Talk:Mike Nifong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Durham NC, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Durham NC. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Political Hack 2 Requested Move 3 Semi-protected 3.1 Centralizing discussion on VDARE link as reference 4 Previous Cases 5 NPOV dispute

[edit] Political Hack

What a shame that this clown is going to win his election by pandering to the black vote. The famous case he pursued is all but dead. No jury will convict on the overwhelming evidence that a crime never did occur.

This wikipedia article looks like it white-washes (pun intended) Mr. Nifong's record. This guy tried to ruin the lives of multiple young folks for political gain and, so far, he's won.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.213.208.147 (talk • contribs) .

Nifong is sound .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:BobbyAFC (talk • contribs) .

* He should actually spend a few years in jail himself for this debacle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.183.214 (talk • contribs).

**False rape accusations are arguably as harmfull as a rape itself, not only for the hell it puts the accused through and the tarnishing of reputations, but the increased suspicions it casts on actual victims of such a horrific crime in real cases. If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone knowingly and blatantly makes a false accusation of rape then they deserve punishment equal to that of rape itself. AbstractClass 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

***He is a good, honorable man. I like him, I would vote for him if he ran for Governor. BobbyAFC 00:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Talk Pages are not a political discussion forum. They are only there for discussing edits to the articles. Please take your political discussions about Mike Nifong elsewhere. —Quicksilver^{T @} 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

I request that Michael Nifong be moved to Mike Nifong because on most news channels I have seen he is refered to as Mike and not MichaelRougher07 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has objected in five days, and based on a simple Google test, "Mike Nifong" is much more common than "Michael Nifong", so I've completed the page move. I accidentally left an erroneous edit summary with the move - I said that it was requested at WP:RM#Uncontroversial moves, because I had just been closing a bunch of those. This move request was actually put through the standard five-day process for ordinary moves. Oops. I don't think it matters much, and the page is at the right title now. Cheers. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

As there appears to be an edit war brewing between various unregistered users, this article has been semi-protected to encourage the involved parties to start using the talk page instead of just reverting. Semi-protection was chosen over the full protection allowed for by Wikipedia:Protection policy to minimize impact collateral damage parties uninvolved in the dispute. If the edit war expands to the use of registered accounts then full protection will be implemented. --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the semi-protection. There is not an edit war between "various unregistered users." Rather, the only edit war is due to 70.23.199.239's repetitive addition of a reference from Vdare, which has subsequently been reverted several times. Other anonymous IP users have made very beneficial contributions to the article. It would make much more sense to me to warn the specific user, instead of allowing no anons to make contributions. What do others think? -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the same link has been added and removed repeatedly shows that there is a content dispute occurring. This content dispute combined with no discussion and edit summaries jumping from nothing to near name calling is the reason I stepped in. While I do not like having any form of protection on the article, until at least one side of the dispute is willing to take the first step in the dispute resolution process and explain why they favor including or removing the disputed text there is no reason to remove protection. Working towards consensus is the correct action for all parties, while repeated reverts with no discussion accomplish nothing other than creating ill will. --Allen3 ^talk 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All I was saying was that the dispute is only between two people; nobody else really cares. So, it would make more sense to me to ban those people from editing this article (and others, if necessary), rather then making it so no anons can edit it. -Bluedog423^Talk 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your basic analysis that the dispute is between two individuals, the issue with blocking is that one of the individuals has shown that she has access to a range of IP addresses. This raises an issue of which is the lesser evil, semi-protection of three articles or issuing a range block that would block over 1000 addresses (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Range blocks). In my opinion the disruption caused by semi-protection is less than the disruption that would be caused by a range block large enough to block the IP addresses involved in the dispute. --Allen3 ^talk 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralizing discussion on VDARE link as reference

As the dispute over the use of the VDARE page as a reference spans multiple articles, please make comments regarding the issue at Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal#VDARE link as reference. --Allen3 ^talk 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Cases

Are there any investigations of Nifong's previous prosecutions? I wonder how many poor people may have been victims of Nifong in his quest for political advancement without the resources to fight back? I don't recall seeing this angle on any reporting but I hope it has crossed the minds of the media or others who could look into it. I doubt Mr. Nifong only developed his lack of integrity with the Duke case. - AbstractClass 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evil sleazy people generally don't become so overnight, that's a great thing to look up.75.86.149.112 00:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

[edit] NPOV dispute

The current article appears to be a public lynching. In the discussion above, prior contributors explicitly discussed their dislike of the subject and desire to add material attacking him:

• this clown ... tried to ruin the lives of multiple young folks for political gain
• He should actually spend a few years in jail himself
• I wonder how many poor people may have been victims of Nifong
• I doubt Mr. Nifong only developed his lack of integrity with the Duke case
• Evil sleazy people generally don't become so overnight, that's a great thing to look up

We need to change the page to an encyclopedia article. Certainly the issue that makes him notable should feature prominently, but with both sides of the controversy. Currently, it is almost entirely one side's criticism of the subject, almost all in regard to that one issue, apparently intended to cast the subject in the worst possible light. That is counter to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, the current article clearly violates the following statements from the policy:

• Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."
• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight
• It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
• One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
• A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.
• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
• If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

To adhere to the NPOV policy, I think the following changes are needed:

• We should move all facts about the Duke case to one section. One NPOV sentence in the intro is all that's needed (e.g., Nifong became well-known as the prosecutor in the controversial Duke Lacrosse case.).
• When we include criticisms, we need to include the whole story regarding that issue, which must necessarily includes the other point of view and/or the subject's defense of himself. That applies both to both the Duke case and other issues (e.g., including the quotes from Easly and Gray).
• We need to remove weasel words and characterizations (e.g., Nifong is widely regarded as having a reputation for ...).
• The tone of the article should be an neutral description of the subject's life, especially the most notable events, and not his detractors case against him (or a lynch mob's attack).

It's a hot issue; let's handle it carefully. Guanxi 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And let's also keep in mind that Nifong has no one but himself to blame for this situation. Simply reporting the facts and the chronology blandly should suffice to hang this character out to dry, without any need for editorial overkill in the article. Wahkeenah 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I made one change, to the opening paragraph, as a suggestion, rather than trying to rewrite the whole bloody article. One thing caught my attention right away, something about Nifong cursing at colleagues. That's basically a smear tactic, even if it's true. Coach K supposedly curses at his players behind closed doors also, when they screw up. So what? That doesn't belong. Unless someone filed a harassment charge against him, it's just some guy's opinion. Wahkeenah 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This statement is exactly the opposite of NPOV: keep in mind that Nifong has no one but himself to blame for this situation. Simply reporting the facts and the chronology blandly should suffice to hang this character out to dry. If the article hangs him out to dry, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you can't approach the issue with an NPOV, edit articles you feel less strongly about. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that this isn't the place for it. Guanxi 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what writing in a neutral way in the article means. This is the talk page, not the article. I can say whatever I want on the talk page as long as it's reasonable, and reasonably relevant. I'm saying the facts alone strongly indicate malfeasance, and that there is no need for the article to push that editorial viewpoint explicitly, to do the "Told Ya So dance" on his political grave, especially as the jury is still out on his situation. All the article should do is report the events and let them speak for themselves, and lay off the attempts at editorializing. Wahkeenah 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add that if you can find a valid media source that is still supporting Nifong's insistence on continuing with the trial, it wouldn't hurt to bring it into the picture. Wahkeenah 01:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Nifong's guilt is in doubt on this case. It's just a matter of time before he's disbarred for trying to lynch those lacrosse players into jail. The article could be edited to be neutral, but its hardly in doubt that his trademark case is fraudulent. Life, Liberty, Property 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)