Talk:Chanel Miller/Archive 1

untitled

Is it allowed to go into how the "Emily Doe" and "Everywoman" phenomenon was promoted? I think that is of some interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:14AA:4968:B60C:1F3 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a fact check of the famous statement by Miller is appropriate. For example, Miller said Turner "jabbed" "pine needles" into her - this is completely false, as was shown by the forensic exam, the "rape kit" - and she also started the statement with the claim she had blood on her hands- this is misleading at best. Since she had no injuries,any blood on her hands would have been caused by medical treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:5077:8E1F:A350:1C4A (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Miller being "handled" by Stanford Professor MIchele Dauber?

Responding to the other Talk section about how the "Emily Doe" and "Everywoman" memes were promoted, it might be good to do a paragraph on Stanford Professor Michele Dauber who advised Miller, admitted to being present when Miller wrote the famous statement, admitted to promoting it by sending it out to the media, with the help of the producers of the largely discredited documentary film "The Hunting Ground" and for several years was the only media contact for Miller, and was by far the most important character in the Recall Persky movement.

Doing an article about Miller which leaves out Dauber, who made her a meme and made her famous makes no sense, it is a very incomplete history. It seems very likely no one would have ever heard of Chanel Miller without Michele Dauber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:5077:8E1F:A350:1C4A (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are problems with an article, feel free to fix it, but you must have reliable sources to back up any claim you wish to make. Controversial changes, especially. Enwebb (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meme? Linguist111^talk 04:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem fully documenting all Professor Dauber did to promote this, because she made a point of covering her tracks, extensively, and got the cooperation of the media to do so. I have documents from Dauber to the Santa Clara DA's office, which have not been published online yet, indicating Dauber was running the show. Dauber was also repeatedly quoted in media, regarding the case and identified as a "friend of the family" with her sexual assault activism being left out of the reporting. Dauber is also mentioned in Miller's book "Know My Name" although her role in this appears to be greatly minimized in the book.

In the Democracy Now video, Dauber also admits to being "present" when Miller wrote her statement, and to sending it out to the media with the help of a producer of "The Hunting Ground" - and she states Miller was left almost dead by Turner, which of course has no relationship to the facts at all, Miller was uninjured. I am not sure the "Emily Doe" phenomenon would exist without Dauber's active promotion. Would Dauber's video be considered good documentation? Miller's book segment on Dauber? The Dauber/DA emails?

If you don't have a citation to a reliable source, then this content cannot be added to the article. We do not promote conspiracy theories. Any information you add to this article that is not adequately sourced will be removed expeditiously per the biographies of living people policy. Enwebb (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is not very helpful honestly - I think I asked specifically if a video of Dauber SAYING she was involved in the promotion was considered a good source, and you

"If you don't have a citation "to a reliable source" then this content can not be added to this article.  Again, these are videos of Dauber herself making the claims I said she did.  It seems a bit insulting to then say  "We do not promote conspiracy theories" as though I am making things up.As I said, Dauber has wiped the Web clean of pretty much everything which does not promote her narrative. So, I will ask again, if you know, is video of a person identified in all media as an important part of this regarded as "a reliable source"? I can not see how it is not, but if it is not, please let me know, I am working on uploading it and linking it.  Dauber was explicitly identified as the person who ran the Recall Persky campaign in multiple media reports, including the San Jose Mercury News, The Huffington Post, and so on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:34D8:9F55:D127:CAB0 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article says "Emily Doe" victim impact statement "Went Viral" , this is kind of misleading

