Talk:2006 Greenwich Village assault case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The neutrality here is a joke. Anything that one side says is "alleged" the other side's story is presented without the word "alleged" or as a fact. Going to the original news sources -one can see that many of the "defendants" attorney's statements are presented as hard facts, contrary to what a NY jury thought when presented with those same statements (and video tape evidence).

The defendants and their promoters are engaged in a process of spinning the truth; Surely someone can clean up this B.S.

It would be very helpful to obtain access to the court transcripts or actual video evidence, because no available report is clear of spin: the NY post reports are particularly vile. I think the fact that one side of the story is the side of the advocates, while the other is supposedly the official word is a counter to the articles bias, but I do not feel so inclined to reword it. The original article was already part of what seemed to me a deliberate slander campaign.

Danielfong 18:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"The judge called Venice Brown, 19, "an aggressor who ran after the victim," and he sentenced her to five years in prison. He said the videotape showed her "punching and pulling" Buckle during the fight" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19233888/

Also the majority of the page is cited from "FIERCE" and is not a neutral source. This is similar to the phenomena when people were protesting in front of Lorena Bobbit's trial. Advocating her right to mutilate her husband.

I agree that much of what is in the "legitimate" news seems sensational. Certainly, Bill O'Reilly's mention of this detracts from it. However, you should not counter a biased source with another biased source.

ie. I find flaws in Communist Propaganda therefore I ascertain that Anti-Communist Propaganda is more correct.

Anti Anti Anti 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are no verifiable unbiased sources available anywhere online, and the other side must be represented. I'l see if I can get FIERCE to provide the surveillance tape. Danielfong 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with MSNBC? I could point out that the criticism that FIERCE lays on the judge is that he is a "White Man". I know that FIERCE does not have the surveillance tape -what they are probably doing is making unsubstantiated claims for political purposes. According to MSNBC the judge said: "I believe that but for the videotape there would have been an acquittal."

again: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19233888/

Well, for starters, that article misrepresents the onset of the fight completely and totally neglecting the story of harassment. Mainstream media has consistently painted the group as the aggressors, when in fact (according to the testimony of the women, and common sense -- why on earth would they randomly attack and stab a film-maker?) Buckle was the first to engage. That alone disqualifies it from being a sole source. It additionally fails to report that Johnson had claimed to be aiming for an arm that was choking her friend. The article represents only one side of the story. This is not unknown to MSNBC.

The fact that the judge and jury were all white is potentially relevant, as is the fact that articles have frequently dismissed the women as man-hating and bloodthirsty, as is the fact that said articles show practically libelous pictures of the least involved of the group in order to portray the group in the most negative light possible. It tactically does not mention the lack of evidence of contact with the weapon, nor does it mention the men who joined into the fight, which is not disputed by Buckle either.

It is not true that those at FIERCE did not have viewer access to the tape -- there were members present at the trial and sentencing. They do not have the ability to obtain and make the footage freely available at the present time. I believe this is a failing of the judiciary process, but fuller details are likely to emerge to the public during the appeal.

I know we shouldn't let our feelings get in the way of this, but in my case it is very difficult. Black lesbians face discrimination, and because so many of the media portrayals, the attitudes of Buckle, and the actions of the judge (5 years!?! For "punching and pulling Buckle during the fight." It's truly incredible. I've been punched and pulled more times than I can count.) indicate that that may just be the case here.

I think that critics have every right to point out these objections in tandem, and drive for stronger support and for a genuine appeal process to take place. The sentences do not seek to benefit from fame, only to attract support in whatever capacity possible for a legal appeal. Were the article not present on the wikipedia, I would not drive for a more balanced take on the issue. But when I started there was only a slanderous article citing O'Rielly and the New York Post, demonizing the women without even so much as a mention to the story from the other side -- even those uncontested in the courtroom.

So, that's what's wrong with the MSNBC article. It's incomplete and biased.

