Talk:Central Park jogger case

Describing the Jogger as a "white woman" as opposed to just "a woman"

An editor recently took issue with the lead describing the case as a criminal case over the aggravated assault and rape of a white woman..., saying that the inclusion of white in that sentence was "race-baiting language". However, given the number of reliable sources which scrutinize the racial dynamics of this case, I believe it is relevant and important to note the jogger's race here.

Part of the case's legacy in modern sources in how sensationalist media used it to shape a "sentimental narrative"[1] of white womanhood "under assault"[2] by a "marauding wolfpack"[3] of "bestial black men"[4]. In the terms of Missing white woman syndrome, the jogger was absolutely a Missing White Woman.

The jogger's race was definitely at least somewhat important in shaping discussion of the case, and reliable sources reflect that. Describing her race plainly does not make any controversial judgements about how relevant that was, nor does it suggest that this interpretation of those discussions is good, only that it is prominent. Therefore, it seems neutral. Omitting her race wrongly implies that it is absolutely not even the slightest bit relevant, which is not neutral. RoxySaunders (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth Man, Steven Lopez

Recent reports are covering a sixth man who was exonerated just recently after he also served time from false convictions regarding the same charges, a man named Steven Lopez. Who's open to adding the information? I ask here because I don't have time at the moment, at the very least to do so all on my own, since I'm busy with some other projects. If you need to reach me directly, if you could place my handle in her reply however it sends me notice or leave a message on my wall, please. Thanks in advance for considering the crucial information here. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact of Lopez's vacated conviction has been added to the article—thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Affirmation / Citations generally

I've added Template:more citations needed and Template:primary sources to the article, since there are a few paragraphs with no references and the article heavily relies on the Ryan affirmation. The latter concern is, I think, less critical, but I want to flag it: The Ryan affirmation is cited roughly 40 times—by far it is the most-cited reference in the article. There are a couple paragraph that rely on it almost to exclusion of everything else—the vacatur section, in my estimation, is particularly too-reliant on the affirmation, since the affirmation is being cited as a source for its own contents—again, not an egregious issue, but I think secondary sources discussing the affirmation could likely be found.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Melli subsection

I deleted the subsection that was, effectively, a separate article on the victim. I saw that this edit was reverted, but I disagree with the justification for the change and simultaneously think WP guidelines counsel against the addition, so I thought I'd elaborate here.

The reverting user said, "This is pretty standard for Wikipedia articles on crimes; see, e.g., 2014 Isla Vista killings, to which Eliot Rodger redirects." But I think the comparison is inapt.

First, in terms of notability, victims and perpetrators are not equivalents. Rodger's mindset is particularly notable to the Isla Vista killings article; notice that the responses section is entirely devoted to his ideology and mental health—given the relation of Rodger to the subject, his background is far more relevant to that article. That's not the case here; there's obviously a much more tenuous connection (in terms of relevance) between Melli's background and this attack.

Further, and a bit more critically, WP:SUMMARY notes that articles should be written in summary style and that the length of an article should be considered when deciding the amount of information to include. Based on my rough estimate (based on word count)—with the section on Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killings article is less than half the length of this article without the subsection on Melli (who, it should be noted, is not at all excluded from the article even without the embedded mini article).

That final note actually, for me, adds to the reasons not have a mini article on Melli in this article—the information that is relevant about her—her recovery, thoughts on the exonerations, and subsequent career, are all already included in the article; the mini article largely duplicated this information and included lots of non-relevant information.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary stating that the removal of the Meili section is required by the guideline WP:SUMMARY, and expressing surprise that Meili's name was bolded therein despite this convention being commonplace in similar articles, seemed questionable insofar as the content has been in our article for more than ten years with hundreds of intervening edits by more experienced contributors than yourself. While I appreciate your further explanation, and don't intend to pursue this with additional reverts for the time being, it seems to me that the reliable secondary sources, rather than Wikipedia editors, should ultimately determine how much of the eponymous "Central Park Jogger"'s background is relevant to coverage of the case. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking back, I was absolutely wrong to suggest that a guideline was mandatory—I apologize for that error! I take your point on the reliable sources—no doubt there are reliable sources that provide—just using the same example—where Melli went to college and what her professors said about her. Still, I'm not sure I agree it follows that discussion by a reliable source automatically yields relevance. In theory, it'd be possible to do mini-article sections on Melli, each member of the Central Park Five, and (probably) Reyes! But I'm hopeful we both agree that wouldn't be appropriate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the POV tag to the section on reaction to the civil-suit settlements, since only negative reactions are covered. (I also have this concern about what's currently the lede in the Aftermath section, since, save for a quote from the DA, only negative perspectives are documented—surely we should quotes from some people who celebrated the vacatur?).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Template text: Vacated vs. Exonerated

There appears to be a dispute over whether the main template should say "exonerated" or "vacated". I would argue:

1. That nothing should mentioned in the "accused" section of the template—on that point I actually do feel relatively strongly. I can't find other examples where an outcome is paired with "Accused"—and doing so is putting the cart before the horse. I other cases, we don't say "(all found not guilty)" or "(all found guilty)" on comparable pages. The result of the case, including the ultimate vacatur, is discussed in the Verdict section.
2. That "vacated" should be the term used. Here, I don't feel particularly strongly, but the technical legal term would be "vacated", and we have reliable sources describing the court as doing just that.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yusef Salaam

Central Park accused Yusef Salaam is currently a candidate for NYC City Council and should ge4t a new article of his own. This fact is public recorsd 96.39.242.97 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Show about Central Park Jogger

Even if it wasn't American Justice, l can still recall watching a show on this case before Reyes made his confession. Tnarrud3 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)