The article says Chanel Miller's famous victim impact statement "Went viral" but this is not exactly true, Stanford Professor Michele Dauber who has been generally identified as making Miller her protege, said she sent the statement out to multiple media organizations with the helpf of one of the producers of "The Hunting Ground" movie about campus sexual assault. Not trying to quibble but the fact this was a planned event is very important I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:CD6C:FA44:844D:837D (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Enwebb (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a point about citations, but Democracy Now took down the interview with Dauber, shortly before it put up an interview with Miller herself. I recorded the interview with my home camera and intend to publish it to the web so it can be linked. I would point out here however, there is no citation for the claim it "went viral" - and assuming, because it became widely known eventually, that it was not actively promoted, as "went viral" implies, is not justified, particularly when the statement itself is clearly directed to the public, not solely the judge in the case, as a true "victim impact statement" would be. Miller says "To girls everywhere" in the statement itself. At the very least, she certainly intended it become widely known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BD7F:DF3C:9FD9:F957 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Miller's "blackout"drinking history and other trial controversies?

I believe there should be more details from the trial and why Turner's conviction was controversial. All the following can be impeccably documented: 1. Miller admitted to drinking to the point of blacking out, not remembering what occurred while she was drinking, but being completely ambulatory,several times in the past. This is in a police statement given by Miller.

2. Miller lied to the police, apparently, when, in the same interview, she said there were no communications on her cell phone from the time of the party, but later, her calls and texts to Lucas Motro were used as evidence of her intoxication in the trial.

3. Miller made claims about pine needles and dirt being jabbed into her vagina by Turner, in her famous statement, but the forensic exam did not find any.

4. Miller implied she was injured by Turner, but EMTs and forensic exam showed no injuries.

"Behind a dumpster" is misleading.

The claim Miller was found out passed out "behind a dumpster" is misleading. The dumpsters previously kept there, before the memorial was put in place, were freestanding, surrounded by a decorative fence. So, if you were standing on the north side of the dumpster, she would be "behind" the dumpster if she was lying on the south side of the enclosure, but if you were on the south side, with Miller in the same place, she would be "in front" of it. If one reads the police reports, Miller and Turner were in front of the dumpster relative to the Kappa Alpha partygoers on the back lawn of KA, which would be far more people, with more time to see what they were doing, then people walking on either of the paths to the sides of the basketball courts. That phrase should be removed. Admittedly it HAS been repeated by media outlets, but the police reports are better original sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BD7F:DF3C:9FD9:F957 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NPR, and various other sources all use this language. Therefore, it should stay. Enwebb (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand an article needs "reliable sources", but please explain on what basis these news organizations are "reliable". They really are not, when you look at the actual court documents - not as to this issue at least. If I was making this up, that would of course be much different. The police reports are on the LA Times website. I will try to go get a link, but the point is, Miller and Turner were "behind" the dumpster relative to the police car driving down the service road to the dumpster, but in front of the dumpster, relative to the people in the backyard of the frat. Perpetuating misleading information should not be required by any rules intended to increase accuracy.

Was Chanel Miller's decision to reveal her identity an effort to exploit the virality of her experience to gain media attention and perhaps career prospects?

While I would definitely like to believe that Chanel Miller decided to come forward as Emily Doe in the People v Turner case to help push forward the agenda of addressing SVSH issues on campuses and beyond, I also feel like this article fails to address her true motivations behind them. Btryce (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What legitimate sources to you have to back up such a claim?Bkatcher (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding edit warring

Hi Foulsmeg, we have an informal process on Wikipedia known as Bold, Revert, Discuss, or WP:BRD. This practice is often used to avoid edit warring. Essentially, it is fine to be bold and make a change. However, if someone disagrees with you and removes or modifies the change you made, you should not just simply reinstate your change. Continuing to reinstate your preferred version of an article is considered disruptive. Instead, you should start a discussion on the talk page.

I believe that focusing on the commercial aspects of Miller's memoir (she began "selling" her memoir as opposed to she "wrote" it or "released" it) may not present a neutral point of view. "Released" is more neutral. Please respond to this discussion with your thoughts so we can attempt to establish consensus on what the article should say. Enwebb (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used “selling” because it is direct, factual, in plain English, and more suitable for an encyclopedia. I’m having trouble understanding your concern about neutrality. Can you explain how you perceive “selling” to be not neutral? - Foulsmeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foulsmeg (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet. Enwebb (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, the publisher of the book was the one who was selling it. "Released" is also direct, factual, and in plain English. By focusing on the commercial aspect of Miller's experience, such as using the word "selling" and saying In addition to the sales from her memoir, she currently enjoys additional income as a speaker represented by a major talent agency., I am worried that Wikipedia is giving nod to Miller's detractors who say that Miller was not really the victim of a crime, and is instead seeking to "profit" off the experience of being sexually assaulted.

