This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A request was made this afternoon. Abe Froman 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is it anymore wrong than to name the alleged perps?!!
Following a conversation with a sysop, I created this page because this topic was taking up too much space there. See also the Duke's talk page. Anagrammarian 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I noted that the original "scandal" page sounded a little too much like the defense attorney's press conferences. I tried to illustrate the differences in claims between the interested parties and add sources to document the differences between the defense claims and the claims for the accuser. I also reordered the flow of the article so that the editorial and the journalistic are not so mixed. pjherron 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
{{POV}}
at the top. I may do that after I write up some problems, but you are welcome to do so as well. Thanks for your vigilance!
Anagrammarian
19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)I placed a clean-up template on the article because there are several problems with the way information is presented in it.
I recommend that we both organize and significantly reduce the content of this article. I also don't think we need to include every little aspect of the case. This is a Wikipedia article, not a detailed list of breaking news reports. Perhaps a Developments section should be included as well as an External links section, but we should be careful not to overload either. Any help cleaning up this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Anagrammarian 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The article needs some mention of the e-mail made public were a player suggests hiring more strippers and then killing and skinning them. Although thus doesn't really provide any significant info on the case, it does provide an idea of the mindset/mentalities of at least one member of the team and also seems to be a significant factor in the resignation of the coach and the decision of the university to halt the team's season. Nil Einne 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Does Anyone know anything about this? For awhile now I've been curious about figuring out a way to make wikipedia generate a page that is an all-inclusive collection of all of the entries related to a particular topic. I realize being NPOV is important, but sometimes I think the best way to be NPOV would be to be able to see everyones information about a particular topic -- I know this isn't about this scandal, but this is a perfect example of an article in which I'd rather have too much information than have someone who is trying to be biased clearing information off -- Vandals that add things are easy to catch, vandals that remove them are not! -- Ideas People?
I'm confused about something, and maybe the Wikipedia community has an answer. Regarding the DNA evidence in the case, almost all of the members of the team gave the prosecution DNA samples for testing. But when the results were negative, was this because there was a DNA sample taken from the accuser, and the teams' DNA did not match this sample?
Or was there no DNA sample taken from the accuser at all?
If the latter is true, then why did the prosecution ask for any DNA from team members? (That is, if there was no DNA evidence found on/around the accuser, why did the prosecution ask for DNA samples.)
If the former is true, then whose DNA is it, if it does not match anyone on the team?
If anyone has answers to this, it would help me understand the case a bit better... Thanks. Valtam 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I know a judge ordered the DNA tests but please correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a while since CrimPro...) but there is no violation of privacy/rights when you voluntary provide your DNA?
In:Timeline-
" An African-American woman alleged that, on March 13, 2006, three white members of Duke University's lacrosse team had beaten, strangled, and sexually assaulted her." [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wduke02.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/02/ixworld.html In this citation, as well as most others, the person involved was simply refered to as black. The transposition of this to African-American incites a further racial tone in the US.
" She then allegedly attempted to leave but was convinced to stay." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12100397/
She then left the house but was convinced to return inside.
I haven't found anywhere that this is in dispute or denied.
In:Background of the Accused-
"Finnerty agreed to community service to escape harsher sanctions".[8] http://www.nbc17.com/news/8830631/detail.html I didn't see this bold bit in this citation[8],furthermore, it's assumptive! Citation [9] http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-725409.html -seems dead, but I use dial up!
I have not yet edited the main body.
I did a quick change to "as an alternative" to remove any perceived connotations with the word escape. SCrahan
I'm not saying I believe this woman, but I really don't think it's right to have her full name on here. Considering the threats she already says she's under in the media, giving additional access to her name is probably not ethically proper. I'm removing it.. sorry if this is a blunder.
I agree it's outrageously inappropriate to be trying to name the alleged victim here. Friday (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont see whats wrong with posting her name, the media has made the alleged accusers names very well known and I think some people may be interested to know her name. Mac Domhnaill 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel that the ethical considerations are important here. However, I don't wish to debate that, and we don't have to, either. By simple virtue of being an encyclopedia, if reputable sources aren't printing it, we can't either. Everyone who's said this is exactly on the money. Friday (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said the name should or should not be included, but I did say that the argument that the inclusion of the name is "sick" or unethical is not relevant to this issue. -- tomf688{ talk} 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if consensus has really been reached here but I feel that given the fact that the vitim's name's page is protected by WP:OFFICE the name should not be included 136.167.145.47 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was listening to the Tom Leykis Show on the radio, and he gave out the alleged victim's name. Is he considered a reliable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.59.142 ( talk • contribs) .
I agree that we can't publish her name based on Leykis or blogs, but I don't agree that we should apply any other external ethical considerations to the matter. WP:CITE should be adequate. If a national newspaper prints her name, then I think we should follow suit. Wikipedia should never be the first one to break any piece of information, but we shouldn't be too far behind on high profile current events. This holds true for other aspects of the scandal, not just the alleged victim's identity. savidan (talk) (e@) 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this information. Particularly the line Many arguments about her made to the media by Defense attorneys on behalf of their clients may be useless in court due to these laws. What allegations have defense attorneys made that could possibly be precluded by the NC rape shield law? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JCO312 ( talk • contribs) .
