Talk:Tawana Brawley rape allegations/Archive 1

Archive 1

This Article

Hey Tawana went to my high school (not at the same time). I wonder if there should be some more said about the media circus. I remember this being a HUGE deal at the time and for a while all people knew Poughkeepsie for was Tawana Brawley.

As the article states, there is no unanimity as to the non-factuality, and while i share User:Can'tStandYa's opinion, stating our opinions is not the purpose of WP articles. It is a verifiable fact that the 3 advocates were discredited in court. Verifying what unnamed associates said is not possible, and we can far less establish whether their statements are true. It is more plausible that one person (TB) lied than "several", but without knowing how many, we don't know how much more plausible, and verification is a higher standard than plausibility in any case.

For that reason i am reverting.
--Jerzy (t) 06:30, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

---

This article says, "In 1998 Pagones was awarded $150 million in suit for a defamation of character that he brought against Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason." However, Steven Pagones says that "On July 29, 1998 the jury awarded Pagones $345,000 in damages. Sharpton was found liable for $65,000 of the total damages, Maddox for $95,000 and Mason for $185,000." Which one is correct? silsor 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I have more time, but as I recall Pagones was originally awarded something like $150 million, but it was later greatly reduced, as often happens. -R. fiend 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Why is the tag about NPOV displayed on the article page when there seems to be nothing in the talk page to suggest it might not be neutral? --cockneyite 02:30 GMT, 3 Jan 2006

It was a whim of someone who read the article and didn't agree with it. I remember seeing that tag addition and then forgot to follow-up. --That Guy, From That Show! 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I modified portions of this article to increase readability, particularly in the intro. Dropped in some new facts and dates as well. I am working on citations for some of the claims. Also modified segments that talked about Sharpton and co's "outrageous" behavior--I think to maintain a NPOV the article should cite criticisms from existing sources, not draw unique judgements. --Izau 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

please add defamation of character details

In 1998 Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $150 million) in suit for a defamation of character that he brought against Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason. What things were said and done that were considered defamation of character? I would like to know more about this. --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They accused him of raping a 15 year old girl! With no evidence whatsoever!

Name change

Shouldn't this be changed to Tawana Brawley Case, as this is what the contents of the article about. This certainly is not a bio. Jasper23 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraud not Hoax?

This is categorized as a hoax but it seems to me that fraud is the more correct term is fraud 211.10.18.77 06:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would someone like to explain why this is categorised as a hoax at all? The case and evidence do seem to suggest that her claims were false but it's not particularly unbiased to simply say that this is certainly a hoax (no, I don't consider a jury's findings as absolute, conclusive scientific proof). Could someone please explain? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fraud and hoax are not mutually exclusive. Per wikipedia: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." Brawley attempted to trick an audience that she was raped. Per wikipedia: "a fraud is a deception made for personal gain." Brawley's motivations remain unclear. It cannot be said with certainty she did it for personal gain, as opposed for attention, or to make some sort of political statement. (although, lets not kid ourselves, it was probably a ham-fisted way to get some $$$) 74.8.8.142 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in references

The "quote=" argument in citation templates does not always need to be used. In particular, when the quote gives no information that illuminates the point being cited, or no information that is not already included in the text, there is no reason to put the quote in the citation. To give just one blatant example, here is a paragraph from the article that had a citation at the end, and then the quote included in the citation:

On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its extensive and thorough 170-page report concluding Tawana Brawley had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisors. The report further concluded that the "unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones" were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the Grand Jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded more than 6,000 pages of testimony.

and here is the quote:

On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its extensive and thorough 170 page report concluding that Tawana Brawley ("Brawley") had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisors. The report further concluded that the "unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones" were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the Grand Jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded over 6,000 pages of testimony.

Except for the wikification of "Abrams" and the parenthetical note indicating that subsequent usages of "Brawley" will refer to Tawana Brawley -- they're exactly the same text! I can't imagine why anyone would think that it improves the article to duplicate the exact same text, and I would hope that everyone would see why it doesn't improve the article to insert a quote when the quote does not significantly increase understanding of the point being cited. -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pull quote from Al Sharpton

In the "Aftermath" section there is a pull quote from Al Sharpton. The source is original reporting from Wikinews. I do not believe this is a source that meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and fact-checking. If User:David Shankbone had conducted a personal interview with Al Sharpton and tried to use it directly as a source for a Wikipedia article, it would be original research. I don't think the situation is different because it is being used indirectly rather than directly.

