Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2007

[edit]

This needs to be merged with the bigger Duke Lacrosse Case article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.100.21 (talk) 10:03, August 30, 2007

September 2007

[edit]

Just wanted to drop in and say "good job" to the editors of this article; it conveys the (factually accurate) impession that all the anti-Duke team people were acting irrationally and, often, in a racist manner. If anyone wants to take my comment as some kind of NPOV issue, just because something gives an impression doesn't mean that it's a NPOV violation. Alternator 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How odd

[edit]

I did a search for "NAACP" in the article and came up with nothing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would no longer be the case today. StaticElectric (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help: Attempts to Suppress Page on Group of 88

[edit]

I have been trying to start a page on the Group of 88. People in Wikipedia are actively trying to suppress the creation of such a page. This article mentions this group, but the reader is not able to see who was part of this group or get more background information. Please contribute to that page, and support me in my attempt to keep it from being deleted [1]-The kekon (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I tried to start a Group of 88 page twice. Both times it was pulled down. It's asinine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavika411 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to consult such an article too, especially since the little stalins of that group are still publishing articles, casting themselves as the victims in this mess. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help: Other Faculty Pages Under Attack

[edit]

Those who have commented on the active supression of Group of 88 pages will not be surprised to find that the entries on Houston Baker and Alice Kaplan are being mercilessly whitewashed by faculty apologists. Please help in making sure that no fact of the Duke Lacrosse story is lost. HoundofBaskersville (talk)

Faculty hacks are on the move again at the Alex Rosenberg page. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have removed any reference to the case in the entry from Michael Hardt as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that's worst about wikipedia

[edit]

I love wikipedia and believe in it, but this page is an example of all that's worst about it: a small, motivated and agitated minority can distort a page far away from the principles of WP:NPOV. The Durham-in-Wonderland followers should stop trying to turn it into a summary of that blog. It's a shame. Curveship (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no examples to support your claim of distortion. Nicmart (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added list of "Group of 88" signatories here

[edit]

