriends in the outdoor quad. The idea was, you had to go up to your crush and ask them to be your Valentine. Several girls named boys they liked, then marched off to complete the mission. When it was Larry's turn, he named Brandon, who happened to be playing basketball nearby. Larry walked right on to the court in the middle of the game and asked Brandon to be his Valentine. Brandon's friends were there and started joking that he and Larry were going to make "gay babies" together." I think this gives a clearer picture on the whole Valentine situation. I'm not sure how you can add some NPOV to the Valentine part but I believe it can and must be done. Also the Response section is biased and yet again stinks of POV, it clearly supports a political agenda, the homosexual one. Misplaced Pages is not a platform to promote an agenda. If this section must be included well then where's the support section for McInerney? Newsweek refers to him having plenty of support, "Hundreds of his classmates have signed a petition asking that he be tried in juvenile court." It's even mentioned in the article that he has support from teachers, one said, "We failed Brandon, we didn't know the bullying was coming from the other side—Larry was pushing as hard as he could, because he liked the attention." Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article for the sake of NPOV? The Newsweek article of July 28, 2008 should be used as a reliable source in order to maintain some NPOV and to solve the articles current biased, misleading and misinformed take on things. Caden S (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the homosexual agenda. Right. I must say, it's remarkable how different our readings of the Newsweek article are. I saw nothing in it to suggest that King bullied, stalked and sexually harassed his murderer. Indeed, and this is my own point of view, I don't think it could be any clearer that King was murdered as a direct result of homophobia, whether because McInerney personally found King's homosexuality intolerable, or because he feared others would think he himself was gay because of King's open crush on him (there are some creepy parallels to the Scott Amedure case). Your suggestion is what? That McInerney murdered King because King was bullying him?? I think, and again this is my opinion, that is ludicrous. If anything reeks of a political agenda, it's that attempt at spinning the story. But back to the facts. Properly cited, well-sourced information can of course be added to the article, as long as it's used properly, which is to say, not in an attempt to create bias. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I could care less what you think or what your personal point of view is. My suggestion to you is to stick to the content and to focus on the points I brought up concerning the POV in this Misplaced Pages article. As it stands now it stinks due to the fact that it is biased and lacks neutrality. The current sourced information in the article has been used to create a biased page and reads as such. Caden S (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you (or couldn't you?). I re-read the article and I simply don't see the problems you see. I don't think it is biased or non-neutral. In fact, I think it's quite neutral. Your point of view (which you discuss at length above) is that it isn't. See where I'm going with this? Your opinions about the homosexual agenda and your view of the case are as relevant to the article as my views of the case, which is to say not at all. So as I said, feel free to add properly cited, well-sourced facts to the article, but save the rants about political agendas for somewhere else. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before I could care less what you think or believe. I, too, have re-read the article and it still reeks of POV. It's far, far from being neutral. I have made some small changes to help fix the biased POV facing this page but I used the Newsweek article as the reliable source. As for your bogus accusation of me ranting about political agendas, that's just silly. The article alone does that. Stick to the content and not your POV agenda. Caden S (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, maybe you could tone down the hostility a little. Second, your entire argument seems to be that the article is POV because you disagree with it based on your preferred source. First, you removed the category Hate crimes, although the hate crime allegation was sourced here: "Ventura County prosecutors charged a 14-year-old boy with the shooting death of a classmate Thursday and said the killing in an Oxnard classroom was a premeditated hate crime." The Newsweek article you like so much also calls it a "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the murder of Matthew Shepard" . Then you restored that, but added the phrase "bullied and sexually harassed ." There are two sources, one is the Newsweek article, which says nothing of the sort, and the other, the Ventura County Star, which also says... nothing of the sort (but also mentions "hate crime"). In your last edit, you again removed the hate crimes category. Perhaps you could enumerate your specific problems with the content here, because I fail to see how you have improved the neutrality of the article at all at this point. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Caden S, the article reeks of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.33.26 (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