Frankly, I don't think there's a reason to have a pull quote there at all. To put information in a pull quote suggests that it is particularly important information. When the verdict of multiple juries and of history is overwhelmingly that Brawley was a hoaxster and Sharpton, Maddox and Mason defamed innocent people based on her false allegations, what is particularly important about Al Sharpton's declaration that he still believes her allegations were true? He is not an especial authority on the case, and his declaration is quite literally self-serving; while it certainly belongs in the article, there seems no reason to give it special prominence. -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything we cite to on Wikipedia was done on Wikipedia it would be original research; in fact, Wikinews is not Wikipedia and OR is encouraged at Wikinews (such as interviews); it has already been established it can be a source. Additionally, Sharpton's quote shows that he still believes there was enough evidence to go to trial, nothing more, nothing less. The quote is perfectly fine, creates a bridge between twenty years, and is more than pertinent considering Sharpton was, aside from Brawley, the key figure involved. --David Shankbone 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"it has already been established it can be a source." Established by whom, and when? -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By the Wikipedia community. It's a Wikimedia Sister project. See Wikinews or Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. --David Shankbone 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing at Wikinews which deems Wikinews to be a suitable source for Wikipedia. There is no mention of Wikinews at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. However, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux there is a long thread which, it seems, can be summarized as follows: "David Shankbone insists that Wikinews should be usable as a reliable source despite not meeting most of the criteria that are required for such sources; no one else agrees but David Shankbone persists." -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all what it says, and if you have a question about it then you should raise it there. Wikinews interviews are reliable sources for the words of what someone says. This issue has been raised on User:Jimbo's page, as well as reliable sources, etc. In fact, of the thirty-five people I have interviewed (most recently, Shimon Peres, President of Israel), the only place where it has been a question was on Paul Wolfowitz regarding a quote about him by a third party, Craig Unger. That's the extent of it. You don't have much of an argument here. Sorry. --David Shankbone 17:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a wiki, it can be edited by anyone and is self-published with no editorial oversight in regards to fact checking. Its no more reliable than a random blog, forum, or any other self-published source.--Crossmr (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As one who participates at WP:RS extensively... I can say for sure that Wikinews has NOT been "approved" by the community there. Wikis by their nature are not considered reliable sources, and I see nothing that makes Wikinews an exception. How do we know that what a Wikinews interview quotes the subject correctly? Where is the verification if I challenge the quote? No... I have to agree with Crossmr on this... not reliable. I could see Wikinews being acceptable as an External Link (or since it is a sister project, a See Also link). Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Even apart from the issue of sourcing, which is clearly not so clear-cut as David Shankbone had assured us it was, I still cannot see what formatting that content as a pull quote does except to give undue weight to the minority view. Pull quotes are good in newspapers because they not only attract attention, they help to sell the "angle" of the story. However, an "angle" is exactly what Wikipedia articles should be avoiding, to adhere to the NPOV policy. There are frankly few occasions on which pull quotes are appropriate in Wikipedia. I'm going to remove it from the article. -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of Wikinews interviews is currently under discussion; regardless Al Sharpton's perspective in this issue as a major player is not a "minority" view and even if it was, "Minority views" aren't given any less credence than "majority views" when it comes to perspectives. --David Shankbone 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I think you should take another look at the NPOV policy, to see if what you think it says is actually what it says. I read the policy and I see:

• "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views ..."
• "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view."
• "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

I don't know how you are defining "credence", but unless you are specifically meaning by it something much different than "weight", then yes in fact we do give minority views less credence than majority views. One thing we definitely do not do is give minority views more weight than majority views. Does putting something in a pull quote represent giving it undue weight? Again, let's look at the policy. "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emph. added) Since the whole purpose of a pull quote is to "pull" the eye, no one can seriously attempt to claim that putting a minority view in a pull quote isn't giving it "prominence of placement". As for the claim that Al Sharpton's viewpoint isn't a minority view because he was a prominent player in the affair, that is yet another dog that won't hunt: just because a view has a prominent adherent does not prevent it from being a minority viewpoint. Linus Pauling was a Nobel Prize winner; that didn't make his views on vitamin C as a cancer treatment the majority view. Yes, there are still people out there who think that the grand jury got it wrong. The fact of their existence does not mean that their beliefs should be given special treatment -- such as placement inside a pull quote. -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Aftermath" segment re: Maddox

The article tells us: Maddox was later disbarred after being accused of billing and abandoning clients in an unrelated series of incidents..

List of disbarred attorneys tells us: for failure and refusal to disclose files involving Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton.

