This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Group of 88 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some Wikipedians are proposing that this page be deleted. For those of you who are not experienced Wikipedians, you can see discussions pertaining to this deletion proposalhere: [1]. - The kekon ( talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is of poor quality and the topic is done better at Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case#Duke faculty groups. I have moved all the links which check out to that article and made this one into a redirect. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Only 15 of the signers are listed by name in the article. Who were the other 73?
They wanted to go "on the record" when they were baying for blood, they should be held accountable now that the truth has come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 ( talk • contribs)
Leave it to an "editor" on Wikipedia to claim that the names of the members of the Group of 88 are somehow irrelevant or "tangential" to an entry devoted to that very group. It's an excuse every bit as stupid as a refusal to show drawings of Muhammad in an entry devoted to drawings or images of Muhammad. But hey, they can just look up the names in the "sources given", thus negating the reason for Wikipedia's existence in the first place. Just when you think you have seen everything when it comes to hilariously transparent whitewashing and moronic justifications for it, Wikipedia surprises you. 72.49.235.222 ( talk) 08:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead states that the original ad "contained language implying that the charges were true." I can't find the exact wording of the original ad, but the follow-up letter specically denied that. So, I think we need an exact quote from the original ad justifying that assertion, or the statement should be removed.
This article presents the matter as if there was an actual organization called the "Group of 88". What is the evidence for that? Wasn't it a newspaper ad, not a group? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The sentence marked with [citation needed] in the lead does not necessarily need a citation per WP:CITELEAD as it does not present anything controversial itself but summarizes the response as it is in the following section Commentary and criticism. The whole controversy was about the advertisement implying (or atleast interpreted so) that the charges were true. A tag for [page needed] was added for citation number 4 which is a website without pages. Instead of spending 1 second in Google search to acquire a new link for the rotten one, a few [dead link] tags were added. I will do that, then. For some reason though, the [dead link] tag was added for citation number 14 which is a working link. Lastly, I don't believe the National media section needs an additional NPOV-tag when the article itself has one.
Gamaliel removed a sentence about an opinion piece in the The Chronicle (Duke University). Apparently the publication is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and while not a notable RS, it could be relevant about happenings at the Duke University. He also removed an excerpt from the Johnson and Taylor book about the subject. While it was a very critical statement on the Group of 88, it is from a book dedicated to this subject and being so critical, it describes what the criticism actually was about. Regards to NPOV, I'm afraid the commentary section will inevitably be critical of the Group of 88 because the rape accusation was found out to be false. You won't get a balance of 50-50 positive-negative views on this. -- Pudeo ' 05:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's an archive of the advertisement that is linked from the clarification web site l
I'm brand new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if that's sufficient for some of the citation needed tags in the (article, journal, page --what's the right terminology?) 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 05:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen, Well, I see some statements that are clear references to the events that occurred, but I can't say I see anything that clearly prejudges the accused. I've been working on a possible change to the intro and here's what I've come up with:
The group of 88 is the moniker given to the 88 signatories of a controversial advertisement that was published two weeks after the the events that initiated the Duke lacrosse case. The advertisement, which appeared in the Duke Chronicle on April 6, 2006, contained language that many considered inflammatory. --cite1, cite2, cite3
However, in January 2007 a clarification letter was posted as a web page at http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org stated that the ad had "...been broadly, and often intentionally, misread." and that "Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case." --cite3 The letter was endorsed by 87 members of Duke faculty although not all were signatories of the original ad.
-cite 1 http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1574810,00.html -cite 2 http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2007/04/13/search-closure -cite 3 http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/
Given this is my first real foray into Wikipedia, although I've been a reader for quite some years, I'm a little daunted by actually changing anything.
Please excuse the clumsy cites I'm still working on how to use the markup here. Thanks 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if "Maybe some other editors might want to comment?" but I'm definitely getting that uncomfortable feeling that you get when you've entered into a conversation to which you are uninvited and unwelcome. I apologize for the intrusion and I'll step away now. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 07:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe you've misunderstood me. Cullen's statements of "Do you see any statements in that advertisement that prejudge the guilt of the accused?" followed up by "I commend you for taking the matter seriously. Maybe some other editors might want to comment?" gave me the impression that he's pointedly asking those questions in a broader context. It also definitely gave me the impression that my first interactions here were being used by Cullen to further his point in a conversation/disagreement. That's an uncomfortable place to start, especially since I was already feeling out of my depth contributing here. So I apologized for the intrusion and left.
