Talk:Ashley Todd mugging hoax

Morton Downey Jr.

It seems to me a "see also" to Morton Downey, Jr.'s false story of being mugged by skinheads who drew a suspiciously backwards swastika on his head is entirely appropriate. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, to link to that would be a POV link. It would only be relevant if media discussion of this case was drawing comparisons with the other. Otherwise it is POV or certainly original research.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Downey link was brought up in the report on the incident on Countdown with Keith Olbermann K8 fan (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen bloggers drawing the comparison. I hope you don't think I've had this factoid squirreled away in my brain for 20 years. The similarity between the event seems plain on its face, so I'm not certain why a reliable source would be needed. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person, and a potential court case that's sub-judice. I hardly think that links on blogs to neo-nazi accusations is appropriate. It tends to assume a racist motivation here, which is entirely speculative. It is clearly not appropriate to make such a link ourselves.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see the racism parallel here. Downey didn't claim he was attacked for being Irish, merely for his loudmouth political views, and this woman likewise claimed she was attacked for being a McCain supporter, not due to race. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, on examination, it is a fairly close parallel. But then, the examination is original research.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No research is involved here: I proposed merely a see also link. My threshold for what can go in a "see also" section is fairly low. I shouldn't have to create Category:People who falsely claimed to be mugged and drew backwards glyphs on themselves as evidence to link the two articles for the benefit of future historians. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My threshold for what we put in a BLP is fairly high. Linking to another fairly negative article needs a reason more than "hey, I think these cases are similar".--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's POV to not link to such articles. Also, it's wikilawyering at its most ridiculous to argue against a simple See also link on the basis of OR. More importantly, WP:SEEALSO clearly states "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" (emphasis by me). As long as there is not an unequivocally worded, agreed-upon and stable piece of police that would specifically override WP:SEEALSO for BLPs, the link clearly belongs. Also, Scott, IDONTLIKE it is as good a reason as any. Just don't be intellectually dishonest about it, please. 78.34.130.177 (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article should stay up! It is newsworthy, and I looked Ashley Todd up on Wikipedia to get more information. I think the article should be expanded....certainly not deleted! BaliPearl (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Page name from where?