Maddox own homepage [1] tells us: Maddox was suspended from the practice of law in May 1990 amid his representation of Rev. Al Sharpton in a 67-count indictment ostensibly because he failed and refused to disclose files involving Tawana Brawley and Rev. Al Sharpton. (I wonder what the word "ostensibly" means here - does it mean that it is his interpretation?)

Another page [2] tells us: Maddox later was disbarred in New York, but not because of his role in the Brawley affair; it turns out he had engaged in false billing of clients.

CNN [3] tells us: During the arguments, Stanton told jurors that Mason, Brawley's former lawyer, was disbarred for stealing from clients. Mason was disbarred in 1995 for price gouging, theft and abandoning clients. He has claimed his disbarment was an act of revenge by state officials angry over his role in the Brawley case. (Note that this is Mason, not Maddox)

So, whatever the truth is, either this article or List of disbarred attorneys should be corrected.

Maddox own article is just a stub at this time. While googling for his name it seems to me that he's whining a lot, that its all a white conspiracy against him, etc. --Tilman 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The cite for the opinion and order disbarring him is Matter of Maddox, 157 A.D.2d 244, 555 N.Y.S.2d 851, N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. (Decided May 21, 1990) According to the opinion he was not disbarred for either, but rather for failing to appear at a disciplinary hearing which was to investigate three separate complaints regarding unprofessional conduct in the Brawley case. The underlying allegations mentioned in the opinion include "unknowingly making a false statement of fact in the representation of a client, counseling a client to refuse a lawful mandate of a Grand Jury, and rendering assistance to that client in order to evade arrest," however, it was failing to appear before the Grievance Committee that resulted in his disbarment. NTK 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. Someone else should make appropriate changes :-) --Tilman 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that some people are getting Mason and Maddox confused. If you look up information on why C. Vernon Mason was disbarred, "billing and abandoning clients in an unrelated series of incidents" seems to match it pretty well.

BTW, someone needs to keep an eye on Maddox's article; it seems to be visited regularly by someone from New Jersey who's determined to rip out any information unfavorable to Maddox. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The version I inserted mentioned that Maddox was disbarred, what he was disbarred for, and the civil judgement against him. Somehow that doesn't qualify as 'information unfavorable to Maddox' to you. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the version to which I had originally reverted contained not much more than the NEGATIVE info which I mentioned above. That being the case, a person might actually conclude that I included ONLY unfavorable things about him. Of course, a person would need some objectivity about the subject to reach that determination. 130.156.31.148 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual fate of Maddox's law career

As previously noted on this page, there appears to be a great deal of confusion between what happened to Alton Maddox and what happened to C. Vernon Mason. Whether the misunderstanding started here and spread elsewhere or started elsewhere and spread here, it seems to be all over the place: the first page of a Google search turned up many results falsely indicating that Maddox was disbarred due to misconduct with clients, which is what actually happened with Mason.

I think that this basic error has led to another error, one which should be corrected both here and at Alton Maddox if does indeed turn out to be an error. Namely, I can find indications that Maddox was suspended from the practice of law in New York State (an exception made so that he could continue to represent Al Sharpton) but I cannot find reliable sources indicating that Maddox was disbarred. I can find plenty of sources, but so far (I didn't suspect this error until about an hour ago) I've yet to find a reliable source which says it. Moreover, the date that is given in this article for Maddox's disbarment is actually, according to the New York Times, the date of his suspension. Would others please look at this and see if they can find reliable sources that clarify the matter? -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct, and incorrect, usage of an introduction

A common aphorism on the subject of effective speaking is "tell them what you're gonna tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you've told them." With the difference that we have no part which equates to "tell them what you've told them", this is good advice for Wikipedia: we tell them what we're gonna tell them (the introduction) and then we tell them (the body).

This means that if you are introducing material which is new to the article, you should either be putting it in the body, or putting a detailed version of it in the body and putting a less detailed summary of it in the introduction. These are the two ways to do it which are (or, more accurately, can be) correct.

Attempting to put new material directly in the introduction, by contrast, is an indicator that you either a) don't really understand what you're doing vis-a-vis introductions, or b) would rather do it wrong. There is just simply no way that it can be right. At best, it's a false promise: telling people that if they read on, they're going to get a detailed explanation of a particular aspect of the subject -- a detailed explanation that does not exist. At worst, it's a blatant violation of every rule Wikipedia has against giving undue weight: placing text that is written at a level of detail appropriate for the body into the introduction instead is like responding to a request for the thumbnail of a image with the full-sized image itself. (No, not a perfect analogy, but it's hard to find a good clear analogy: there are relatively few collaborative projects out there that are so familiar to everyone that they can be used as illustrations of how people who refuse to abide by ground rules sabotage the overall project. Perhaps we might envision a grade-school group project where every student is assigned the task of cutting out a different US state out of posterboard, and one student decides that the state where he used to live is so important and special that it should be drawn at three times the scale of all the others. By refusing to keep his representation to the same scale, that student has sabotaged any chance that the individual efforts can be brought together to make an accurate representation of the whole.)