— 74.192.33.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Becksguy (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Newsweek article is cited three times. Have your POV concerns been addressed, Caden? Is it time to remove the POV template? --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Moni, I think it's time to remove it also. — Becksguy (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you Becksguy. No Moni, my POV concerns have not been addressed. The template remains until change is made to achieve a fair and clean NPOV. Caden S (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. What remains to be added or altered, in your opinion? --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I think many of the points I mentioned in my first post above is a start. I think some of it should be added for the sake of NPOV. Caden S (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your post, and noticed you had made some edits to the article. The Newsweek article, which you had mentioned several times there, is cited three times, as I said. Between your original post, your edits, and the use of the Newsweek article, surely not all your points remain? If so, is there any particular reason you have not resolved this yourself? Clearly you feel pretty strongly about it, be bold and all. If there's something I can do to help remove the tag, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Moni, some of my concerns still remain. In particular, the Response section. It's biased, POV, serves to promote a political agenda and is quite frankly, over kill. Furthermore, it implies to readers that King was some type of martyr which he clearly was not. Several news sources, such as the Newsweek article reveal that he was far from being a martyr. Also, the Criticism of the school section could be expanded a bit. I think that could be a good idea. If you feel you can do something to help remove the tag, then please do. Caden S (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i sbave to agree with Caden. a lot of article seems to be wirten from a liberal/leftist POV, and while i am not accusing anyeditor of doing this on purpose, it is clear that this has to be corrected for the improvement of the qualite of the article. Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(resent indent)The best approach to this or any article is to state the facts as dryly as possible, although witness and expert quotes are appropriate. If the volume of news reaction was sympathetic to King, that should be reflected in the article. However, if there were more conservative articles in the news that cast doubts on King as a martyr, or devoid of any responsibility in the incident, then they should also be reflected. If you have access to the Washington Times, check their archives. FOX News is also a suggestion. The Response section on the face appears to be based on fact, although rememberinglawrence.org and Queerty do not appear to be reliable sources. It may not be difficult to replace them, however.

Caden, it would help if you were able to highlight the passages that you think are POV. Ideally, in bullet points here on the talk page. We have to be able to agree where the problems are before they are fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've read the article and contributed a few edits before, and I fail to see what exactly is POV. Smith Jones feels that this "seems to be wirten from a liberal/leftist POV." Again, what exactly is your objection? These kinds of vague statements do nothing to help editors see what your objections are. AniMate 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stayed away from this page lately because I find allegations of agendas counterproductive, but I want to weigh in here with two points. First, to Caden's credit, he has finally mentioned some specifics rather than merely claiming it's not neutral or questioning the motivations of other editors. This was a constructive change, and I sincerely applaud it. Second, I have downloaded, printed, and read the Newsweek piece very carefully and fail to see that it supports claims that the deceased bullied or stalked the alleged shooter. As for sexual harassment, that is probably too subjective a term to work here without being POV in and of itself; it's arguable but would require both a leap of faith and an extremely loose definition of sexual harassment, neither of which is justified by an objective reading of the Newsweek article. Given the strong feelings surrounding the topic, I suspect that POV allegations will continue to surface here regardless of whether consensus is achieved to remove the template now. Such is life, such is Misplaced Pages. Still, I think the template should go. Rivertorch (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I have already answered your question in my original post. Please take a look at my quoted passages taken from the Misplaced Pages article, these quotes are what I believe are POV as well as the entire Response Section. AniMate, I fail to see what exactly you are trying to say here. Your post is extremely vague and is not helpful due to the fact it lacks clarity. You need to explain why you believe the article is NPOV. You need to use examples to show why you believe this. Have a look at my original post and please do the same. Rivertorch, thank you for the positive feedback. It's great to finally have an editor compliment my work and progress. And Smith Jones, I couldn't agree with you more. Caden S (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden, I promise I read your post. When I weeded out what could not be addressed, these are the points that remain: three issues that have apparently been taken care of.

If you are unable to enumerate specific examples of what you consider to be POV language that has not already been addressed, the POV template will be removed. You are the editor who has brought this issue to the attention of other editors. You placed the POV template at the top of the page. It is not up to those watching the article to prove how it is NPOV, but for you to justify the template. I'm willing to work with you here, but I do not know what more remains to be discussed. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand Moni. I am one of the editors that brought up the POV issus, however, I am not the editor that placed the POV template at the top of the page. It was another editor who did that and it appears to me that he or she may have been driven away from this article through frustration over those who insist this article is NPOV. Furthermore, I honestly don't understand the last part of your chart. Where's the Response section to McInerney's side? It's nowhere mentioned in the main article. Caden S (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems remain.