Looking at the Afd, a few people suggested Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax is the title for this page, but we ended up with "Ashley Todd's mugging claim". One person's choice? The current title doesn't inform the user of the content, as a "claim" is considerably different from a "hoax" or an "incident", being that the word lends itself to the idea that the claim may or may not be true at the time of reading. Since we know it now to be a hoax, admitted by the perpetrator, I think that should be the descriptor of the concurrence. If people believe that hoax is too strong a word, then I would also accept incident. As it is, it's pretty weaselly. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fully agree. Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax should be it, but not this awkward Ashley Todd's "mugging claim" title. Using the descriptor "claim" unequivocally --and wrongly-- implies that the validity of the claim is unkown. It has been called a hoax in some media outlets, and I think that's the most accurate term to describe it. If people have concerns about the "neutrality" of that title, I'm open to moving it to the emphatically neutral Ashley Todd incident as a concession to PC compromise. 78.34.130.177 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would go with "Ashley Todd mugging hoax." That describes that person, the alleged incident and the admitted nature of the incident. --HoboJones (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me as well. Maybe even better than either of the other options brought to the table so far. Personally, I'd apply the same as above: If people think "hoax" is too anti-POV POV a descriptor, I'm open to Ashley Todd mugging incident as well. 78.34.130.177 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "hoax" is appropriate, since she admitted that it was, well, a hoax.[1]. Shouldn't use "incident," since that seems to imply that the mugging might actually have happened or that some part of it did. Actually, none of it happened, so hoax is appropriate.--HoboJones (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Ashley Todd's mugging hoax it is [UPDATE: Y Done. I've moved it to "Ashley Todd's mugging hoax" instead of "Ashley Todd mugging hoax" since the hoax is accurately described as having been perpetrated by her. The latter title would be unusefully vague on that]. As I see nothing that would speak against the move, and plenty that speaks against the current article title, I'm commencing the move right now. Everyme 09:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Object. I'm not sure hoax is appropriate. Someone who may be unstable said some untrue things. Hoax implies a deception over time, not claims made then quickly retracted. There is a living subject here, we need to careful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when does hoax imply "deception over time"? The dictionary says "something intended to deceive or defraud," which is exactly what happened. And besides, she didn't "retract" her claim until the next morning during a 5-hour questioning session and polygraph tests. "Hoax" is fine.--HoboJones (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And even more so since she is being charged with filing a false report. That's the very definition of a hoax. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm. (i) Someone who may be unstable said some untrue things. — Yes, that plus carved a letter on her cheek and gave herself a blue eye in order to lend her entirely made-up, viciously racebaiting story greater credibility. (ii) Hoax implies a deception over time, not claims made then quickly retracted. — covered by HoboJones, but just in case: hoax, wikt:hoax, and Merriam-Webster's definition of hoax. Also, "quickly retracted" is not true. She admitted it only after the police got suspicious when details in her story changed and didn't add up. (iii) There is a living subject here, we need to careful. — There's a living encyclopedia here, we need to be accurate. [alleged personal attacks removed] Everyme 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoax is entirely accurate. Todd falsified the claim, then made numerous Twitter comments about it. The claim appeared on Drudge. Peter Feldman of the Pennsylvania McCain campaign added his own inflammatory and racially charged details and pushed the story throughout Pennsylvania. The national McCain campaign called the attack "sick and disgusting." Conservative commentators and bloggers vilified Obama and the Obama campaign over the story. It indeed took place "over time," though that period of time was relatively short. It is the definition of a hoax, though it is unclear how much of this Todd anticipated or planned. Black Max (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Black Max

Campaign reactions missing

Both campaigns' reactions should definitely be mentioned, as covered e.g. in this CNN article (ref already in the article) or at thepittsburghchannel. 78.34.130.177 (talk) / Everyme 09:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions that may need an answer

How was she able to pretend the mugger had cut a reversed 'B' in her face? Did she have an old scar? Had she cut herself recently? I feel this question is so obvious that the whole story seems to hang a bit in the air. Does anyone know about a source that helps here? If she cut herself, it adds to the depth of her determination to smear the Obama campaign (or whoever, since it is also hard to make the campaign responsible for such an outlandish act). On the other side it also would suggest she may have been somewhat mentally unbalanced.

Then again, since the circumstances suggest it was planned by somebody near McCain's campaign (since people there were able to tell details before they ought to know), it becomes harder to understand the nature of the acts involved. If it was planned by others than herself, how did they persuade her to cut herself? Or did she inform them before calling the police?

On the other hand, if she did not cut herself, how come the police did not question that part? Or did they?

If anyone finds out something, I suggest it be told here - providing the rules admit, e.g. no original research. I mean to say, I think it would be on-topic and appropriate, since it may determine what conclusions are possible to draw from the event.

At this point, I am unsure if it is permissible to have material of a more speculative nature here on the discussion page, until proper sources and facts are established. Any advice?

Another question that arises naturally is, how did the McCain campaign, and especially the Pennsylvania Communications Director, respond when it became clear it was a hoax?

It is perhaps a bit early yet, but once it gets reported, I think such details are important, and should be included when available. For the moment, we have "Feldman couldn't immediately be reached, and a McCain HQ spokesperson declined to comment" from TPM, but I think it does not make much sense to fuss about that until they have had more time. The purpose of an article must not be to make anyone look bad, unless they really leave it that way. I think many will be looking up this article especially in the context of allegations of dishonest campaigning, and it must be relevant to include anything that can help establish what inferences are justified, what are not, and what are open.