Now, to turn from the general to the specific, there is room for reasonable disagreement on just what is the correct way to balance the differing viewpoints that still remain about the Tawana Brawley case. And hopefully, where there is reasonable disagreement, there can be reasonable debate that may resolve the reasonable disagreement. However, here is an example of what is not reasonable or acceptable: removing quotes from the two juries which evaluated the evidence (which was perhaps the most important role played by anyone in the case) while adding a quote from a scholar who played no role in the case -- all of this with the admonition in the edit summary "quotes dont [sic] go in lead". Even if "quotations don't go in the introduction" were an established rule (which it is not, being specifically contradicted by WP:LEAD) there is obviously no reason for anyone to follow it when the very person who cited it broke it in the same edit.

Now, would a perfect introduction to this article contain a lot of lengthy quotes from the two juries? Perhaps it wouldn't. But it would definitely not withhold so much information about what the juries determined that someone might read it and actually think that "Grand Jury said not enough evidence to go to trial. That's it." is a fair and truthful representation. Perhaps Patricia J. Williams' puzzling idea that Tawana Brawley's status as "the victim of some unspeakable crime" is irrefutable regardless of what the facts may be, deserves to go in the article somewhere. Perhaps. But that it should be shoehorned into the introduction, while far more important material clarifying what the two juries determined, a matter that we have already witnessed firsthand is subject to severe mistaken interpretation, is being removed? Ridiculous and monstrous. And unacceptable. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 05:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes you would like to include in the lede are significant. But dropping them in the lede without any context makes them practically meaningless. They belong in the body of the article, with appropriate introductions to put them in context. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abrams Grand Jury?

The one and only occurrence of the word "Abrams" in the article appears in this sentence: "On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its extensive and thorough 170-page report concluding Tawana Brawley had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisors."

This raises a question: What does "Abrams" refer to? -- 63.145.26.194 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Abrams" refers to then New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams. -- 68.174.27.198 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see his name is now a link. However, this Brawley article still refers to Abrams only once and only by his last name. The standard practice is to refer to someone by his full name at least once before using only his surname. A phrase or a sentence or two introducing the former attorney general will give some clarity to readers who don't already know who he is. -- 63.145.26.194 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added his full name and title to make the reference clear.--Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tone of article and use of quotes

With an article like this, in which many of the sources are daily papers that tend to write in the most dramatic way, it's important not to adopt their approach. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not another tabloid. In addition, having the quote from the Columbia University professor in the lede does not seem to add to the lede. It's hard to tell exactly what she was referring to, since her views are not brought out in the body of the article, and her book is not brought into the discussion. She could have been saying Brawley was abused by her mother and stepfather. There is little indication of whether she may have later modified her views.--Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Prof Williams changed that view, although it's been quoted in a number of sources (often critically). Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Material in lede not covered in article

I copied some material from the lead to put it in the article, as issues of criticism of initial media treatment of Brawley, as well as the custody issue (whether NY should have found a different arrangement for her rather than leaving her with advisers) was not treated at all. The source quoted in the citation does not deal with the custody issue, so it seems relatively unsupported.--Parkwells (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the only citation "for widespread criticism of the mainstream press by African American press" is a newspaper in Bluffton, SC. There needs to be more support for the statement. --Parkwells (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get some sources for that later today. Eg, see "Legacies of Lynching: Racial Violence and Memory" by Jonathan Markovitz, which has some info, and the book the NY Times reporters wrote, "Outrage." Boodlesthecat (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was nothing further about the custody issue with Brawley.--Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Title of this Article

The title should read, The Tawana Brawley Alleged Rape Case. Tawana's claims were thrown out in court so technically there was never a case of rape. The title as it reads now libels Steven Pagonnes and the other men wrongfully accused to have commited this act. I tried to change it myself but I just garbled everything and got technical message. Will someone please change this title.204.15.6.99 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Right. this is not an allegation. this case was tried in an American court of law. Brawley's allegations were a hoax.Thomas Babbington (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington

Not quite. There was never a trial. There was a grand jury investigation that concluded there was no good evidence to charge anyone with the crime of rape and abduction. However, Brawley and her supporters have remained vocal about their side of the story, so the term allegation remains correct.204.15.6.99 (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Evidence Points" :
  • {{cite news |title= Evidence Points to Deceit by Brawley |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D81E3FF934A1575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all |publisher=[[New York Times]] |quote=A seven-month New York State grand jury inquiry has compiled overwhelming evidence that Tawana Brawley fabricated her story of abduction and sexual abuse by a gang of racist white men last year, according to investigators, witnesses and official summaries of evidence presented to the panel.|date=[[1988-09-27]] |accessdate=2008-01-20}}
  • {{cite news |title= Evidence Points to Deceit by Brawley |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D81E3FF934A1575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all |publisher=New York Times |date=[[1988-09-27]] |accessdate=2008-01-20}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wappinger or Wappingers Falls?

