Talk:Group of 88

Debating Proposals to Delete this Page

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: [1]. -The kekon (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

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)

• No one is going to build up an article that so many people are actively trying to take down. Please stop redirecting the page until the discussions are finished. -The kekon (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All 88 signatories should be listed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

List of all signers already is in article, as an external link. More than sufficient.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I disagree with not listing the signatories. Listing them is not vindictive but is of historical need. We should have it on proper record who these people were. Saadbd (talk)

Leave it to an "editor" on Wikipedia to claim that the names of the members of the Group of 88 are somehow irrelevant or "tangential" to an entry devoted to that very group. It's an excuse every bit as stupid as a refusal to show drawings of Muhammad in an entry devoted to drawings or images of Muhammad. But hey, they can just look up the names in the "sources given", thus negating the reason for Wikipedia's existence in the first place. Just when you think you have seen everything when it comes to hilariously transparent whitewashing and moronic justifications for it, Wikipedia surprises you.72.49.235.222 (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

Disputed

The lead states that the original ad "contained language implying that the charges were true." I can't find the exact wording of the original ad, but the follow-up letter specically denied that. So, I think we need an exact quote from the original ad justifying that assertion, or the statement should be removed.

This article presents the matter as if there was an actual organization called the "Group of 88". What is the evidence for that? Wasn't it a newspaper ad, not a group? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A link to a copy of the ad has been posted at ANI. That verifies that the ad contained no such prejudgment of guilt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We could perhaps say that RS interpreted the ad to imply that the charges were true.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence marked with [citation needed] in the lead does not necessarily need a citation per WP:CITELEAD as it does not present anything controversial itself but summarizes the response as it is in the following section Commentary and criticism. The whole controversy was about the advertisement implying (or atleast interpreted so) that the charges were true. A tag for [page needed] was added for citation number 4 which is a website without pages. Instead of spending 1 second in Google search to acquire a new link for the rotten one, a few [dead link] tags were added. I will do that, then. For some reason though, the [dead link] tag was added for citation number 14 which is a working link. Lastly, I don't believe the National media section needs an additional NPOV-tag when the article itself has one.

Gamaliel removed a sentence about an opinion piece in the The Chronicle (Duke University). Apparently the publication is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and while not a notable RS, it could be relevant about happenings at the Duke University. He also removed an excerpt from the Johnson and Taylor book about the subject. While it was a very critical statement on the Group of 88, it is from a book dedicated to this subject and being so critical, it describes what the criticism actually was about. Regards to NPOV, I'm afraid the commentary section will inevitably be critical of the Group of 88 because the rape accusation was found out to be false. You won't get a balance of 50-50 positive-negative views on this. --Pudeo' 05:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, Pudeo, that you do not choose to respond to the substantive points raised. Which statement in the original advertisement, (provide a quotation, please), "contained language implying that the charges were true"? Polemical sources make that claim, but I have been able to find no such statement in the original ad. In addition, these people have been described as members of the "Group of 88". How, precisely, does signing a newspaper ad consign a person to lifelong membership in a nonexistent organization? We may all agree that the ad was ill-advised based on what was learned later about the accuser and the prosecutor. But that does not justify adding inaccurate information about 88 people who signed a newspaper ad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversial aspect of the lead sentence is the issue of whether signing a newspaper ad constitutes joining a "group", specifically the so-called "Group of 88", a moniker coined by these people's ideological opponents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with Cullen's reservations about using the word "group".
• I marked the national media section specifically with an NPOV tag because I thought that section was egregiously POV.
• Notability has no bearing on whether or not a source meets WP:RS criteria.
• You can read my edit summary at that link you provided which explains why I removed that excerpt. There is no expression of a desire for a "balance of 50-50", so that is a strawman argument. Any section that accurately represents opinions on this matter with due weight will likely be mostly critical of the G88. The problem with the section, and that excerpt I removed in particular, is not that it does not have an arbitrary balance, but that it does not represent the opinions of the G88 at all and instead misrepresents their views through the lens of their critics' viewpoints. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to confess that I am somewhat perplexed, and a bit amused, by the objections that are raised to the use of the word “group” when discussing the members of the Duke faculty who signed this newspaper ad. The concern being raised is that the "controversial aspect of the lead sentence is the issue of whether signing a newspaper ad constitutes joining a 'group', specifically the so-called 'Group of 88'…". Usage of the word “group” in this case connotes a common characteristic of these faculty members, that is, by agreeing to have their names associated with the ad. As such, it is entirely sound to use the phrase “…a group of professors at Duke University who were signatories to a controversial advertisement…”. Hammersbach (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations Needed