Cacadril (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• All good questions, only answerable via reliable sources. As to the wounds (the "B" and her eye), police believes they were self-inflicted and it is believed she acted alone. Also, she told police that she conjured up the idea spontaneously, while "driving around in her car". As always, the safest way to handle quoted information is to follow WP:ASF. Everyme 12:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the discussion about deleting. I think the notability of the event is related to the possible political effects, and if it turns out so, to what it reveals about the honesty of the campaigns. The person behind here, A.T., is really not so central. The page has been renamed to A.T's hoax, but it would be possible to go even a step further, e.g. "Bloomfield false mugging claim" after the place of the alleged mugging. TPM calls it the '"carved B" story'. Of course the earlier titles should redirect to the new one.

I think the section "Propagation of the lie" is dangerously close to an insinuation. I myself jumped to the conclusion that there must have been a conspiracy, before I realized that there were more possibilities. To keep an encyclopedic level, it should perhaps be reformulated, so that the interpretations it invites are spelled out and contrasted with other reasonable ones.

TPM, who seems to be the source here, does not spell out much either, but says "incendiary version". It is not clear what other versions existed at the time. The following is speculative, but shows the ambiguity. Since A.T. was working for the campaign, it seems natural that she would inform her employer early. For the campaign organization it must have appeared very important to inform their upper echelons about the incident. Had the incident been real, and had there been more of them (or even with just one), it would have been crucial that upper management have a chance to take steps to protect their people. It is also possible, unless any source says otherwise, that the campaign, not A.T. herself, called the police. In that case, it becomes rather natural that the campaign has the details before most media.

Still the timing tells something about how fast the campaign moved to exploit the event. It would also be of interest to look at how exactly the campaign used it. TPM tells about reporters being told when they call. I have not yet seen that they made a general press release. That makes it hard to judge how much they tried to use it to smear the Obama campaign in general. In any case I see little evidence that the campaign centrally tried to exploit this.

I now have the impression that this story is moving toward a case of mental instability, and not so much more. If so, the actual meat here is how the blogosphere and the media magnified it. Or possibly the campaign did (or just one over-exited director).

Cacadril (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

An anon changed the section title from the accurate and IMHO neutral "Propagation of the hoax" to the needlessly incendiary version in this edit. Full disclosure: I myself was the one who changed a section title that I felt unnecessarily prejudicial to "Propagation of the hoax".[2] -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Greg Sargent of TPM used the terms "inflammatory" and "racially charged." He cited as examples the Feldman claim that the attacker would "teach [her] a lesson" for being a McCain supporter, and that the "B" stood for "Barack." The fact that Todd, a white Republican, would claim that a black Obama supporter carried out an overtly politicized attack on her is in itself racially charged. The description is not only accurate, but sourced from a viable news outlet. Black Max (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Black Max

Production of the marks

In Chapter XII of P.T. Barnum's The Humbugs of the World, he explains how to produce marks like Todd displayed:

The mediums produce “blood-red letters on the arm” in a very simple way. It is done with a pencil, or some blunt-pointed instrument, it being necessary to bear on hard while the movement of writing is being executed. The pressure, though not sufficient to abrade the skin, forces the blood from the capillary vessels over which the pencil passes, and where, when the reaction takes place, an unusual quantity of blood gathers and becomes plainly visible through the cuticle. Gradually, as an equilibrium of the circulation is restored, the letters pass away.

I believe this may have some relevance to the discussion. K8 fan (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep the speculation out of the article. There will be plenty of investigating in the next few days, so don't add anything like that.--HoboJones (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

TPM as source?