The earliest NY Times news reports all seemed to refer to Wappingers Falls. The two are very close, but is there documented support for Wappinger? Danchall (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was changed from Wappingers Falls to Wappingers in October 2009, I'm not sure on what basis. If you think it should be Wappingers Falls, change it back. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Duke rape case

Some commentators have drawn parallels. --Uncle Ed 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• The recent case of the lacrosse players at Duke University accused of raping a young black woman brings to mind the case of Tawana Brawley, the black teenager who in 1988 made similar charges against a group of white men in Wappinger Falls , NY.
• In both cases, what turned out to be unfounded charges were widely given credit and generated immense publicity; celebrities and politicians rallied to the cause of the alleged victims, lengthy and costly legal investigations followed, and at last it emerged that the accusations were groundless. In both incidents, the charges were seized upon as self-evident, incontrovertible proof of the incorrigible and ineradicable racism that continues to permeate and infect every pore of American society. [4]
• HAving gotten caught up in the middle of a Sharpton rally with them throwing objects at myself and my teammates on my way to a high school basketbal practice sinply becuase we were white, I can say with certainty, that even at the time, Tawana Brawley's claims were not "widely given credit" for nearly as long as the Duke accuser. Within weeks, most of the rational media were already thoroughly questioning Brawley's side of the case.74.67.106.1 (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

new name

If CourtTV can mention her new name, so can wikipedia; plus, she still owes $185,000 plus interest to her victim. --Tilman 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also a bunch of BS that someone who changes their name for the SOLE purpose of avoiding a court judgment against her is protected by a website that supposedly wants to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

NOI

Not surprisingly, she joined the Nation of Islam[5][6]. How to incorporate. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't. Just like you don't incorporate her new name. Please read WP:BLP, especially WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read it and I didnt see any justification for your revert. Are you implying that her notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions? ZHurlihee (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not about privacy. Wikipedia is (well...WAS since she has been found and is going to have to answer to her crimes) protecting what was essentially a fugitive. She was not after privacy. She was avoiding the financial judgment against her. Never realized that fugitives deserve privacy. But I guess Wikipedia does. Or at least editors that don't care about facts and just want to protect one of their own, no matter how much of an embarrassment she is. (Seriously...as a Muslin, YOU should hate Brawley as much as anyone. She gives you a bad name. And sticking up for her gives you a bad name direcly.) 74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced."

"Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources." (emphasis in original)

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This line of rationale looks like WP:Policy shopping. The name was reverted at first its because it wasn’t sourced, then it was because the source used the word “reportedly”, and now its because of a perceived WP:BLP violation involving her notability and privacy. Tawana Brawley is most certainly notable enough to have her own article and quite frankly, I don’t know why she doesn’t. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please re-read my edit summaries: all of my objections have been because of WP:BLP. This morning, I wrote that it was a problem because of the word "reportedly" in the source and added the quote "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" from WP:BLP. I'm prepared to go to WP:BLP/N about this.

By the way, the reason Brawley doesn't have her own article is WP:BLP1E, which is part of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLP/N#Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Hopefully we'll get some independent editors' advice there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the BLPN notice and some more people can weigh in. Good enough for now. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:BLP/N seems to be that her conversion can be mentioned but her new name stays out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wan to add that she has been found and will have to pay up after all?

After the NY Post found her working as a nurse in Virginia under an assumed name to avoid justice, Steve Pagone tracked her down and got a court order against her. She will likely have between 10-25% of her wages garnished to pay off the judgment against her, which, after interest, is about $400,000 by now.74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the article already. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is she now?

The article I've just read did not mention that Tawana Brawley moved out of New York State and changed her name. It mentions that she converted to Islam, but... Didn't she also join the Nation of Islam? That is a political group, and I think it's worth mentioning that she joined it (IF that's true).

I seem to recall that she ran into legal trouble after her move out of state, but I don't recall the details. I cannot attest to the correctness or veracity of that.