Gamaliel I will say that your response to my apology and exit makes me wonder why the hell everyone is seemingly so aggressive here. However, I also see that at your talk link/page you have a linked page titled "tips for the angry new user" which makes me wonder if you need that because this is how you greet all new users.
In any case, my desire to put forth any more effort into trying my hand at writing here has diminished substantially so I'll just go back to reading. Goodbye. 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I just started a discussion at Talk:Karla F.C. Holloway about the "Group of 88" section in her biography. The lede here states "The person who conceived the idea of the advertisement was Karla F.C. Holloway". That statement is unsourced. Is anyone aware of a source for the claim that Holloway "conceived" of the ad? Nigel Pap ( talk) 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As we include the clarifications of the ad's purpose in a section in significant detail, the added utility of the full advert is small, and its language in a few cases is more unfortunate than one would wish in a very small article here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If we quote an advert, and carefully place the parts in bold type in bold here, we should then be consistent and use bold for all which is in bold-face in the advert.
Or we can avoid bolding entirely. What we can not do per MoS is bold some and then not bold the other material in bold-face type in the original advert. We ought do one or the other. Collect ( talk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Group of 88. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"Group of 88" has a distinct meaning and it isn't only detractors that use it. It is not a BLP problem. The group of 88 *is* the 88 professor's from Duke. There isn't an argument that they didn't sign the letter is there? Here is a sympathetic article that uses the term- [ [3]]. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
According to /info/en/?search=Duke_lacrosse_case, the charges were dropped on April 11, 2007. That would be over a year after the Group of 88 advertisement, not less than a week as this article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokemill ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The above comment is correct, yet the article has been changed back to "less than a week," and I will change it back again. The accused were deemed innocent more than a year after publication of the Group of 88's statement. Princetoniac ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Group of 88 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some Wikipedians are proposing that this page be deleted. For those of you who are not experienced Wikipedians, you can see discussions pertaining to this deletion proposalhere: [1]. - The kekon ( talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is of poor quality and the topic is done better at Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case#Duke faculty groups. I have moved all the links which check out to that article and made this one into a redirect. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Only 15 of the signers are listed by name in the article. Who were the other 73?
They wanted to go "on the record" when they were baying for blood, they should be held accountable now that the truth has come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 ( talk • contribs)
Leave it to an "editor" on Wikipedia to claim that the names of the members of the Group of 88 are somehow irrelevant or "tangential" to an entry devoted to that very group. It's an excuse every bit as stupid as a refusal to show drawings of Muhammad in an entry devoted to drawings or images of Muhammad. But hey, they can just look up the names in the "sources given", thus negating the reason for Wikipedia's existence in the first place. Just when you think you have seen everything when it comes to hilariously transparent whitewashing and moronic justifications for it, Wikipedia surprises you. 72.49.235.222 ( talk) 08:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead states that the original ad "contained language implying that the charges were true." I can't find the exact wording of the original ad, but the follow-up letter specically denied that. So, I think we need an exact quote from the original ad justifying that assertion, or the statement should be removed.
This article presents the matter as if there was an actual organization called the "Group of 88". What is the evidence for that? Wasn't it a newspaper ad, not a group? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The sentence marked with [citation needed] in the lead does not necessarily need a citation per WP:CITELEAD as it does not present anything controversial itself but summarizes the response as it is in the following section Commentary and criticism. The whole controversy was about the advertisement implying (or atleast interpreted so) that the charges were true. A tag for [page needed] was added for citation number 4 which is a website without pages. Instead of spending 1 second in Google search to acquire a new link for the rotten one, a few [dead link] tags were added. I will do that, then. For some reason though, the [dead link] tag was added for citation number 14 which is a working link. Lastly, I don't believe the National media section needs an additional NPOV-tag when the article itself has one.