Danielfong 04:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it seems that you are taking the POV from one obviously biased source "FIERCE" over the convential news source MSNBC. MSNBC has fact checkers and no political agenda. In fact MSNBC has been accused of having a "liberal agenda". Although I disagree with this; there is no reason for MSNBC to deliberately spin facts to demonize "black lesbians". Furthermore if MSNBC is lying then why don't the perpetrators sue MSNBC and get some of that microsoft money? The point is that MSNBC has something to lose by "not telling the truth". FIERCE does not.
The point that MSNBC is biased is somewhat moot. FIERCE is not a "reliable source" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources ). In fact if you go to their website you see that they have a straightforward agenda: http://www.fiercenyc.org/about_fierce/ .
It's not that organizations like FIERCE shouldn't exist but they are not a "reliable source" by any means. Niether is Bill Orielly but that is another story.
Anti Anti Anti 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume that MSNBC has no bias or agenda, nor can we assume that they have the whole story, nor can we assume that because FIERCE has an agenda the facts are incorrect.
The point is that the information represented by FIERCE (and not only, also the Chicago Free Press) constitutes an important POV that must be represented. The fact that it exist must be clearly explained. No mainstream account does this, and therefore cannot be relied upon to be complete. So I have used the most prominent source representing the story by the defendants. Danielfong 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter to prove that MSNBC "does not" have a bias or agenda. It's a matter to prove that in this case MSNBC has a bias. That is a fallacy. Please look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof Anti Anti Anti 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already specifically addressed why I believe there to be bias in the MSNBC account in my reply of 04:26, 28 July. Danielfong 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More trial testimony:
"As I got my knife, Renata hit him for spitting," Johnson's statement says. "Then everyone jumped in because he is a man. Then some young men had helped us. After that we walked away. I admit I did cut him one time for my own safety."
http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_101212618.html
Anti Anti Anti 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, because it appears to conflict with statements she made elsewhere. Additionally, the knife: bloodied, not bloodied, checked for DNA evidence, or not -- it's all been reported. Danielfong 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danielfong -Are you familiar with arguments in Evolution? Do you see that what one side in the Evolution-Creation Debate is constantly bringing in data from bias sources, fringe sources and unreliable sources? The reason I mention this is that you seem to be guilty of this. No, not in evolution -but here.
I'm not sure what your compunction is here to call MSNBC or Mainstream news media "biased" in favor of giving credit to fringe special interest blogs. I do know that it prominantly mentioning these fringe source and inserting weasel words do not belong in an Encyclopedia.
Anti Anti Anti 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the NY times coverage of the case? It's absolutely incredible. If you still can't see the bias there I'm amazed. I will have to be much more pedantic. Danielfong 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that much of the news articles are sensationalistic. I disagree with ignoring neutral sources (MSNBC) to "counterweigh" against some bias in OTHER non-neutral sources (Bill O'Ryan).
If you wanted to talk politics about the subject. -Unfortunately this is not the place. However I can easily see if roles were reversed -if a gay man was stabbed after coming on to a bunch of straight men -then the perpetrators (the straight men) should be put on trial. Unlike FIERCE I don't really see this as a straight vs. gay issue. It's a stab vs. no-stab issue. In the case of the Wiki article -its a neutrality issue.
Anti Anti Anti 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a response to my claim that MSNBC is not, in fact, neutral? "Well, for starters, that article misrepresents the onset of the fight completely and totally neglecting the story of harassment. Mainstream media has consistently painted the group as the aggressors, when in fact (according to the testimony of the women, and common sense -- why on earth would they randomly attack and stab a film-maker?) Buckle was the first to engage. That alone disqualifies it from being a sole source. It additionally fails to report that Johnson had claimed to be aiming for an arm that was choking her friend. The article represents only one side of the story." Danielfong 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a commonly used fallacy known as assuming the consequent. The jist is that you have a set of propositions that you assume to be true -then attack contrary positions. This is commonly done by Anti-Evolutionists for example. They assume that God created the earth and challenge others to prove otherwise.
MSNBC seems more accurate because unlike FIERCE and O'Reilly -they don't make exagerated claims about the story. They don't argue that because the Judge was white or that the Jury was white -that the "Lesbian 7" didn't get a fair trial. That is a fallacy -an Ad Hominem Fallacy. Note that the "Lesbian 7" had a right to question their jury and remove them. If they didn't want an all white jury -then they are partly to blame.
MSNBC and other mainstream news use quotes from reliable sources and do not use the argument: "I was at the trial; therefore I know". (This is another fallacy: Appeal to Authority.)
You ask "Why on earth would they randomly attack and stab a film-maker?" Which is a common defense among criminals and attorneys to blame the victim. Question "Who got stabbed"? It certainly wasn't "The Lesbian 7". It was Dwayne Buckle. He was the victim of some sort of crime. He went to the hospital for it.
Furthermore please compare and contrast this to another act of violence: Matthew Shepard. A gay man got murdered for allegedly hitting on straight men. If we open the door and say that any one who comes on to someone else loses the protection of the law -then we are pathetically sinking as a society.
Anti Anti Anti 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are falsely assuming that I presume their innocence, or that I blindly swallow the word of any article as truth. Some respect, please. I am only pointing out, time and time again, that the MSNBC fails to provide mention of salient aspects of the case. For example: If it isn't ensured that Buckle was actually seen strangling one of the women (allegedly on the tape, but I haven't seen it and it's not available), then at least the claim that Buckle may be seen doing so should be represented. It's a key part of the defense: that the stabbing was in self-defense (or defense of another). Shouldn't the defense's case be represented, if there's to be any coverage of the case at all? Danielfong 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems[edit]

This article is probably one of the worst written I have ever read. It does not conform to the manual of style at all and is based on very POV sources. There are all sorts of "biography of living person" issues as well - something the wikipedia lawyers are really hot on. As for the name of the article - is that what the court case was called? I ask because in the UK for a criminal case such as this it would be "The Crown vs whoever" as the state takes on the role of prosecutor. Is there a US equivalent?