Is Talking Points Memo really considered a reliable source? Apparently it's the only blog to win a Polk Award, which is impressive, but this note in WP:SPS says blogs are only okay if the writer is a professional and the blog is subject to a newspaper's editorial controls. --Allen (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reading that note more closely, I see that if the blog is not subject to editorial control it can still be cited as long as its claims are attributed, as they are in this article. But technically the note is still discussing blogs published by news organizations, and it's not clear to me whether a blog can be its own news organization. --Allen (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it pays to be too legalistic in this case. The question isn't the technical one of whether "a blog can be its own news organization," but rather whether the blog is written by professionals and generally deemed to be of reasonable quality. Given the Polk Award, I think using TPM as a source with attribution is safe. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Perhaps the wording of that note I cited could use some tweaking, though; these situations will probably come up more as the distinction between bloggers and journalists gets more complex. --Allen (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some good local reliable sources: McCain worker admits to hoax-Pittsburgh Tribune Review, McCain volunteer admits to hoax, Police explain McCain volunteer's hoax Campaign Volunteer Faces Charges In Attack Hoax-KDKA.--HoboJones (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was the specific claim that the PA McCain campaign had been pushing the lie to the media that I've only heard from TPM. --Allen (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't watch the video for some reason, so I can't tell if this television report counts as independent verification of the claim or just as subsequent developments: http://www.wpxi.com/politics/17814836/detail.html A Pittsburgh city councilman is protesting to the McCain-Palin campaign that one of their officials pushed the "incendiary" version of the story "before confirmation of the facts." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo is itself a blog, produced by Joshua Micah Marshall. However, the associated sites -- TPM Muckraker, TPM Election Central, TPMDC, and others -- are actual news sources, though with a frankly progressive/liberal bent. The TPM sites pay reporters to investigate and write about news events, and attempt to report accurately. Some TPM reporters, such as Greg Sargent (Washington Post) and Justin Elliot (Daily Beast) have moved on to more high-profile news outlets. TPM's POV is clear (and not hidden), but they should be considered as reliable a news source as any similar sources on the right, such as Fox News, Newsmax, and others. Black Max (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Black Max

TPM is not the only source that covered McCain/Palin's meeting with Todd... It was mentioned on MSNBC as well, and also on Fox. But all of the mainstream media took that information down within a day of putting it up. What does wikipedia do to prevent information from disappearing like that... I only remember the news as I was following it... I didn't take screenshots of the website or record the TV news at that time. Why are the only sources on this article from after the hoax was over with? There is a reason that this story was so pivotal in the 2008 election... Where is all the stuff leading up to the importance of this case? 66.176.105.113 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TPM is NOT a WP:RS for fact, though it is a prominent progressive activist blog, and can be used for WP:RS Opinion, as it is widely read and known. The way it is being used is a case study in how NOT to distinguish fact from opinion. TPM made an ACCUSATION (aka opinion in WP-speak), that was called false by the accused (again, common; it is why TPM is not WP:RS for fact). The way this is phrased in the article is as fact, merely ATTRIBUTED to TPM, and the qualification ("journalist" denies that this is opinion), an incorrect one, fails to give the reader what the bias is (important if you can't simply say opinion and have the reader understand why it is only opinion).--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

not sure how to add this

So I'll ask here for advice. Found an article [[3]] that says Miss Todd worked previously on the Ron Paul campaign up until March, when she was asked to leave for her shenanigans while there, including saying that she'd had her car tires slashed because she was a Ron Paul supporter, and phoning up the Huckabee campaign to try and worm information on campaign strategies from them. Seems relevant that she's done this sort of thing in the past (without receiving the national attention). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems relevant (though note it says she worked for "a grass-roots group of Ron Paul supporters", not the official campaign). Rockpocket 19:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the prior allegations of her problems working for the Ron Paul campaign are notable in the context of this most recent situation. It's definitely difficult to work them in without making this page a bio of her however. --Kickstart70TC 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do think that is relevant information, since it provides context to the incident. I agree we should be careful to keep this focused on the event rather than the person, but that certainly seems relevant to the event.--HoboJones (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about this Post-Gazette story: in the headline, and early in the body, it refers to Todd as a volunteer (as does our article). But later it repeatedly calls her an employee (a field representative) of the College Republican National Committee. That doesn't make her a McCain employee, but it doesn't exactly make her a volunteer either. --Allen (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost all the other sources refer to her as a "volunteer", its probably best to stick with that for now. Rockpocket 02:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd posted these videos on Youtube