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)

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)

Hi Cullen, Well, I see some statements that are clear references to the events that occurred, but I can't say I see anything that clearly prejudges the accused. I've been working on a possible change to the intro and here's what I've come up with:

The group of 88 is the moniker given to the 88 signatories of a controversial advertisement that was published two weeks after the the events that initiated the Duke lacrosse case. The advertisement, which appeared in the Duke Chronicle on April 6, 2006, contained language that many considered inflammatory. --cite1, cite2, cite3

However, in January 2007 a clarification letter was posted as a web page at http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org stated that the ad had "...been broadly, and often intentionally, misread." and that "Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case." --cite3 The letter was endorsed by 87 members of Duke faculty although not all were signatories of the original ad.

-cite 1 http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1574810,00.html -cite 2 http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2007/04/13/search-closure -cite 3 http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/

Given this is my first real foray into Wikipedia, although I've been a reader for quite some years, I'm a little daunted by actually changing anything.

Please excuse the clumsy cites I'm still working on how to use the markup here. Thanks 209.197.26.81 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

I don't know if "Maybe some other editors might want to comment?" but I'm definitely getting that uncomfortable feeling that you get when you've entered into a conversation to which you are uninvited and unwelcome. I apologize for the intrusion and I'll step away now. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.26.81 (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

I believe you've misunderstood me. Cullen's statements of "Do you see any statements in that advertisement that prejudge the guilt of the accused?" followed up by "I commend you for taking the matter seriously. Maybe some other editors might want to comment?" gave me the impression that he's pointedly asking those questions in a broader context. It also definitely gave me the impression that my first interactions here were being used by Cullen to further his point in a conversation/disagreement. That's an uncomfortable place to start, especially since I was already feeling out of my depth contributing here. So I apologized for the intrusion and left.

Gamaliel I will say that your response to my apology and exit makes me wonder why the hell everyone is seemingly so aggressive here. However, I also see that at your talk link/page you have a linked page titled "tips for the angry new user" which makes me wonder if you need that because this is how you greet all new users.

In any case, my desire to put forth any more effort into trying my hand at writing here has diminished substantially so I'll just go back to reading. Goodbye. 209.197.26.81 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

Karla Holloway

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)

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)

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)

adding full advert?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I just reverted an addition of bold to the bottom based on the overall appearance of [2] (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 <strong> vs. <b> in HTML, sort of. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Bold

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Group of 88. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the phrase applied.... redundancy

"Group of 88" has a distinct meaning and it isn't only detractors that use it. It is not a BLP problem. The group of 88 *is* the 88 professor's from Duke. There isn't an argument that they didn't sign the letter is there? Here is a sympathetic article that uses the term- [[3]]. Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has a distinct meaning. It is the derogatory name (along with "Gang of 88") by which the professors who signed an advertisement are referred by their critics and haters.

Your example of a "sympathetic article that uses the term" reinforces my point. It uses the phrase nine times:

1. In the headline
2. After referring to "the original signatories of the ad"
3. In quotation marks
4. "[Stephen] Baldwin, who criticized the Group of 88"
5. "criticism of the Group of 88"
6. "critics of the Group of 88"
7. "Baldwin argued ... that the University’s actions actually stemmed from pressure placed on Duke from the Group of 88."
8. "vitriol directed at the Group of 88"
9. "Baldwin ... said that though he has lost a degree of respect for some members of the Group of 88, relationships continue to be cordial."

I count two (possibly) neutral uses of the phrase (one in a headline, which are added by editors, not writers), one use of the phrase in quotation marks (which indicates the author is distancing himself from its use), three uses by a prominent critic of the signatories, and three references to criticism of or hatred of the signatories. Could you please explain how the phrase is used by people other than detractors of the signatories. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Yes, it has a distinct meaning. It is the derogatory name...", "I count..." The editor commenting above is exhibiting a text book example of WP:OR. It is nothing more than his/her own base interpretation of the article that is cited that discusses the "group" who signed the document. Hammersbach (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Published a year before charges were dropped, not a week.

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)

The above comment is correct, yet the article has been changed back to "less than a week," and I will change it back again. The accused were deemed innocent more than a year after publication of the Group of 88's statement.Princetoniac (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)