In examining how other authors are presented on Wikipedia, I note the following:

" Early in her career, she sometimes used the pen name A. M. Barnard, under which she wrote novels for young adults that focused on spies and revenge" wrote not sold Louisa May Alcott
"She is best known for writing the Harry Potter fantasy series" writing not selling J.K. Rowling
"While her first novel, The Professor, was rejected by publishers, her second novel, Jane Eyre, was published in 1847" published not sold Charlotte Bronte

I changed your "enjoys additional income..." addition to "She is also a public speaker", which is much briefer and still conveys the full meaning of the cited reference. You changed that back as well. What advantage do you see in pointing out the fact that she, as an author, made money from writing a memoir, and also makes money by being a public speaker? To me, it is necessarily implied that the author of the book is paid for writing that book, and that someone who is a public speaker also is receiving compensation. Enwebb (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::I was unaware that there were detractors as you have described. Should this be included in the article, for completion and neutrality? - Foulsmeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foulsmeg (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet. Enwebb (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's conception of neutrality is not that all points of view are equal, or even that all views and opinions are included. Otherwise, our article on Earth would read, "The Earth is perhaps a spherical body, though could be flat". The types of sources alleging that Miller's assault was a hoax are fringe sources such as the Daily Stormer, and thus, do not merit inclusion in this article. Enwebb (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enwebb, I noticed that you reached out to an administrator and asked them to keep watch over this article. I also noticed that you have been heavily involved in editing this article in the past. I’m concerned that you may feel like the article belongs to you, and that you have sole authority over approving any changes to it. I’m also somewhat concerned that you are trying to push a particular point of view. My somewhat limited understanding of Wikipedia is that no one owns any articles, and that anyone may edit them. I suppose I could be wrong, but I just wanted to mention these things in the interest of a civil dialogue. Thanks. - Foulsmeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foulsmeg (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet. Enwebb (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate possibility for your consideration is that, as a new editor, you do not have full understanding of Wikipedia policies, and thus should expect that other editors will correct you when you make edits that are inconsistent with these policies. We do not typically include the prices for books, or any other product, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sales catalogue. That relevant linked policy states An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Wikipedia is also supposed to conform to a neutral point of view and not include or imply fringe viewpoints such that Miller is "chasing a profit". This article has been edited 175 times by 55 different editors, and yes, I am one of them. I am responsible for about 15% of the article in its current iteration. Please consider this alternative perspective and assume good faith rather than that I have a personal vendetta against you in pursuit of ownership of this article or to maintain a "non-neutral point of view". What non-neutral POV am I espousing, in your opinion? Also, as a new editor, you may not realize that we have special rules that apply to Biographies of Living People, so I don't see the issue in asking a respected administrator to provide a second set of eyes. If I am exhibiting the behavior you are accusing me of, you should welcome the attention of such an editor. Enwebb (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I see. Thank you for your response. Foulsmeg (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Striking comments by blocked sockpuppet. Enwebb (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including details of the assault

I think it would be worthwhile to include mention that Miller’s vagina was digitally penetrated, since this was a notable facet of the ensuing debate over what constitutes rape. In order to avoid vexing the de facto owner of the article, I thought I would ask here before making the edit. - Foulsmeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foulsmeg (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Struck comments by blocked sockpuppet. Enwebb (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with Enwebb that the previous edit made it sound like the graduate students observed this, which is not supported by the sourcing. It would be helpful if you could provide specific text and sourcing that you intend to add this to the article, as that will allow others to give more useful feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]