Plus I would note that Caden has now removed two "See also" links, one to Hate crime and the other to Gay panic defence. As I mentioned above, the "hate crime" allegation is supported by at least two sources. Gay panic defence is clearly related, since McInerney shot King after King publicly revealed his affections for him. Again, I fail to see how Caden's edits are improving the article's neutrality; on the contrary, they seem to be making it less neutral. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, look, supported or not it has not been proven in a court of law. I should also note that your post to your LGBT project to rally others onto this discussion, appears to me as a thinly veiled excuse to insure your POV. That's not fair. Am I wrong? Caden S (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think what is needed is a rewrite of the Overview section. Instead of speculating on his motives, perhaps we should just law out the facts and let readers speculate what his motive was. I've added this to the hate crime category, but haven't reinserted the see also hate crime, as the article is linked in the lead. AniMate 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again AniMate. See my edit summary. Caden S (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I've altered the article quite a bit, reflecting what has been reported in the LA Times and the Newsweek article. I've removed the sources that are not reliable, including rememberinglarry.org and Queerty. Claims made in those sources need to be found elsewhere in better ones (specifically that Barack Obama expressed his sympathies). I can do that, but not for a couple hours or so. Much of the difficulty with the article is the poor construction of it. I hope that has taken care of many of the problems. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The rewrite helps, but I'm somewhat confused by your removal of the LA Times article that specifies that he is being charged with a hate crime. It specifically lays out that prosecutors are calling this hate crime. AniMate 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hmmm. Well, I think I...what did I do there? Let me see if I can get it back..Although I pulled up all stories relating to King in the LA Times and that one didn't come up. Although the hate crime issue is cited twice in the text below the lead. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright the article is beginning to look a lot better. Thanks Moni. Caden S (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there, AniMate. Thanks for putting it back. One I took out because it was from a blog, but what is there now is fine. Caden, et al, are we about ready to take the POV template off? Sorry I thought that was you who put the template there. I'm reading through to consider taking off the cleanup template. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reinserted the hate crimes category. Having this shooting categorized as a hate crime isn't a reflection on McInerney's guilt or innocence, and it isn't a judgment on whether or not he is guilty of a hate crime. Rather, he has been charged with a hate crime and debate about whether or not this is a hate crime and the eventual resolution of the trial with the hate crime special circumstances makes this page relevant to the hate crime categories. A category isn't hateful, and as this isn't a biography of the suspect there's no reason for this category to be removed that I can see. AniMate 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having this as a category is both misleading and POV. Being charged and being guilty are two separate things. This is not a hate crime. There is no reliable source that can confirm that this has been proven to be true in a court of law. Your reasonings appear to me as an accuse to insure your POV. This category you keep re-adding is hateful and it's not true in this case. Only the courts can decide that, not you. Where you there? How do you know what Brandon McInerney was feeling or thinking? Did you see the murder? I think not. Caden S (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the distinction that must qualify an article with the designation of hate crime category? That the case is prosecuted as one or that the hate crime prosecution must be successful? --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the distinction is for that. I would think the case would need to be successfully prosecuted as one before such a misleading and hateful category is added. Caden S (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Category:Hate_crimes: "This category contains articles about incidents that either were prosecuted as hate crimes or were clearly and reliably reported as such." We can ask on the discussion page, but the difference between past and present tense to me sounds like semantics. It is currently being prosecuted as a hate crime. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a little too confusing. The "or were clearly and reliably reported as such" part is bizarre. Caden S (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing wiki policy doesn't have to hold up in court. You can still ask for clarification, though. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys don't over think this. There's nothing bizarre about the statement. Alexander Koptsev, who was heavily influenced by Neo-Nazi literature walked into a synagogue and stabbed several people. Russia has no hate crime laws, but most reliable secondary sources referred to it as a hate crime. I suppose there could be some arguments made for removing him from the category, but this article clearly qualifies as it is being prosecuted as a hate crime. It's clear cut. If you want to remove it, I'd suggest changing the qualifications for the category, though arguing that a crime being prosecuted as a hate crime shouldn't be included would take some amazing arguments. AniMate 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ani, it's not clear cut as you pretend it to be. Please stop pushing your POV on this matter. Cut it out already. Now, Moni where can I get clarification on this? Caden S (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I do so love being dismissed and called a pov pusher from someone who is so obviously neutral himself.</sarcasm> You can choose to take this up on the category talk page, but there isn't much traffic there. You might do the same at the talk page for the article on Hate crimes, but that doesn't strike me as the right venue either. My suggestion is to either file a request for comment or seek out a third opinion. We'll get more eyes on this at any rate. AniMate 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree Caden. Please don't make me remind you again, not to be incivil to other editors. Practically every edit you've made to this talk page includes accusing someone of pushing POV, which could easily be interpreted as pushing an agenda of your own, since you expressed absolutely no simpathy - but, instead, complete condemnation of King. In contrast, you've continually painted a picture of McInerney as being completely innocent in this entire matter. If you can't stop yourself from outright accusing everyone of whose opinion is different from you from having an agenda, you really shouldn't be editing this article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AniMate, regarding your suggestions, none of them appear helpful at this point. Nevertheless, I sincerely do appreciate the effort. Booker, that's not fair and untrue. I resent your allegations. Why is it others can be incivil towards me and your perfectly fine with that? Why is it that it's okay for other editors to receive a pass for that? I'm not accusing others, I'm just being honest. Please do not accuse me of things I am not doing. It's wrong, not true and it's your own POV. Caden S (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because accusing someone of POV for merely giving an interpretation of a policy guideline is being incivil. Since you've started editing on wikipedia, you've had a particularly hostile attitude towards anyone who gives you the slightest disagreement. And I'm speaking from personal experience, so I'm not making-up a case against you. I've stated on this talk page repeatedly to all editors not to engage in pointless debates, but no one ever seems to listen to me. Whatever. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is too much fuss than what it needs to be. A Request for Comment will get more views on what constitutes a hate crime, and if this article should be categorized as one. --Moni3 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. "...Prosecuted as " seems pretty straightforward to me. Regardless of any other verbage in the sentence, that portion clearly means this case qualifies for the category. If you want to change the specifications for the category, that discussion needs to take place at the category talk age rather than here. Aleta 16:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are still problems created by this POV-pushing. The "Reaction" section is misleading, making it seem like responsibility for the murder lies with the victim: the second paragraph reads:

"In contrast, teachers at the school noted King's intense focus on McInerney, and that King often retaliated against male students who teased him by flirting with them."

"In contrast" to what? Sympathy for King? How is a bullying victim's reaction to bullying relevant?

Also, in the "Criticism of the school" section, what possible relevance does the sentence

"King often wore make-up and feminine clothing, and purchased and wore to school a pair of stiletto heeled shoes that some teachers were concerned he would hurt himself in while walking"

have? All in all, the article was much better written and much more neutral before this latest spate of edits, all of which seem to have been driven, as noted above, by the pushing of a pro-McInerney agenda. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the school by teachers and King's parents was focused on the fact that he was allowed to wear feminine clothing and 3-inch stiletto heels. Some students and parents complained; Newsweek reports even Larry's younger brother asked the school to step in to get him to stop or make it less flamboyant. An email was sent out by administrators saying that King was within his rights to wear what he wanted to wear. This comes from a reliable source.

I understand your point though, Exploding Boy. I don't care if he wore fishnet swastika stockings - it doesn't give anyone justification to shoot him in the head. There's more than what's being reported right now. I think we have two very messed up kids here, with two very messed up families. The more I read about this the more disturbing it gets. --Moni3 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i realize that this is a controveral subject, but but POLEASE try not to refer to other editors who dont agre with your political views as being some sort of agenda pushers. if you disagree with NPOV policy, then revert the page back to the lopsided version that it was before. dont assume bad faith on the part of other editors since we all want a netural article I hope! :D Smith Jones (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And look at that! See how Exploding Boy is allowed to make personal attacks towards those who disagree with him? What a double standard we got here. However, well said Smith Jones! It's great to see another bold editor such as myself who wants a neutral article. But I am happy with Moni's edits. Her edits are NPOV, unless somebody can prove me wrong. Caden S (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to attack anybody, but I see this article becoming very skewed on the basis mainly of one editor's complaints about the article's alleged pro-King, pro-gay agenda. However, I'm not about to get involved in an edit war, which is why I haven't reverted to the version from a few days ago, which as I said above, was better written and more neutral. I may do some copyediting at some point, but for now I'm discussing here. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(interject) Exploding Boy, I've been watching the article since the incident happened. The original version was neutral at that time, because there was very little information released from the press on the events which took place prior to the shooting. Basically all we knew was "hetero shot homo", end of story. At this point I believe the article is still neutral. While there is never a justification for murder, there is obvious information that both children were very disturbed (which has nothing to do with their orientations, but the home life they both suffered). The only thing which is bias, at this point, in my opinion, is that the media (not any wikipedian editor) is trying to blame the entire shooting on Kings transgenderism-including members of his family and the school faculty, which (again, in my opinion) is Ludicrous. If this were a born female child who was raped or murdered for wearing provocative clothing, would we say "oh, well, she was dressing provocatively, she was asking for it, case closed"? While I'm getting somewhat off topic, my point is that currently there is an undue emphasis of Kings sexuality/gender identity- just like before - but in the reverse attitude. Reporting that shift is not the fault of wikipedia, but the numerous people involved in the situation in real like who may be far less objective than we are. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

