Talk:Group of 88

message: Some Wikipedians are proposing that this page be deleted.  For those of you who are not experienced Wikipedians, you can see discussions pertaining to this deletion proposalhere: . -The kekon (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debating Proposals to Delete this Page

message: This article is of poor quality and the topic is done better at Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case#Duke faculty groups.  I have moved all the links which check out to that article and made this one into a redirect.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/redirect

message: Only 15 of the signers are listed by name in the article.  Who were the other 73?
They wanted to go "on the record" when they were baying for blood, they should be held accountable now that the truth has come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk • contribs) 
:Wikipedia is not here to "hold people accountable" for things. We are only here to provide information in appropriate, encyclopedic detail, based on what is covered in reliable sources. The vast majority of those people are not notable, and thus do not deserve mention in Wikipedia. I'm sure there are hundreds of websites where you could find that info. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And how are their identities NOT part of the appropriate encyclopedic detail?  It's the "Group of 88" not the "Group of 15 and, uh, 73 nobodies."  If they're "not notable" singularly then they're not notable when 88 of them put their names to a published document.  Or is there some NPOV reason you would prefer those 73 remain un-named?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.208.105 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP is a start--we don't include random information on living people just because we can, and just because it's sourced; we must take extra care to only talk about living people in ways that are meaningful and connected broadly to the greater story that needs to be told. More importantly, though, WP:UNDUE (which is a part of WP:NPOV) is really dominating here--our job is to provide an encyclopedic overview of the topic, not list every detail. Taking up a big chunk of the article with a list of names would be excessive. For example: do any reliable sources other than the letter itself list out all of the names? If they don't, that already is a very strong indication that we should not. If reliable sources haven't considered the information important enough to talk about, then we certainly should not override them and look to the primary source of the letter itself and extract out additional information. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a typical Wikipedia example of political manipulation. Quite obviously all the names of the people who did this controversial action should be listed. They became notable by signing this statement. Since signing became an embarrassment, they and many supporters naturally prefer that the issue die. Nicmart (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.   Tangential associations with an ad are not of strong encyclopedic interests, AFAICT.  Readers who wish to find "names" can follow the sources given - that is why we use sources. Collect (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: List of all signers already is in article, as an external link. More than sufficient.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I would like to add that Wikipedia "uses sources" to verify WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE ENTRY.  Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a source aggregator.72.49.235.222 (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  All 88 signatories should be listed 

message: Here's an archive of the advertisement that is linked from the clarification web site l
I'm brand new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if that's sufficient for some of the citation needed tags in the (article, journal, page --what's the right terminology?)
209.197.26.81 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. Do you see any statements in that advertisement that prejudge the guilt of the accused? Or that support any of the other "citation needed" tags in the article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I think that your effort, especially your "many considered inflammatory" phrase, is definitely an improvement over the language which had been in the article. I commend you for taking the matter seriously. Maybe some other editors might want to comment? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Cullen has been perfectly polite to you and your response is unwarranted.  There's nothing he said that could be interpreted as a desire for you not to participate.  Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Aggressive? I'm constantly amazed how people can misconstrue bare text.  Sorry that you feel your experience has been an unwelcome and unpleasant one, but it seems more likely you have misinterpreted the well-meaning statements of others.  We have a concept here called assume good faith that encourages editors to view the actions of the other editors as well-intentioned.  I encourage you to read about it.  If you have anything you wish to discuss about this or anything else related to Wikipedia, you are welcome to do so on my user talk page.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: I just started a discussion at Talk:Karla F.C. Holloway about the "Group of 88" section in her biography. The lede here states "The person who conceived the idea of the advertisement was Karla F.C. Holloway". That statement is unsourced. Is anyone aware of a source for the claim that Holloway "conceived" of the ad? Nigel Pap (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the information is Yaeger, Don, and Mike Pressler. It's Not about the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Lives It Shattered. New York: Threshold Editions, 2007. Holloway's role is discussed on pages 121-8. She certainly was central to creating the "group of 88" ad. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

text: There's also Taylor and Johnson's Until Proven Innocent. Page 144 (in the 2008 St. Martin's Griffin edition) states that the ad was "put together by Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway". The idea for the ad was conceived when, according to page 112, "Wahneema Lubiano and Karla Holloway converted a student garthering on black masculinity to a discussion of the lacrosse case". Several other pages on which Holloway is mentioned strongly imply that Holloway's leading role was acknowledged both by Holloway herself and by the rest of the signatories; she made multiple media appearances defending the ad and generally acting as the Group's representative. According to pages 339 and 340, the CCI report singles out "Karla Holloway and Anne Allison" as the "leading" members. Weirvile (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karla Holloway 

message: As we include the clarifications of the ad's purpose in a section in significant detail, the added utility of the full advert is small, and its language in a few cases is more unfortunate than one would wish in a very small article here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with both this and your edit summary.  The way the article is written makes it sound like they published something like These bastards are guilty and we want them out now, when the reality is they said Duke has an ongoing problem and they're listening to the students about it.  Though I don't understand them fully, there are obviously political games going on regarding this issue.  The way to keep things real is to drop anchor on the ad itself, and as the text written by the "Group of 88" is so short, we can easily do so without stretching any length limits. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said nothing of the sort, the clarification  is fully given and the full advert is linked under "External Links" in the first place - what is the problem?   We generally do not use a source 'and put it in "External Links" if I recall correctly - right? Collect (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a valid, but irrelevant issue.  Sure, provided the quote I had stays in, with its direct reference to the ad, the external link then becomes redundant, but that isn't what I was talking about. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The inline copy, particularly the text written by the faculty themselves is useful, do not think having an external link to the document is redundant. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than being exceedingly strongly deprecated by the MoS - which seems important.  To the extent that the clarification section duplicates the advert total rendition, that section then should be removed  as violating WP:NPOV, alas. Collect (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I just reverted an addition of bold to the bottom based on the overall appearance of  (that's not a reliable source per se, but I think it is likely to be accurate anyway).  The bottom text isn't really meant to be seen as bold faced shouting, at least per Wikipedia standards.  My intention when bolding those two lines in the quote was to follow the apparent "logical" emphasis of the authors, rather than duplicating their typography in detail: those two lines appear larger than the ones around them.  The distinction is like  vs.  in HTML, sort of. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding full advert? 

message: If we quote an advert, and carefully place the parts in bold type  in bold here, we should then be consistent and use bold for all which is in bold-face in the advert.  
Or we can avoid bolding entirely.  What we can not do per MoS is bold some and then not bold the other material in bold-face type in the original advert.  We ought do one or the other. Collect (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between a bold font and actual emphasis.  As shown in the link above, there is very little difference between the bottom part and the top part in the first place; I'm not sure it is a bold font; but it's not really emphasis.  Nonetheless the bolding of the two lines I had to start was more a matter of being faithful to the source than any great need, and is worth sacrificing to be done with this. Wnt (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Group of 88. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case, the charges were dropped on April 11, 2007. That would be over a year after the Group of 88 advertisement, not less than a week as this article claims.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokemill (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published a year before charges were dropped, not a week.