Unfortunately having trawled the web for information the only sources I can find are mostly very POV or very sensational (something I've seen mentioned above). To be honest in this situation the best thing to do would be to delete the article until such time that the court transcripts are available and then to write a neutral third person account bearing in mind that these women have been convicted by a court of law. Wikipedia should not be used as another forum to protest their innocence - it can only narrate the reported facts in a neutral way. Sophia 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was split off from the main Dwayne Buckle article because it was overshadowing the rest of the content. The title is, to my understanding, rather arbitrary, and should probably be changed. But, to what, I do not know. --Eyrian 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, likely the best way to handle this is to wait until the court transcripts are actually available. Since the statements of both parties are unavailable at this time, and all of the articles appear to represent only the side of the prosecutor or the charged. A neutral account would be heads above what was in the original Dwayne Buckle article, and that is all that I have intended. Danielfong 06:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another article. This one tries to point out the contradictions between different reports. It clearly has a POV, like all articles I have found, but is at least one other article not from Fierce representing a side other than the prosecutor's. Danielfong 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we afd this and then someone can recreate it when the court transcripts are available? Otherwise we have real WP:BLP problems that cannot be left. Sophia 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that the court transcripts will not become available. Does anyone have any experience with this? Danielfong 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have no unbiased decent sources and editors who are trying to right a wrong on a paged that deals with living people and hence needs to be very careful. This is not a recipe for a good article. Sophia 05:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not split the article. The Lesbian Seven seems to be what the pro-Johnson crowd seem to be naming this group of defendants. Why not just split it again. I'm still not sure why MSNBC (cited above) or a few of the other news sources couldn't be found that aren't sensationalistic. To be quite honest I'm not even sure why this story got the national attention it did. Anyways if The Lesbian Seven are asserting their innocence and and are media notable (I think they are) -then why not discuss this issue there like they did with the West Memphis Three. Anti Anti Anti 20:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I've temporarily reverted the page blanking and sent the whole thing over to AfD to determine once and for all whether this is a WP:BLP violation that can be deleted, a valid article but not noteworthy enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, or a rescuable article — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly[edit]

Does anyone deny that he was assualted and stabbed? The argument as I understand it, is about whether or not it was self-defense. From what I understand, this bit: "Buckle, spitting aggressively, eventually threw a lit cigarette at the woman which prompted a conflict." probably should be prefaced with an allegedly, one party says that's what happened and the other doesn't.

This: "describes Buckle assaulting the women" should probably read: 'allegeds Buckle assualted the women.' Any input?216.98.233.245 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and libel[edit]

This page is a libel and slander attempt agianst a living crime victim. Page should be removed until all the real evidence from the trial is available. Transcripts and Video Footage could be available through Freedom of Information Act. Any further slander would be subject to litigation. Any quotes, or links from FIERCE, or any other biased source should be scrutinized, obviosly it is a propaganda campaign and the editors at Wiki should know better.

User:Foundationforjustice blanked the article and replaced it with the above text. User:Foundationforjustice's comment was moved here by Richard (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC). Please do not blank articles or put editorial comments on article pages![reply]

--Richard (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sakia Gunn[edit]

I found this article from the GayCityNews, which has a few lines connecting the murder of Sakia Gunn to this case. Considering the orphaned tag at the top of the article, I thought it might be worthwhile to work that in (and the similarity of the cases), but I was having some difficulty doing that. -- Irn (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing for now: Unsourced Sakia Gunn Connection, for Discussion[edit]

Brought to my attention through Ticket#: 2012022810011972:

The sentence in question is:

All the women were acquainted with Sakia Gunn, a black lesbian murdered in a hate crime.[citation needed]

The best (and only) remotely reliable source I can find for this on Google or Google News/Archives is CounterPunch:

"Being young, they knew the odds of fun were better in the Village; being lesbians, they knew fun was not to be had in the streets of Newark, where, four years earlier, 15-year-old Sakia Gunn was knifed to death by men who thought she was cute–until she told them she was gay."[1]

Another source, of unclear reliability is ThePublicIntellectual.org:

"All of the New Jersey 7 either knew Sakia Gunn personally or knew that she had been murdered in a street harassment incident three years earlier. The media, they say, helped foster an environment that made it easy to mischaracterize the women’s acts of self-defense."[2]

I'm interested in whether/how we can mention the Sakia Gunn case as background without making a strong claim about the attackers knowledge of the event. Thoughts? Ocaasi t | c 16:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 documentary movie[edit]

source: http://www.wnyc.org/story/killer-lesbians-or-victims/

--Jeremyb (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Greenwich Village assault case. 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Greenwich_Village_assault_case&oldid=1212615129"