I am not sure if this should be added, this is Ashley Todd's Youtube page that has 15 videos chronicling her campaign work [[4]]. It is likely that it will be removed soon. --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not likely to be added, nor should it, unless any of those videos directly relates to the hoax. This is not an Ashley Todd bio page. --Kickstart70TC 05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Prior history of mental health problems

Admitted by Ashley herself according to CNN, and she was housed in a mental health unit of the jail according to ABC. I'm inclined to mention these facts in the article. Any opposition? VG ☎ 13:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, how is this in the least encyclopaedic?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See this analysis why this may be relevant. Of course, no details of her mental health history were published, so it's somewhat speculative at this point. But CNN and ABC though that the information is relevant to her actions. VG ☎ 13:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the inclusion of any well-sourced material which sheds light on why she made these false allegations. If Scott MacDonald views the entirety of this article as unencyclopedic (and I believe he has expressed those sentiments) that is a legitimate opinion -- if one that I think he has an uphill struggle ahead of him to defend. However, separately and specifically opposing inclusion of sourced material on Todd's history of mental health problems is like making the claim "the what is encyclopedic, the who is encyclopedic, the where is encyclopedic, the when is encyclopedic, the how is encyclopedic, but how is the why in the least encyclopedic?"

It must also be factored in that people will not refrain from forming their own theories on why Ashley Todd made these accusations simply because we withhold evidence from them. Some might (correctly) guess that she has a history of mental health problems; others, however, may fail to suspect this explanation, and attribute it instead to sheer political malice and/or racism. I don't believe that Scott MacDonald wants readers to come away with the impression that making false assault claims linked to opposite candidates is simply what can be expected from sane McCain supporters. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some citations to include her claim of prior mental health problems. Certainly that seems to be a plausible explanation for the topic at hand, but her claiming these problems exist does need to be substantiated independently. Unless, of course, we make it clear that these are exclusively her claims and not proven facts about her that led up to the current occurrence. --Kickstart70TC 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the articles linked above? VG ☎ 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and none of these give substantive evidence to the claim of prior mental problems. Certainly being housed in the mental health unit of the jail and the face-scratching are evidence of current mental health problems, but I've yet to see any indication that she was under the care of a mental health professional or undergoing any treatment for mental health problems before this current incident occurred. If you're seeing something I've missed, please point it out. --Kickstart70TC 20:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Kickstart. The story highlights here on CNN claim that "Police say the 20-year-old has a history of mental problems" but the story actually says that police say she says she has that history. I can't claim to have gone through all 1,595 Google News results for "Ashley Todd 'prior mental'" but I've yet to find one that claims to independently verify that history.

As an issue of how that alleged history figures into the story, I found that this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story (already being used as a source in our article) gave details I have not seen elsewhere: in at least one (possibly the latest) version of her story, Todd claims that she saw the B scratched into her cheek, didn't know where it originated, assumed that she herself had done it in a period of memory loss, but decided to concoct the "black Obama supporter" story before reporting the attack to police. Obviously, we cannot take this claim at face value, but at least it does narrow down the truth: either she has some really big mental health problems, or she tells really big lies about everything including her mental health. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Insofar there's no direct link between her mental health problems and this incident. In all such cases the link is essentially the opinion of mental health professional, sometimes endorsed by a jury (see diminished capacity). But the CNN link does quote the police as saying "She said she has prior mental problems and doesn't know how the backward letter 'B' got on her face." It seems reasonable to include this information with proper attribution in the article, e.g. "According to a CNN report, Ashley Todd told the police that "she has she has prior mental problems and doesn't know how the backward letter 'B' got on her face"[ref CNN here]". Since I doubt she'll give an interview anytime soon, this seem reasonable way to include her (most recent) position. VG ☎ 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hate crimes

