Talk:Ashley Todd mugging hoax

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy move.

Morton Downey Jr.

It seems to me a "see also" to Morton Downey, Jr.'s false story of being mugged by skinheads who drew a suspiciously backwards swastika on his head is entirely appropriate. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, to link to that would be a POV link. It would only be relevant if media discussion of this case was drawing comparisons with the other. Otherwise it is POV or certainly original research.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've seen bloggers drawing the comparison. I hope you don't think I've had this factoid squirreled away in my brain for 20 years. The similarity between the event seems plain on its face, so I'm not certain why a reliable source would be needed. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of a living person, and a potential court case that's sub-judice. I hardly think that links on blogs to neo-nazi accusations is appropriate. It tends to assume a racist motivation here, which is entirely speculative. It is clearly not appropriate to make such a link ourselves.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see the racism parallel here. Downey didn't claim he was attacked for being Irish, merely for his loudmouth political views, and this woman likewise claimed she was attacked for being a McCain supporter, not due to race. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, on examination, it is a fairly close parallel. But then, the examination is original research.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No research is involved here: I proposed merely a see also link. My threshold for what can go in a "see also" section is fairly low. I shouldn't have to create Category:People who falsely claimed to be mugged and drew backwards glyphs on themselves as evidence to link the two articles for the benefit of future historians. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My threshold for what we put in a BLP is fairly high. Linking to another fairly negative article needs a reason more than "hey, I think these cases are similar".--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay up! It is newsworthy, and I looked Ashley Todd up on Wikipedia to get more information. I think the article should be expanded....certainly not deleted! BaliPearl (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page name from where?

Looking at the Afd, a few people suggested Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax is the title for this page, but we ended up with "Ashley Todd's mugging claim". One person's choice? The current title doesn't inform the user of the content, as a "claim" is considerably different from a "hoax" or an "incident", being that the word lends itself to the idea that the claim may or may not be true at the time of reading. Since we know it now to be a hoax, admitted by the perpetrator, I think that should be the descriptor of the concurrence. If people believe that hoax is too strong a word, then I would also accept incident. As it is, it's pretty weaselly. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Ashley Todd incident or Ashley Todd hoax should be it, but not this awkward Ashley Todd's "mugging claim" title. Using the descriptor "claim" unequivocally --and wrongly-- implies that the validity of the claim is unkown. It has been called a hoax in some media outlets, and I think that's the most accurate term to describe it. If people have concerns about the "neutrality" of that title, I'm open to moving it to the emphatically neutral Ashley Todd incident as a ~~concession to PC~~ compromise. 78.34.130.177 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]