can you please cite afew segments of where the article has degraded from its previous tate? I my view, I see the article is getting better through all of our hardwork. The way it was before resembled some sort of memorial to King mixed with a promotional piece on fringe political views even though the viewage of this event was decisively more complex than it was portrayed here. Despite what some politcians seem to think, it is possible to disagree on the interpretaiton of a given event but still come together like we are doing here to improve this article for the better instead of improving it to teh worse. Smith Jones (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Smith Jones, the article is getting better and better from all our work. So, Exploding Boy, you say: "I see this article becoming very skewed on the basis mainly of one editor's complaints about the article's alleged pro-King, pro-gay agenda"? Yet again you attack me! Please refrain yourself from making personal attacks against me. You are being incivil once again and I will not tolerate this from you. Focus on the article's content and not on other editors. Caden S (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply, King was a martyr and a victim and McInerney was a bully. The first reports of King's death depicted a picture close to this image. Or, simply, King was a tease, a sexual harasser, and McInerney was boxed in an unable to defend himself against King's onslaughts, except only by such violence. What is becoming clear from reading more, and what will probably be issue during the trial, is that there were two very angry boys; King was probably gay and perhaps transgender, but neither really had any concept of how to handle stress, and neither really seemed to be comfortable with themselves enough not to seek attention by acting out. King acted out, as 15-year-old boys do, by flirting; McInerney's grades has plummeted recently. King was small and not able or willing to physically intimidate the boys or girls who teased him, so he retaliated with flirtations. Neither appear to be angels. McInerney's cognitive trail from being embarrassed to believing he could solve his problems by shooting King is something I would like explained. I can only imagine a home life where violence was often the main solution to problems is the best explanation, and I hurt for both these kids.

So, if we can for this article keep in mind that these were kids and nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If we can also keep in mind that what happened King and McInerney is a horror. Those who are claiming to be victims of another editor's attack, please revert your attention back to the reason you're editing this article. Please keep in perspective what injustice actually is. The quality of the article is the issue is at hand. Making it about ourselves is a distraction. --Moni3 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the policies we need to remember is WP:UNDUE. Since the vast majority of the coverage is sympathetic towards King, then that is what we report in about the same proportion. WP:NPOV does not mean every side gets equal prominence. Like it or not, there are prominent people and organizations that are supportive of Larry King, including Barack Obama, Larry King (the TV host), Hillary Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres, several organizations, and the Day of Silence for 2008. Many label the murder as a hate crime, including the prosecutor.

McInterney as a victim of bullying, stalking, or harassment by King is clearly a minority view. From WP:UNDUE: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.

I don’t see support for Larry being called a bully in the Newsweek article, or elsewhere. How one small non-aggressive feminine acting gay kid could bully a much stronger kid, who was known to be aggressive, boggles the mind. Here are some quotes: A friend's mother characterized McInerney as a bully and said "Brandon picked on what was different". Someone else said "...Brandon would use his physical prowess to intimidate others". Yes, apparently King teased and flirted, as that was the only way he had to protect himself. McInterney obtained a gun, brought it into school, and murdered King in premeditated cold blood. And that is the ultimate act of bullying.

— Becksguy (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

see my comments above where it says (interject). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I read them and I disagree to a point. Generally hate crimes percentage-wise have decreased while the level of violence of those crimes has magnified. King just happens to be one of the younger and more widely reported cases. LGBTs, I would say mostly G and T are still violently attacked with murders of trans women quite common. Many men feel threatened, for various reasons, by anything perceived as gay, or like McInerney, anything seen as different - and an openly gay boy wearing women's clothing in school is a very big deal with very few exceptions. King, apparently, was also the center of much attention - much of it quite positive - and his trangenderism coupled with his being openly gay and behaviour issues could be quite troubling for anyone who isn't secure in themselves. And many (most?) teens simply aren't. Banjeboi 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)