Gamaliel removed a sentence about an opinion piece in the The Chronicle (Duke University). Apparently the publication is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and while not a notable RS, it could be relevant about happenings at the Duke University. He also removed an excerpt from the Johnson and Taylor book about the subject. While it was a very critical statement on the Group of 88, it is from a book dedicated to this subject and being so critical, it describes what the criticism actually was about. Regards to NPOV, I'm afraid the commentary section will inevitably be critical of the Group of 88 because the rape accusation was found out to be false. You won't get a balance of 50-50 positive-negative views on this. -- Pudeo ' 05:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's an archive of the advertisement that is linked from the clarification web site l
I'm brand new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if that's sufficient for some of the citation needed tags in the (article, journal, page --what's the right terminology?) 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 05:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen, Well, I see some statements that are clear references to the events that occurred, but I can't say I see anything that clearly prejudges the accused. I've been working on a possible change to the intro and here's what I've come up with:
The group of 88 is the moniker given to the 88 signatories of a controversial advertisement that was published two weeks after the the events that initiated the Duke lacrosse case. The advertisement, which appeared in the Duke Chronicle on April 6, 2006, contained language that many considered inflammatory. --cite1, cite2, cite3
However, in January 2007 a clarification letter was posted as a web page at http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org stated that the ad had "...been broadly, and often intentionally, misread." and that "Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case." --cite3 The letter was endorsed by 87 members of Duke faculty although not all were signatories of the original ad.
-cite 1 http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1574810,00.html -cite 2 http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2007/04/13/search-closure -cite 3 http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/
Given this is my first real foray into Wikipedia, although I've been a reader for quite some years, I'm a little daunted by actually changing anything.
Please excuse the clumsy cites I'm still working on how to use the markup here. Thanks 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if "Maybe some other editors might want to comment?" but I'm definitely getting that uncomfortable feeling that you get when you've entered into a conversation to which you are uninvited and unwelcome. I apologize for the intrusion and I'll step away now. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 07:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe you've misunderstood me. Cullen's statements of "Do you see any statements in that advertisement that prejudge the guilt of the accused?" followed up by "I commend you for taking the matter seriously. Maybe some other editors might want to comment?" gave me the impression that he's pointedly asking those questions in a broader context. It also definitely gave me the impression that my first interactions here were being used by Cullen to further his point in a conversation/disagreement. That's an uncomfortable place to start, especially since I was already feeling out of my depth contributing here. So I apologized for the intrusion and left.
Gamaliel I will say that your response to my apology and exit makes me wonder why the hell everyone is seemingly so aggressive here. However, I also see that at your talk link/page you have a linked page titled "tips for the angry new user" which makes me wonder if you need that because this is how you greet all new users.
In any case, my desire to put forth any more effort into trying my hand at writing here has diminished substantially so I'll just go back to reading. Goodbye. 209.197.26.81 ( talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I just started a discussion at Talk:Karla F.C. Holloway about the "Group of 88" section in her biography. The lede here states "The person who conceived the idea of the advertisement was Karla F.C. Holloway". That statement is unsourced. Is anyone aware of a source for the claim that Holloway "conceived" of the ad? Nigel Pap ( talk) 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As we include the clarifications of the ad's purpose in a section in significant detail, the added utility of the full advert is small, and its language in a few cases is more unfortunate than one would wish in a very small article here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If we quote an advert, and carefully place the parts in bold type in bold here, we should then be consistent and use bold for all which is in bold-face in the advert.
Or we can avoid bolding entirely. What we can not do per MoS is bold some and then not bold the other material in bold-face type in the original advert. We ought do one or the other. Collect ( talk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Group of 88. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"Group of 88" has a distinct meaning and it isn't only detractors that use it. It is not a BLP problem. The group of 88 *is* the 88 professor's from Duke. There isn't an argument that they didn't sign the letter is there? Here is a sympathetic article that uses the term- [ [3]]. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
According to /info/en/?search=Duke_lacrosse_case, the charges were dropped on April 11, 2007. That would be over a year after the Group of 88 advertisement, not less than a week as this article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokemill ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The above comment is correct, yet the article has been changed back to "less than a week," and I will change it back again. The accused were deemed innocent more than a year after publication of the Group of 88's statement. Princetoniac ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)