Where is she now? In 2013, she is over 40 years old. Is she married? Does she have children? When was the last time she appeared on TV, or granted any interviews? Has she had any contact with Sharpton, Mason, or Maddox in recent years?

Are her mother and stepfather still living? Are they still together?

74.101.61.202 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Greg P., New York City

She was tracked down in Virginia, using the name Tawana Gutierrez and working as an LPN at a nursing home in Richmond.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/brawley_defiant_life_in_hiding_E9DV7S9hJAvGW6qmrISeaL

The proper use of "notoriety"

I have no problem identifying Tawana Brawley as a person of notoriety. However, that word is misused in the opening paragraph of the article. Here's how it reads at present:

Tawana Glenda Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York. In 1987, at the age of 15, she received national media attention in the United States for falsely accusing six white men, some of whom were police officers, of having raped her. The accusations soon earned her notoriety, which was inflamed by Brawley's advisers (including the Reverend Al Sharpton and attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason), the statements of various public officials, and intense media attention.[1] After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack.[2]

When it says the "accusations soon earned her notoriety" (emphasis obviously added), it is simply an incorrect usage of the word. I suspect that the person inserting that into this paragraph may have mistaken "notoriety" for something akin to "fame" or "celebrity" or even just "being notable". That is not correct. "Notoriety" is a negative quality possessed by one whom the public thinks is a bad person for something horrible they have done. Tawana Brawley has indeed earned the label of being notorious, but in the early days (as the article points out quite clearly and accurately) she was a sympathetic figure, not a notorious one. It was only after it became clear that she was a slanderous piece of crap that she was seen as notorious, and this was not something that happened soon.

I will go ahead and fix it up, but I'm sure something who shares my antipathy for her will mistakenly think this change was made by someone sticking up for her, when in fact it is only the English language I am sticking up for. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've come up with a version that successfully incorporates the use of "notoriety" without damaging the timeline, and also provides a better-written opening sentence. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This depends on your definition of "soon." AS someone who lived through this racially motivated hoax with the racist pro-Brawley protesters hurling rocks and bottles at me and my friends for doing nothing but trying to walk to an armory near my high school so we could go to basketball practice, it WAS very early on that her story was questions and people were looking at her as at best a pawn in Shartpon's racially, and politically motivated hoax, and at worst, the racist herself. It was within a couple months of the story breaking that it became clear to anyone but racist black people that her story was a lie. And it was all over the news that there was not a single shred of evidence backing her story up, and tons and tons of evidence proving she was lying. That is notoriety...and it happened with months. It it was within a few weeks when there was already PLENTY of doubts. To me, that is "soon."74.67.106.1 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you are absolutely right that it depends on your definition of "soon". People often become famous "overnight", whereby literally, one day 99% of the country has not heard of them, and then, less than a week later, 90% of the country does know them. I wish this woman had instantly recognized for the notorious liar that she is, but from the perspective of someone in the Midwest, it was many weeks before the media finally switched sides on this case, which did not seem "soon" to me at all. But again, as you say, it is a matter of one's definition.

I'm sorry you went through all that, and I'm glad that at least eventually the truth came out. I've also been hurt by racially motivated false accusations, and I'm still waiting for the truth to come out. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Grand jury report

The Grand Jury report can now be found here:

https://archive.org/details/TawanaBrawleyGrandJuryReport

please add, someoneVennerRoad (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am adding it now. It is especially helpful to have this source, as the article only linked to CourtTV for the Grand Jury Report. CourtTV was a good reference, but it has been offline, television and internet, since 2009 or so, and all the article links to it are dead.--FeralOink (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tawana Brawley rape allegations. 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/20070418204443/http://www.courttv.com:80/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/tawana/part1.html to http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/tawana/part1.html

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How many were accused?

The lede has long said six men were accused. This has now been changed to four, but elsewhere in the article we say three. So, which is it, and is there a source in the article for the correct number? Meters (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This early source (which we cite) [7] says "about six white men" but that's certainly not definitive. Meters (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw that change earlier. After reading through the grand jury report and some of the other sources, I came to the conclusion that Brawley may not have specified how many men "assaulted" her. After one or two statements, one of which was made by motioning with her hands and head and writing a few words in a police officer's notebook, she stopped cooperating with law enforcement entirely, and I don't remember her giving interviews to the press either. I left the change as it was because I couldn't say that six was a better number than four, but it sounds like you found a source that supports a rewrite to "about six". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. That source was already in the article and it is a very early in the event's history, before Brawley had much to say. Meters (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

cosby

so what did he say when the truth came out?

