Talk:Kissing Case

updating

I have been working on finding the missing citations for unsourced material, adding more references, etc. Please note that that the original text that was there before I began working on this, may have unintentionally plagiarized content. Please do not assume that I added these items. I make every effort to ensure that there is no plagiarism. I am working with many documents at the same time and there is always a possibility of human error in spite of best intentions.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Juvenile justice system

These youngsters were obviously the victims of the institutional racism of the era, but also in part due to the fact that they were, as juveniles, put into the juvenile justice system and became also victims of the sort of thing that it was originally organized largely to prevent, excessive sentencing for activities which are outgrowths of childhood as opposed to serious criminal offenses (and here apparently something which they in no way instigated). But due to their status as juveniles, they were denied counsel (which would not happen now) and their is no real court record of the trial since juvenile proceedings are not part of the public record and sometimes are rather informal and lack the formal rules of evidence used in adult proceedings. Has anyone ever gotten anything published along these lines? If so, it needs to be part of this article. 2600:1004:B142:DAF8:85D1:E8A2:DFC:262 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo?

The article mentions that Joyce Egginton "took a photograph of the mothers hugging their children ... showing the boys had been severely beaten and abused by the arresting police. ... the related photo were printed throughout Europe and Asia", but the article does not include the photo itself, although it seems like it would easily qualify here under fair use. Any pointers? The closest I could find with Google is this, which is terrible quality and doesn't match the description. Jpatokal (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Contrary views

Gov. Hodges's memoir (summary of the details here: https://xcancel.com/herandrews/status/1971933363423617203#m) suggests that the common understanding of this case is largely bunkum, similar to "Hands up, don't shoot" and other agitprop. Have any of the dedicated editors of this page taken that into account? It does not appear they considered it worth sharing any information from one of the people most involved so far, but I am certain it is just an oversight that will quickly be corrected. 2601:600:817F:B270:34EF:4BC3:9F0:DD5B (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering how biased most Wikipedia editors are i wouldn’t count on anyone editing it anytime soon 149.7.163.186 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

That's just one book, while this page uses many different sources. Not to mention, Helen Andrews has her own biased narrative here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Retaliating by undoing edits for users based on disagreements from other pages is deeply unprofessional.

I've restored the factual accuracy dispute tag, as there is an unresolved discussion on this talk page ('Contrary views' section, initiated September 2025) about whether the article adequately reflects all significant viewpoints. Specifically, as users mention, Gov. Luther Hodges' memoir provides a very different account of the case, emphasizing juvenile rehabilitation for prior delinquency and an unsuitable home environment rather than simple racial injustice tied to the kiss.

While the current sources (including NPR interviews and historical accounts) support the article's narrative of unjust molestation charges in juvenile court following an initial accusation, some sources are involved in conflicts of interest that warrant consideration for balance.

No consensus has been reached on incorporating or addressing this perspective, and the thread includes concerns about potential bias in sourcing. Per existing guidelines for removal, the tag seems appropriate until the NPOV issue is resolved through discussion. Happy to discuss specific proposals for integrating reliable coverage if available. Also, please review Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove. Bluelight2000 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The balance of sources is clear. This matter is not seriously contested. Regarding Gov. Hodges' memoir, WP:MANDY obviously applies. We can include his view to the extent that it is discussed in reliabale secondary sources. Generalrelative (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, before removing the tag, could you explain why you believe that "the balance of sources is clear" and the matter is "not seriously contested"? This talk page specifically raises Governor Luther Hodges' memoir as a primary source offering a differing perspective, and one that downplays racial injustice as the primary factor and instead emphasizes the boys' prior delinquency records and unsuitable home environment as reasons for their juvenile rehabilitation.

The article's current sourcing (like NPR's 2011 family interviews, historical accounts from civil rights advocates, and retrospective reports) strongly supports an existing narrative of racial injustice in the handling of the case. However, if Hodges' account is verifiable and covered in reliable secondary sources, it deserves at least a brief mention for balance - if only a sentence noting his defense of the proceedings as non-racial and focused on juvenile welfare. That said, the thread remains open with no consensus against considering it, and concerns about potential bias in advocacy-heavy sources have been noted.