Attempts to create a page with the list have been subverted. A Wikipedia search for "Group of 88" redirects to this page. Ergo the list belongs here. Nicmart (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, especially #7. Why should the article include every one of the 88 names? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you to explain why the list should not be here. They are famous. They played a key role in the Duke case, and many future writers on the topic will want to know who they were. There is no reason for them to not be here. This was an historically important event, and it is not easy to find the full list on the Internet. Nicmart (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explained above why the list shouldn't be here. And your claim that their names are hard to find is laughable. It took 15 seconds on Google to find them here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/List of Gang of 88 Duke Professors3.html. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that explanation? I don't find it. Do you have a connection to any of the 88, or to Duke? You seem to have a strong unexplained interest in this topic. I've again reverted to include the list, and you need to provide a legitimate explanation why it shouldn't be here. That it might be found elsewhere is not a reason for the list to not be here. Other sites may have gotten their list from this entry, which shows why it has value. Nicmart (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy that 13 of the 88 are sufficiently prominent to have their own Wikipedia entries. Nicmart (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be unable to read it, I'll copy and paste it for you:
"Please see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, especially #7. Why should the article include every one of the 88 names?"
I'll give you another reason: WP:BLP. The list is unsourced.
The article already names some of the prominent signatories of the letter (see the first paragraph of Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case#Duke faculty groups), and that should be sufficient.
Also, in answer to the question you asked and deleted (several times), no I'm not Malik Zulu Shabazz. A quick look at my User page would show you that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a source yourself earlier in this Talk. Why didn't you add that source to the article? You said it was very easy to find Internet sources for the list of 88. You are not the same Malik Shabazz, but it is interesting that you participate in the editing of the Wikipedia article about his New Black Panther Party organization, and you share political sentiments with him that are consistent with many of those on the list of 88. I submit that your ideological bias is influencing your desire to remove this list, and I will continue to see that it is included. Why are you responding to my question about your identity when I removed it shortly after posting it and then reading your user page? You are responding to comments which don't exist here. It is worth noting that you offer no alternative, such as a link to lists of the 88 elsewhere on the Internet. Why not? I have no ideological bias on this issue, and no connection with any party involved or with Duke. Nicmart (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note, Mr. Shabazz, that a high percentage of your edits are to revert what other people have posted, especially reverts back to what you have posted. You seem to try to take ownership of some entries. You have reverted numerous edits to the New Black Panther Party though you say you are not the same Malik Shabazz who speaks prominently for that group, including about the Duke case. Nicmart (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source for the 88 concerned faculty -- from their own web site. There is unique value to having the full list at Wikipedia. For one thing it is an authoritative list based on the group's official web site, which may be removed in the future. Scholars and interested persons may want to know in the future who comprised this group. For another the Wikipedia entry has links to the encyclopedia entries for 13 of the 88 who have their own Wikipedia entries. Nicmart (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I share political sentiments with Malik Zulu Shabazz? Where did you come up with that gem?
(b) I revert a lot of edits, and if you actually looked at them you would see that they are vandalism. But it's easier to be lazy and accuse an editor of ownership than to take the time to see what those edits are.
(c) You keep repeating yourself that there is value for having the list of the "Group of 88" signatories here, but you have yet to explain why. You also have not explained why WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't apply here. Why don't you stop hyperventilating and inventing conspiracy theories and try to explain the thing rationally. I assume, of course, that you're capable of rational thought. You are, aren't you? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you actually read the link you used, you'd see that it wasn't the "Group of 88" but a second open letter. But I suppose reading isn't your strong suit, is it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]
"But it's easier to be lazy and accuse an editor of ownership than to take the time to see what those edits are."
But I suppose reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
Please see the warning I left for you on your talk page; admins are not above the rules at Wikipedia. STOP the personal attacks.
I personally feel that the list of all 88 signatories does not detract from the article in any way; properly cited, it simply names people who voluntarily rushed to judgment against these three white boys. It was their decision to get involved in this incident; they should feel proud to be included here. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I also have felt (for a long time) that you've attempted to gain 'ownership' of every article concerning this hoax, as well as any article mentioning Crystal Gail Mangum. Duke53 | Talk 17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. It's certainly within your rights to delete legitimate warning messages from your talk page, but it also considered an acknowledgment that you are aware of it. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 17:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-added the content. I didn't think that the list made sense to include because the article is about the group as a whole. If desired, another page like the "List of the signatories for the Group of 88" or something might be best. That would be more consistent with the policies on Wikipedia. DietFoodstamp (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeds from Last Attempt to Whitewash Group of 88 Entry

[edit]

Just in case anyone is interested, I attempted to start an entry on the Group of 88. My efforts were quickly squashed. The original page, which lists the Group of 88 by name, is given in this link: [2].

The totally BS debate that got the article deleted, in which no one ever really established a sound, policy-based reason for deleting the case, is here: [3]. -The kekon (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not the "Group of 88." (a) There are 89 people listed - that should have given you a sense that something was off, and (b) that is actually the list of people who signed an "Open Letter" - something which was connected to but different from the "Listening" ad whence came the use of the term "Group of 88." DukeEGR93 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot Bangers & Castrate

[edit]

There was a group who called themselves pot bangers who protested in front of the house where the party was.

They deserve mention, or at least this detail does, they carried a sign which said "Castrate". http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson164.html (all of the way at the bottom)

the players noted this "mind boggling" http://wjz.com/national/David.Evans.Reade.2.282884.html

The appearance of such a sign signifies the hostility the players faced and should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.214.83 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New content

[edit]

I have just changed this page: I removed the redirect action and inserted content. There are sufficient sources. (I have been working on this for a while, so I made sure there were plenty.) I know that there are people who are passionate about this, so please feel free to bring up any comments here. DietFoodstamp (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case. 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:

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).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_Duke_lacrosse_case&oldid=1224132238"