Talk:Tawana Brawley rape allegations

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [1]

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 [2] 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 [3] 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 [4] 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)

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)

cosby

so what did he say when the truth came out?

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)

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)