Allen3 (talk · contribs) chose to remove this article from Category:Fake hate crimes (I initially thought that it was a non-existent category, but then I realized that in fact Allen3 had removed every article from that category, then speedy-deleted the category because it was "empty".) Allen3's stated reason for removing the tag from this article was "political preference is not a consideration within hate crime laws in the United States". However, the article on hate crime states that a hate crime occurs when "a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation." (emphasis added) It seems to me to be extremely hair-splitting to declare that falsely accusing a fictional black male Obama supporter of assaulting a white female McCain supporter is not a fake hate crime because political affiliation is ... is what? Is somehow a non-hateful basis upon which to commit a crime? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The given source in hate crime does not say anything about attacks on political affiliation being hate crimes. It's also a primary source, which we should be avoiding anyway. But that's not really the point. I think what's more important is that different laws define hate crimes differently, and there is no universal definition. I think, for this reason alone, a "fake hate crimes" category might be difficult to maintain. --Allen (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

By the exact same logic, there should be no Category:Hate crimes, yet I am unaware of anyone undertaking to depopulate the category and then speedy-delete the category as "empty". If a black male Obama supporter really had assaulted and disfigured a white female McCain supporter, would anyone try to seriously claim that the result didn't belong in Category:Hate crimes? "I'm sorry; it's illegal to discriminate for jobs or for housing on the basis of race, sex, or politics, but scratching a symbolic representation of the characteristic for which you hate a stranger into their skin is only a hate crime if that characteristic is race or sex"? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If the attack had been real... who knows? We're all free to imagine what the imaginary attacker's motivations might have been, and which of those motivations might have been demonstrable in court. But as far as I know, Todd claimed she was attacked because of her politics, and political orientation isn't a protected class in US hate crime laws. So it doesn't sound like a fake hate crime to me. Your personal, moral definition of a hate crime might be different from the legal one, but there's not much Wikipedia can do about that. (And I'm not arguing that whatever happened to the "fake hate crimes" category was correct; I haven't looked into it.) --Allen (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, if she were sane, her false claim could itself be considered a hate crime of sorts; something along the lines of blood libel. That said, certainly sounds like a fake hate crime to me, protected category or no protected category. Rsynnott (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a "fake hate crime". That was the whole point of her perpetrating this hoax. But how many entries would be in such a category? Not many. You've got this bimbo, and Tawana Brawley, and maybe Morton Downey, Jr., and that's about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Also:

I noticed a "See also" section as added and referenced Susan Smith. I'm not sure if that would be entirely appropriate here. The cases just seem... too different. Can I get other opinions on this?

Thats not to say I'm against adding a mention of other, similar cases in a "see also" section: Tawana Brawley comes to mind, as does Jennifer Wilbanks. Thoughts? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on Susan Smith, and I removed the see also section. Susan Smith murdered her children and told a story to try to cover it up; that's a very different thing than what Ashley Todd did. --Allen (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support removing the Susan Smith "see also"; besides lying the two cases don't have much in common. VG ☎ 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What they have in common, as with the Brawley case, is to try to fan the flames of racism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't paid enough attention to that article: the racial and the mental health element are also present, so a "see also" may be appropriate. VG ☎ 11:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there are some common points... but I find it hard to compare someone whose main crime was lying with someone whose main crime was murdering her own children. But it's subjective, I suppose. In fact, that's why I'm wary of See Also sections in cases like this; different people have different perspectives of which elements are key. --Allen (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, some element of judgment is called for -- which is what we editors are here for. I agree, though, that there's a great difference between a false story told to cover up a real crime, and a false story told to cover up or explain something trivial. I think the Tawana Brawley case is a good enough match for a "See also" section, however. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to my adding the Towana Brawley case in a SEE ALSO field? If not, I will add it. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

