Talk:Steubenville High School rape case

Unclear language

What does "No charges have ever been filed in that case, or only after students discussed it." mean? Was this an edit gone wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.200.122 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Just an idea

This thing has become a huge sensation on blogging sites like Tumblr, where they've criticized the way the media is portraying the rapists and how they cried after sentencing, could or should there be a "Reactions" section? --Matt723star (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article should move towards a more standard format as used in many high profile crimes. The section called "Rapes" should be renamed "Timeline of Events" and the section named "Role of Media" should be renamed "Public Reaction". Greg Comlish (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Blogs are being added as sources. Raw Story, Gawker, Jezebel, and Policy Mic really don't strike me as reliable sources, especially for what's tagged as a BLP article. Can't we find better sources that discuss the controversy on blogs? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Gawker and Jezebel are never reliable, surprised their URLs aren't banned. Ranze (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Adverbs

"publicly and repeatedly sexually violated." I wrote that phrase but I'm concerned about excessive use of adverbs in the lede. I don't want to drop anything but I'd also like to keep it concise. Ideas? Greg Comlish (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I think you've done a wonderful job on this lede. Second, since the adverbs add important information about why this rape came to national attention, I'd feel comfortable leaving them in. If you're still concerned, one option could be to take out the adverbs and add something like "in front of multiple onlookers" to the end of the second sentence, so that it reads, "The victim was transported to various parties, undressed, photographed, sexually assaulted, and orally penetrated in front of multiple onlookers." The repeated nature of the act will then hopefully become clear when people read the description of the acts. Again, great writing, and thanks for all your work here! Firecatalta (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"publicly and repeatedly raped" works. Is there is reason why can't use that phrase? Failing that, I offer these alternatives, in order of preference:

• "publicly and repeatedly violated" - assumes a sexual element, which seems fair
• "sexually violated, publicly and repeatedly" - emphasis on the sexual violation
• "repeatedly sexually violated in public" - a simple rephrase; could be seen as awkward
• "publicly and repeatedly violated sexually" - not much better than the default wording
• "publicly and repeatedly assaulted" - sounds like she might have been beat up

Another alternative is to simply rewrite the lead so that so many adverbs in close proximity are not necessary. Easily enough done, but it seems like some editors are rather attached to this phrasing, so I won't make any edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Lack of references

The first section that introduces the article includes no references, references do not appear until "the incident". Is it standard to not include them in summaries? It appears to be original research if Wikipedians are paraphrasing this event on their own, if we are going to summarize shouldn't we be doing so using the phrasing of tertiary references? Ranze (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Names of minors

Should we be referring to the 2 male minors who were convicted here by their names? Just because media sources don't protect the privacy of minors doesn't mean that we shouldn't. Ranze (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED Although there are some exceptions to that, I am not aware of precedent or policy for an exception for the names of convicted minor rapists. Marteau (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We should also report the victim's name. It's only fair. By the way, her name is STRIKE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbetty412 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The names of minor rape victims are not typically reported by the media; there are some WP:BLP issues here. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Just the FACTS

I'm having a lot of trouble identifying the claims from this article with the sources, especially trial sources, given throughout. I would like someone to help clear this up in relation to the article so that I can make corrections, changes or re-writes where necessary.

- The girl was "brutally raped", "they forced themselves on her", "she was forced to have sex against her will".

As far as I can tell from the trial, she was fingered. Once. By only one of the boys. In a car outside of the party. Then she went back to the party, conscious and walking. That is the summation of the "rape". She was not raped at any point at any of the other houses or when they finally went to sleep. Is this correct?

- The girl was "peed on", "ejaculated on", "dragged around"

As far as I can tell, especially from the trail, the ONLY thing out of those that happened was being "dragged around". Which occurred at the first party and only for a short time, as she was walking and talking both directly before and after this as video and camera footage shows. The "dragging around" claim stems, almost exclusively, from two pictures of her being swung by her arms and legs. This was consensual, according to the girl and the prosecution, and related in no way to anything about the rape claims. The rest was, as stated in trial, the boys letting off steam "privately" about the girl in an obvious sarcastic manner (as she also isn't DEAD, a claim made amongst the others by the boys, which should've been the first clue) AFTER she made the initial report.

- The girl was "unconscious", "forced to go with them" and "unable to move"

As the trial showed, she was conscious both before and after the car incident. Her own friends stating she walked with them to the car. A parent at the third house kicking them out because they were being loud, including the girl (showing she was at the very least talking) and the last house the witnesses stating they all pretty much collapsed at the same time to go to sleep (showing she was at least awake before this).

Are these facts correct or are the previous claims actually the ones that are correct?

I am not looking to argue with anyone, just to make sure this article is keeping with Wikipedias policies. No insults. If you do not know, state so, as this is not a soap box or a forum. 08:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.92.107 (talk)

Hi. I can't seem to find the quotations "brutally raped", "they forced themselves on her", "she was forced to have sex against her will" in the article. It is noted in the lede that "The victim was transported, undressed, photographed, and sexually assaulted. She was also penetrated vaginally by other students' fingers, an act defined as rape under Ohio law".

- I can't find the quotations: "peed on", "ejaculated on", "dragged around", except two uses of "peed on" when a source was being directly quoted.

- The word "unconscious" is used in a factual manner in the article, and "forced to go with them" and "unable to move" do not appear. As stated in the article "The judge set the minimum sentence of one year for Richmond, who was found guilty of using his fingers to penetrate the girl while she was unconscious. Mays, who was found guilty of penetrating the girl while she was unconscious and disseminating pornographic pictures of her, was given the minimum sentence of two years."