Addition of original research

This week, T.D. Hoxey made the following changes to the article that are not supported by the sources cited and in my opinion, represent impermissible original research:

1. The caption of the picture was changed from Tawana Brawley at a press conference in 1987. to Brawley during a press conference in Newark, New Jersey on September 29, 1988 shortly after a grand jury ruled that her story was "untrue".
2. The first sentence was changed from Tawana Glenda Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York, who gained notoriety in 1987–88 for falsely accusing four white men of having raped her. to Tawana Glenda Brawley (born December 1971 or b. 1972) (sources differ) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York, who gained notoriety in November 1987 for falsely accusing four white men of having raped her.

References

Here are my objections:

1. Neither source 1 (Getty Images) nor source 2 (the Associated Press) published the photo in the article (although both sources have their own photos that appear to show Brawley wearing the same or a similar shirt). The source of the photo in the article is unknown; it is not either of those sources. (Indeed, if the photo in the article had come from either of those sources, it would be subject to speedy deletion for an invalid fair-use claim in violation of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.) An editor cannot jump to the conclusion that the captions those websites have for their photos of Brawley are applicable to the photo in the article.
2. Source 3 does not provide Brawley's date of birth. It states that she receives birthday cards in December. T.D. Hoxey jumped to the conclusion that this means Brawley was born in December 1971.
3. None of sources 4, 5, or 6 state that Brawley "gained notoriety" in November 1987, and in fact no source says so. Brawley was first reported to the police on Saturday, November 28, 1987. Her claims were not widely known until December 1987. Even then, she was widely regarded sympathetically. Public response to Brawley's story was at first mostly sympathetic. It was only as the evidence against her claims began to mount in early 1988 that public sympathy turned against her. To say that she "gained notoriety" in November 1987 is untrue and absurd on its face.

If T.D. Hoxey will not fix her or his own edits, I will revert them shortly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

30th anniversary info updates

Article states that she hadn't paid anything on the defamation claims yet, this 2013 article notes her wages were being garnished to pay https://nypost.com/2013/08/04/pay-up-time-for-brawley-87-rape-hoaxer-finally-shells-out-for-slander/ We've just passed the 30th anniversary and there's some follow up with her & Sharpton here http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/booming/revisiting-the-tawana-brawley-rape-scandal.html JamesG5 (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's always best to use phrases such as "as of 2010" instead of "yet" or "to date", so readers know when the information in the article was current. If newer sources say that Brawley has paid some or all of the moneys she owes, we should definitely include that. When updating the article, please be sensitive to WP:BLP issues involving the privacy of a minor who has tried to drop out of the public eye. The New York Post, in particular, likes to print names and addresses it alleges are Brawley's; we hold ourselves to a higher standard than they do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tawana Brawley rape allegations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to quick fail this, so I will review it in detail over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues have been addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All issues resolved

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference issues have been fixed.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Source reliability looks okay

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks reveal no issues

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Excessive quotations trimmed

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Short, but no significant gaps