heh, never mind, someone beat me to it. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea... it's a way to snipe at the subject of this article by uncited comparison. It's saying "this person (Todd) you might not have heard of is just like this famous, very negative case you have heard of". It's also not a fair comparison... Brawley's allegations resulted in a media phenomenon, grand jury hearings and then a defamation lawsuit against her defenders... the Ashley Todd thing seems to end after a day with her getting mental help. I went ahead and removed it because it's probably a WP:BLP issue. --Rividian (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"It's saying 'this person (Todd) you might not have heard of is just like..." No, it's not. It's saying "If there is something about the hoax perpetrated by Ashley Todd which is relevant to your research or your interests then these other articles are very likely to be of interest to you as well." The guidelines say of the "See also" section, "These [items] may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" -- no requirement that only subjects "just like" may be included. You may think that the two cases are completely unrelated, but guess what -- others feel differently. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think these topics are "peripherally" related, though. Do any people in one case have even a peripheral connection to people in the other? Similarity is different than peripheral; peripheral means there is a real connection, just not an extremely direct one. And like I said, these really are different cases... the similarity is very debatable. As for your sources that "others" feel the cases are similar, those are all blogs and forum comments, as far as I can tell, which aren't reliable sources. If you have a source where say, a columnist in a major newspaper says this case is similar to the Brawley case, then by all means we could mention the connection, since there'd be a meaningful source to back it up. --Rividian (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Michelle Malkin, then? Here, even before the fact that Todd was hoaxing was publicly revealed, Malkin wrote "This seems to me to have shades of Paul Mirecki (note that there was a photo in that case, too), Sarah Marshak, and Tawana Brawley all over it." Does that meet your conditions? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add language that says, "Michelle Malkin said in her blog that she felt the case was similar to that of Tawana Brawley", I think that would be okay. It would be better than a context-less see also link. --Rividian (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A "See also" should only point to articles that are directly related, or shed light on the article in question. They are not a place to put articles on the basis of "hey we think this incident is a little like this unconnected on one". Any such joining dots on a BLP would be removed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"A "See also" should only point to articles that are directly related --" Are you planning to rewrite the guidelines in question to reflect your view, then? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of her picture?

Why don't you just ask the guy who took the picture. The Post Gazette article has his name and where he goes to college. try the directory there.http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08299/922849-53.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duty free fiend (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where fair use could be claimed, i.e. showing the picture with the inverted B, which is subject to commentary in the text. Anyone against adding it? VG ☎ 13:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a fair use of the picture. It definitely helps readers of this entry to see exactly what she did to herself, and how that relates to her story User:BobTheMad —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

The first thing that should be done is to attempt to secure a release from the photographer. Better to have guaranteed free content than that with uncertain legal status. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The photographer was her friend, Dan Garcia. According to news reports, he provided it to the Pittsburgh police and to the College Republicans. It was then posted on Drudge and promulgated by Peter Feldman of the Pennsylvania McCain campaign. While Garcia has not said directly whether he intended the photo to be freely distributed (at least not to my knowledge), he certainly hasn't complained or intervened in any way to stop its distribution, and the picture is all over the Internet. I see no problem with keeping it on the WP page. Black Max (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Black Max

guilty plea

I've added a paragraph about her guilty plea from today. If anyone has any more information about it, go ahead and add it. Also, I'm wondering if that section, News Coverage, could be changed? The title doesn't seem quite right. Problem is, I can't think of anything better. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be about how it went from a small incident to a national headlines incident. I don't know if that suggests a title. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"...and news coverage"

Would "... and political commentary" sound better? VG ☎ 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.examiner.com/x-1421-DC-News-Examiner~y2008m10d24-McCain-supporter-lies-about-attack

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ashley Todd mugging hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025075412/http://kdka.com:80/video?id=47866@kdka.dayport.com to http://kdka.com/video/?id=47866@kdka.dayport.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025073658/http://kdka.com:80/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html to http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)