This all seems to follow Wikipedia policy, so I'm not sure what you're planning on rewriting in the article. I don't believe that you are presenting any facts here: the article seems to be fairly NPOV. -- The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

- So that's a no, she wasn't "brutally raped"? She was fingered. That's what I asked.

- So that's a no, she wasn't peed on etc? She wasn't peed on etc.

- Witnesses and video show she was walking and talking before and after the incident. So she can't have been unconscious by definition.

Again, try not to use false equivalence word use. She was fingered. That was the sole penetration. And it was by one boy, the other found complacent in it, not taking action of it.

No pornographic photos were disseminated, so I don't know why that's in the article.

Like I said, there are a variety of claims that need to be fixed in this. The above establish that.

She wasn't "brutally raped", she was fingered.

She doesn't remember if she consented or not, the judges established that she was "raped" based on hearsay intoxication levels.

She wasn't peed on or any of the ridiculous things claimed.

She wasn't unconscious, based on trial witnesses and video. So not sure why that's in the article, since it was established at trial regardless of what a judge wants to tac on.

No pornographic pictures were disseminated. The ones taken are tame enough to be included on Wikipedia and multiple media sites. She was short-short style underwear, not topless or bottomless.

This is the issues we need to clarify and change from the article. So far the first two questions have been answered in the negative and shown to be false. Now we just need to figure out what's going on with my third section. Thank you, you've been very helpful. :) 203.59.92.107 (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Hi. Again, the phrase "brutally raped" doesn't appear in the article; the sentence "penetrated vaginally by other students' fingers, an act defined as rape under Ohio law" is cited. I am not sure what you mean by a "false equivalence word". Could you clarify this? If you would like to alter the article, please find and use reliable sources rather than original research or personal opinion. You have not given any reliable sources to support the idea of "ridiculous things claimed"--this appears to your personal opinion. Wikipedia articles should have a neutral point of view and be factual. Thus, please see WP:OR and WP:NPOV before you attempt to edit. Regards,The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about what Sutter Case is talking about. As you've written above, legally under Ohio law the act(s) committed against the victim are rape Whether people think of it as vaginal intercourse or not is not relevant to the article. It has been cited and is NPOV (not that such a thing really exists in the world, everything has a slant to it, even neutrality). It seems he or she is trolling with a personal agenda rather than being netural. Ignore him or her and request protection for the article, so he can't rewrite it to suit his irrelevant world view. 67.247.147.235 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

Hi. Like the OP in the previous section I am only trying to get the facts straight in my head, and I find the following sentence very confusing:

• "For a roughly six-hour period the unconscious girl was taken by the teenage boys from one party, photographed nude and semi-nude, assaulted in a car, and taken to a basement where..."

Surely "from one party..." should be followed by "...to another" or "...to another and then to another"? Was there more than one party, and if so how many? Secondly, was she "photographed nude and semi-nude" between between being taken from the party and being put in the car i.e. on the stairs or in the street, or was she undressed, assaulted and photographed all in the car? Finally, does the "roughly six-hour period" include the "first" party, or begin when she was taken from it. If the facts are available it should be possible to present them in a way that the reader can follow. 86.41.42.249 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation of Steubenville High School and School Board

"In April, police executed search warrants on Steubenville High School and the school board amid a grand jury investigation of a possible cover-up."Harkinson, Josh (July/August 2013). "Cyberbullies with a cause". Mother Jones. Foundation for National Progress. p. 15. ISSN 0362-8841. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The article also contains a more detailed description of KnightSec's activities (and impact and flaws) and describes an "Occupy Steubenville" rally on 5 January 2013. The ongoing investigation warrants mention but I don't know that it deserves a section, how to place it into the article? Does it belong in the article for Steubenville HS,... city? Not sure what is the best way to proceed so I am posting the information here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

New Yorker article

Information from a recent detailed article about the rape and trial in the New Yorker (Trial by Twitter|by Ariel Levy |newyorker.com | August 5, 2013) might be worked into the article.

Here is an excerpt:

In versions of the story that spread online, the girl was lured to the party and then drugged. While she was delirious, she was transported in the trunk of a car, and then a gang of football players raped her over and over again and urinated on her body while her peers watched, transfixed. The town, desperate to protect its young princes, contrived to cover up the crime. If not for Goddard’s intercession, the police would have happily let everyone go. None of that is true.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated mention of victim's intoxication?

Is this relevant? Would it be included in an article about a murder victim? Uenuku (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Her inebriation is in the cited article. The fact that she was unable to consent because she was passed out is exactly why it was considered a rape....it is eminently relevant and an important fact of the case that anyone who wants to be familiar with it should know... it's kind of a major point. Furthermore, the fact that it is "repeated" in the article is compeletely irrelevant. Everything in the lead also should appear again in the body. Marteau (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The fact that she was intoxicated has been used in the media and in public discussion as a way to put some of the blame for the rape on the victim herself. The fact that it is considered so important as to be in the intro suggests a lack of neutrality. The sentence doesn't say "...and was therefore unable to consent." If she hadn't been drunk, would we still need to specify that she didn't consent? Uenuku (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That you wish to present (or in this case, not present) facts about the case based on how those facts will be interpreted or used is duly noted. I, however, will continue to edit using the principle that the misuse of a fact by some is no grounds for suppressing or de-emphasising that fact. Marteau (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)