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous material.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All issues with language have been addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Some disruption from IPs, but not enough to prevent this reaching GA status.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No issues with relevance and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues fixed: passing shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Image licenses seem okay, but the file description here really needs to be cleaned up.
  • Fixed
• The article, while generally well written, slips into journalese in a few places. Examples include "racial tensions climbed" and "the case quickly took on an explosive edge", but the whole thing could use a read-through.
  • Fixed
• If Brawley didn't name her assailants, on what basis were specific people accused?
  • Fixed this problem
• We've gone from public response being sympathetic to 85% of white people thinking she was lying; the transition is a bit abrupt, and it's unclear why it took place.
  • Rearranging
• "as one of the rapists, and called him a racist, among other accusations." This reads funny, because they are legally accusing him of rape, but you can't charge someone with racism in court; that is a description of character.
  • Reworded
• "the African-American press and leaders" this seems grammatically off to me. Also, we should be careful about positing a monolithic "African-American press", unless that's exactly what the source says.
  • Reworded
    • Apologies. I restored the prior wording because it better represents what the sources, which refer to the black press, say. Specifically, they're referring to the black-owned Amsterdam News and City Sun and several black-owned radio stations, including WLIB—not to black employees of The New York Times and the network affiliates. I agree that the phrasing is awkward. Would "the black press and African-American leaders" be better? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Malik Shabazz: Well, it wasn't the concept of a black press, but that of a monolithic black press, which bothered me; but if that's what the sources say, let's roll with it. Vanamonde (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• "she was used as a pawn" to what end? That's a bit confusing otherwise.
• The quotation definitely needs attribution in-text.
  • rewording & added new sources & info
    • Better, but the article still doesn't say who's responsible for that quote other than "critics", which is vague. You could say "...rather than being given protection by the state. An opinion piece in the New York Times..." etc (or however you wish to describe it).
  • Reworded
• Link or explain district attorney, attorney general, sodomized, and grand jury.
  • Fixed
• "To issue the report, the grand jury heard" this reads strangely to me. Shouldn't it be "Before issuing the report..."?
  • Fixed
• Is there any material about the apparent inconsistency between paragraphs one and two of the "possible motives" subsection? As in, if King played a part in faking the scene, Brawley could hardly have been using it to avoid punishment at King's hands.
  • No
• Please look into how Al Sharpton's title is used in other articles about him; at the moment, it reads like an honorific.
  • I removed his title; it is not useful here
• There's multiple uses of "claims" and "claimed" in the article. While that's appropriate for Brawley's own statements, under the circumstances, it should be avoided otherwise; "said", "stated", etc, are better, per WP:CLAIM.
  • Reworded
• "The case exposed mistrust in the black community about winning justice from legal institutions." It took me several tries to understand this; I wonder if it could be rephrased? Also, "exposed" doesn't seem the best choice of words here; that is a term you would use for something inappropriate.
  • Reworded
• The parenthetical "he sought 395 million" appears in a strange place; and it needn't be parenthetical.
  • Reworded
• "were given widespread media attention in part" is odd just after discussing "National media attention" in the same paragraph.
  • Reworded
• "many black leaders who showed no degree of skepticism or disbelief of the teenager and her story." This does not read neutrally, because it's implying (in Wikipedia's voice) that they should have been skeptical.
  • Reworded
    • @Vanamonde93: Are you satisfied with the current state of the article?
• One final point; the quotations in the references are helpful, but are somewhat excessive. Can you look at pruning them, and keeping extensive quotations only when we're looking at particularly sensitive stuff?
  • @Vanamonde93: Finished.

" who falsely accused"

there is no evidence to prove that she falsely accused them, so the "falsely" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:93D1:C100:F8A2:9EFC:C2A1:49F1 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No evidence? Try reading this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Why use the phrase (and accompanying link) "mainstream media"

In 1987 there was only "the media" - it was, for all practical purposes, before the Internet - there was no alternative media.

While seeing the term MAY help some WP readers to acclimate - it is also an emotion laden term that only adds to an already touchy subject. History should be viewed in the context of its time, and saying "mainstream media" deflects from that.

{This is my first anything on Wikipedia... I opened an account just for this purpose. I did as much reading of the Wiki Help pages as I could stand (and I feel no closer to knowing if I've done this properly). If I did something wrong trying to ask this question, I'm sure someone will tell me.} IWasAliveAtTheTime (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. The article isn't protected; you're welcome to correct it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You may think there was nothing but the mainstream media in 1987, but there were alternative newspapers, such as The Village Voice, and black-owned newspapers, such as the New York Amsterdam News and The City Sun. In the Brawley case, the distinction between the way the mainstream media covered the case and the way black-owned media covered it—and the mainstream media's coverage of it—was particularly divergent. See the "Public response" section of the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This article should be called "Tawana Brawley rape hoax"

Calling it anything else helps perpetuate the original fraud. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems alright. wumbolo ^^^ 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree completely, the current title is completely inappropriate. Thanks for raising such an important point.Shakehandsman (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the page as per the agreement here and as in accordance with those who previously wanted the move (in 2008) too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And I moved it back. Please read WP:RM#CM. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the current title of "rape allegations" is more NPOV than "rape hoax" Beauxlieux (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that yes, you do think that. However, your thoughts are evidently not based on a viewpoint which is grounded in the actual historical facts... The truth, based on all the extant reliable source factual histories, is that the allegations were 100% false. Thus, this was a hoax. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the page should not be moved without consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that I am revisiting an issue that appears to have languished and is likely volatile but I must agree with the proposal that this page be moved to "Tawana Brawley rape hoax". Had her claims not been objectively disproven I would not take this position even if evidence was lacking heavily. Generally most pages in this arena would carry the more neutral "allegations", title but doing so here would rob accuracy. Moreover, a hoax often requires multiple person either believing or conspiring to advance false allegations or allegation and this scandal would not have existed without the noted intervention of several adult activists. OgamD218 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Then request a move and open discussion. Make your case and see what the consensus is. The discussion here is not an official move proposal - it's nothing more than a suggestion and ensuing discussion. Go to the "More" menu at the top of the article page and select "Move" to open a proposal. Then you can find out if there is consensus for or against renaming it. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)