If you have sources showing Hodges' perspective lacks weight or credibility, that would help resolve this. Alternatively, I'm open to drafting a neutral addition (e.g., "Governor Hodges later described the case as... [if cited properly]") if we can find appropriate referencing. Your thoughts? Bluelight2000 (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You edited your comment before I replied, but clearly you have a problem with me because of my comments on Richard Lynn's page. It's best if you get over this and accept that people disagree on things. We are discussing matters of law. WP:MANDY does not apply here in any respect. Bluelight2000 (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It most certainly does. And when you come to Wikipedia to defend a self-described racist like Richard Lynn on your second edit, you invite scrutiny. That's the way this project works, because we consider that hate is disruptive. I'm not accusing you of hatred, but noting that your pattern of editing warrants scrutiny. I happen to be the person paying attention right now, but most experienced editors here would behave the same way. Generalrelative (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no "pattern" to my edits because I have only made two contributions so far - my contribution here and the contribution to Richard Lynn's page. Notably, I did not make any edits to Lynn's page, I only invited discussion based on my own observations of the text. The fact that the two articles are loosely linked, i.e., this one involved in civil rights history in America, and Richard Lynn's research of national intelligence (both somewhat involving race), has no impact on my factual accuracy as a user. Please reference WP:DNB. As an "experienced editor," I would expect you to know that. Bluelight2000 (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You have not been bitten. You are being engaged with. Generalrelative (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your tag, rather than edit war I'll bring the matter to a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

MANDY is an essay, not policy. In fact, it runs directly contrary to policy, specifically WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." Hi! (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources need to be independent of their subject, Hodges' memoir can’t be used for making a factual statement (or factored into determining facts), but only for his opinion. If sources discuss the memoir we can include it, but it appears very undue atm. Hodges also isn’t a living person, and this isn’t a biography. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd support removal of the tag. The article is relying on reliable sources, and we wouldn't rely on Hodges's memoir. As Bluelight2000 says, "if Hodges' account is verifiable and covered in reliable secondary sources, it deserves at least a brief mention for balance." Once someone presents such sources, we can consider adding a brief mention through routine discussion and editing. The lack of such a mention does not constitute a dispute over factual accuracy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the tag on this basis. Bluelight2000 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I read through Andrews' thread and noted she did not actually dispute any of the facts which Wikipedia discusses in its summary of the case. Her preferred source, Hodges' memoir, in contrast says "according to the story told" and "it was very difficult to get the true facts of the case" -- apologia for passing on period rumors rather than the facts that Wikipedia cites. NotBartEhrman (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

To your point about Hodges' memoir, I'm not sure I agree: phrasing like "according to the story told" and noting the difficulty in ascertaining "the true facts" reads less as apologia for rumor-mongering and more as appropriate caution from a governor navigating a highly charged case in 1959 Jim Crow North Carolina subject to international publicity and rumor. The boys were ultimately found guilty in juvenile court on molestation charges, presumably after weighing competing accounts of the "story told." Acknowledging evidentiary complexity doesn't, in my view, undermine Andrews/Hodge's position.

Separately, Andrews highlights several key points diverging from the article:

1. The boys were not criminal prosecuted.
2. The case was not an isolated incident, it was a part of a larger pattern of escalating criminal behavior.
3. "Far from innocent play, the older boy had reportedly cornered the girl and not let her go until she agreed to kiss him."

Andrews points out the current lead does not make a claim of rape conviction (nor do the cited sources support one), though other pages do, and it presents the kiss as initiated by the girl on the boys' cheeks during play; Andrews does dispute this existing characterization, saying instead the kiss appeared confrontational in nature and explaining why. She also cites a State Department bulletin which says: "The now widely publicized ‘kissing incident’ in Monroe, North Carolina, involves more than a question of race relations. Local officials assert that action was taken to rehabilitate two boys who had been on probation after Juvenile Court hearings on alleged stealing, truancy, and unsuitable home conditions.” She goes on to note that the boys went the rest of their lives in and out of prison, including the older boy, who “In April 1960 ... was with a 15-year-old companion who was charged with rape ‘on a minor Negro girl.’”

If her thread is drawing from other pages that overstated the outcome as a rape conviction, that may explain some of the disconnect. Regardless, as other editors have pointed out, the current version still probably doesn't rise to the level of criteria justifying a factual accuracy tag at this time. Bluelight2000 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

If I understand this, the whole argument is about a passage in the governor's memoir stating that these kids had a prior delinquency and an unsuitable home environment. I would observe: (1) the governor was not an eyewitness. If these things were true, they should appear in other sources. (2) these accusations are irrelevant. Neither one is evidence that they were guilty in this incident. (3) if the governor can tell us what he did to prevent injustice, that would be relevant here. If he didn't do anything, there is no reason to quote him. (4) after 70 years, it doesn't matter what these kids did or didn't do. This article is about the information available at the time and the unjust way the state responded. Julian in LA (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

+1. Wildly undue to include governors account unless if other reliable sourcing says its warranted User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)