Talk:2007 De Anza College rape investigation

message: This article is terribly written; what's the deal with the "Timeline" section?  Why would this be on the front page?63.227.209.251 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've placed cleanup tags on it... maybe somebody w/ more time than I can do some major work to fix it up.Soojmagooj 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 63.227.209.251, I guess it is because very few places have the information in one place. If you look at all the forums, or other sites they are all talking about it but failing to find the information.  Here it is placed in one article.  Many of the news reports don't even mention the second rape and I am currently trying to find a printed report beyond a video report that there may well be more alleged victims.  As events change, so will the article.  Perhaps you could help. PEACETalkAbout 15:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 63.227.209.251, I noticed you noted terribly written but not factually incorrect. Which gave me encouragement to go out and see that else I could find. Thank you.PEACETalkAbout 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Front pager?

message: References should be cleaned up by wrapping them in  or . I have done 3 references with longest URLs so at least layout is not broken (at 1600*1200). Shinhan 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: In this edit:  User:Shinhan said s/he thought the cleanup template should be changed to 'proseline' because that's the closest description of the article's deficiencies. I agree, but I don't think we should lose sight of other editorial problems, notably WP:MOS issues (including, but not limited to, wikilinking in headings which is not standard), and overall style (too casual and editorial in nature). Anchoress 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup template 

message: The only salvageable material out of this lead is as follows:
* The [insert corrected article title here] is an incident that took place in 2007, in which members of the De Anza College baseball team were accused of raping a high school girl at a birthday party held at the home of a team member.  The case gained national attention after the Santa Clara County District Attorney decided not to try the rape case, leading to  criticism and continued backlash from protesters locally and nationally.
Anything further would require finding new sources, verifying sources, proper citations, and vetting for relevance and BLP violations - i.e. a complete re-write, which is the responsibility of proponents of the article, not the responsibility of people who are on BLP patrol.
The article gets worse from there.  A similar approach would eliminate entire sections, and probably 80-90% of the content would have to go, leaving an article stub.
-- Wikidemo (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salvageable material out of lead

message: *OK, I've completely blanked and rewritten the article into a stub. I ended up resourcing most of the article, because San Diego Mercury Observer doesn't allow free access to its archived material. As a result, I couldn't access large portions of the orginal citations.  Please note that I did this only as a stop-gap measure, because I agree w/ Wikidemo that the thing should go. However, I did give it a good faith effort to write something less problematic. I did not alter the title, something that I feel must be done, because I was afraid that I would interfere w/ the Afd.  I also went into far less detail, because at this stage the facts are too unclear for us to give the matter proper encyclopedic treatment.  Please feel free to criticize here or further edit. I do hope no one will feel it necessary to outright revert. :) Xymmax (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete rewrite

message: I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the grand jury. I thought the usual purpose of a grand jury was to decide if there is enough evidence for a trial (supported by the article). Why/how then did she present evidence to a grand jury but decide not to prosecute? Does this mean the grand jury found there wasn't enough evidence but she was still allowed to prosecute despite this finding or that they found there was enough evidence but she decided not to prosecute? Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, different states within the U.S. have different rules. The grand jury certainly can be used as you have described.  I don't know what happened in this case, but the possibilities include: 1) the grand jury thought that the evidence it heard wasn't pursuasive 2) the prosecutor saw something in the way her evidence came out (whether it was testimony of the witnesses or the alleged victim, or something else) that made the prosecutor feel there was an incurable defect in the case or 3) the prosecutor may genuinely feel there's a question of guilt.  I believe that in most states, even if the grand jury feels that there is not enough evidence that there is a mechanism by which the prosecutor can bring the charges. However, there may some political risk in doing so.  I don't know if that helps or not, but I hope it does. Xymmax (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand jury 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.sfgate.com/cg
** In 2007 De Anza rape investigation on 2011-05-26 02:43:28, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 De Anza rape investigation on 2011-05-27 15:01:38, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 De Anza rape investigation on 2011-06-15 12:45:36, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: "Presiding Judge Aaron Persky was criticized for allowing photos of the woman at a party, and denying other victims from testifying, [12] and is currently facing a recall attempt for allegations of misconduct in another rape case which occurred on Stanford Campus. [13] http://www.recallaaronpersky.com"
The above was added in response to the 2016 trial of Brock Turner. The first part references a link that does not properly substantiate that the judge was criticized (by whom?). The second part is factually incorrect: He is not facing recall; there is a petition on change.org and the D.A. has publicly stated that recall is unwarranted. It is also inappropriate to link the petition like some kind of advertisement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgr123 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 Stanford Rape Case