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A request was made this afternoon. Abe Froman 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is it anymore wrong than to name the alleged perps?!!
Following a conversation with a sysop, I created this page because this topic was taking up too much space there. See also the Duke's talk page. Anagrammarian 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I noted that the original "scandal" page sounded a little too much like the defense attorney's press conferences. I tried to illustrate the differences in claims between the interested parties and add sources to document the differences between the defense claims and the claims for the accuser. I also reordered the flow of the article so that the editorial and the journalistic are not so mixed. pjherron 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
{{POV}}
at the top. I may do that after I write up some problems, but you are welcome to do so as well. Thanks for your vigilance!
Anagrammarian
19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)I placed a clean-up template on the article because there are several problems with the way information is presented in it.
I recommend that we both organize and significantly reduce the content of this article. I also don't think we need to include every little aspect of the case. This is a Wikipedia article, not a detailed list of breaking news reports. Perhaps a Developments section should be included as well as an External links section, but we should be careful not to overload either. Any help cleaning up this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Anagrammarian 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The article needs some mention of the e-mail made public were a player suggests hiring more strippers and then killing and skinning them. Although thus doesn't really provide any significant info on the case, it does provide an idea of the mindset/mentalities of at least one member of the team and also seems to be a significant factor in the resignation of the coach and the decision of the university to halt the team's season. Nil Einne 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Does Anyone know anything about this? For awhile now I've been curious about figuring out a way to make wikipedia generate a page that is an all-inclusive collection of all of the entries related to a particular topic. I realize being NPOV is important, but sometimes I think the best way to be NPOV would be to be able to see everyones information about a particular topic -- I know this isn't about this scandal, but this is a perfect example of an article in which I'd rather have too much information than have someone who is trying to be biased clearing information off -- Vandals that add things are easy to catch, vandals that remove them are not! -- Ideas People?
I'm confused about something, and maybe the Wikipedia community has an answer. Regarding the DNA evidence in the case, almost all of the members of the team gave the prosecution DNA samples for testing. But when the results were negative, was this because there was a DNA sample taken from the accuser, and the teams' DNA did not match this sample?
Or was there no DNA sample taken from the accuser at all?
If the latter is true, then why did the prosecution ask for any DNA from team members? (That is, if there was no DNA evidence found on/around the accuser, why did the prosecution ask for DNA samples.)
If the former is true, then whose DNA is it, if it does not match anyone on the team?
If anyone has answers to this, it would help me understand the case a bit better... Thanks. Valtam 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I know a judge ordered the DNA tests but please correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a while since CrimPro...) but there is no violation of privacy/rights when you voluntary provide your DNA?
In:Timeline-
" An African-American woman alleged that, on March 13, 2006, three white members of Duke University's lacrosse team had beaten, strangled, and sexually assaulted her." [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/02/wduke02.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/02/ixworld.html In this citation, as well as most others, the person involved was simply refered to as black. The transposition of this to African-American incites a further racial tone in the US.
" She then allegedly attempted to leave but was convinced to stay." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12100397/
She then left the house but was convinced to return inside.
I haven't found anywhere that this is in dispute or denied.
In:Background of the Accused-
"Finnerty agreed to community service to escape harsher sanctions".[8] http://www.nbc17.com/news/8830631/detail.html I didn't see this bold bit in this citation[8],furthermore, it's assumptive! Citation [9] http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-725409.html -seems dead, but I use dial up!
I have not yet edited the main body.
I did a quick change to "as an alternative" to remove any perceived connotations with the word escape. SCrahan
I'm not saying I believe this woman, but I really don't think it's right to have her full name on here. Considering the threats she already says she's under in the media, giving additional access to her name is probably not ethically proper. I'm removing it.. sorry if this is a blunder.
I agree it's outrageously inappropriate to be trying to name the alleged victim here. Friday (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont see whats wrong with posting her name, the media has made the alleged accusers names very well known and I think some people may be interested to know her name. Mac Domhnaill 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel that the ethical considerations are important here. However, I don't wish to debate that, and we don't have to, either. By simple virtue of being an encyclopedia, if reputable sources aren't printing it, we can't either. Everyone who's said this is exactly on the money. Friday (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I never said the name should or should not be included, but I did say that the argument that the inclusion of the name is "sick" or unethical is not relevant to this issue. -- tomf688{ talk} 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if consensus has really been reached here but I feel that given the fact that the vitim's name's page is protected by WP:OFFICE the name should not be included 136.167.145.47 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was listening to the Tom Leykis Show on the radio, and he gave out the alleged victim's name. Is he considered a reliable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.59.142 ( talk • contribs) .
I agree that we can't publish her name based on Leykis or blogs, but I don't agree that we should apply any other external ethical considerations to the matter. WP:CITE should be adequate. If a national newspaper prints her name, then I think we should follow suit. Wikipedia should never be the first one to break any piece of information, but we shouldn't be too far behind on high profile current events. This holds true for other aspects of the scandal, not just the alleged victim's identity. savidan (talk) (e@) 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this information. Particularly the line Many arguments about her made to the media by Defense attorneys on behalf of their clients may be useless in court due to these laws. What allegations have defense attorneys made that could possibly be precluded by the NC rape shield law? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JCO312 ( talk • contribs) .