Talk:Tawana Brawley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Hey Tawana went to my high school (not at the same time). I wonder if there should be some more said about the media circus. I remember this being a HUGE deal at the time and for a while all people knew Poughkeepsie for was Tawana Brawley.
As the article states, there is no unanimity as to the non-factuality, and while i share User:Can'tStandYa's opinion, stating our opinions is not the purpose of WP articles. It is a verifiable fact that the 3 advocates were discredited in court. Verifying what unnamed associates said is not possible, and we can far less establish whether their statements are true. It is more plausible that one person (TB) lied than "several", but without knowing how many, we don't know how much more plausible, and verification is a higher standard than plausibility in any case.
For that reason i am reverting.
--Jerzy (t) 06:30, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
This article says, "In 1998 Pagones was awarded $150 million in suit for a defamation of character that he brought against Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason." However, Steven Pagones says that "On July 29, 1998 the jury awarded Pagones $345,000 in damages. Sharpton was found liable for $65,000 of the total damages, Maddox for $95,000 and Mason for $185,000." Which one is correct? silsor 01:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'll look into it when I have more time, but as I recall Pagones was originally awarded something like $150 million, but it was later greatly reduced, as often happens. -R. fiend 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is the tag about NPOV displayed on the article page when there seems to be nothing in the talk page to suggest it might not be neutral? --cockneyite 02:30 GMT, 3 Jan 2006
- It was a whim of someone who read the article and didn't agree with it. I remember seeing that tag addition and then forgot to follow-up. --That Guy, From That Show! 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I modified portions of this article to increase readability, particularly in the intro. Dropped in some new facts and dates as well. I am working on citations for some of the claims. Also modified segments that talked about Sharpton and co's "outrageous" behavior--I think to maintain a NPOV the article should cite criticisms from existing sources, not draw unique judgements. --Izau 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] please add defamation of character details
In 1998 Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $150 million) in suit for a defamation of character that he brought against Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason. What things were said and done that were considered defamation of character? I would like to know more about this. --geekyßroad. meow? 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fraud not Hoax?
This is categorized as a hoax but it seems to me that fraud is the more correct term is fraud 211.10.18.77 06:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Would someone like to explain why this is categorised as a hoax at all? The case and evidence do seem to suggest that her claims were false but it's not particularly unbiased to simply say that this is certainly a hoax (no, I don't consider a jury's findings as absolute, conclusive scientific proof). Could someone please explain? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name change
Shouldn't this be changed to Tawana Brawley Case, as this is what the contents of the article about. This certainly is not a bio. Jasper23 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Duke rape case
Some commentators have drawn parallels. --Uncle Ed 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The recent case of the lacrosse players at Duke University accused of raping a young black woman brings to mind the case of Tawana Brawley, the black teenager who in 1988 made similar charges against a group of white men in Wappinger Falls , NY.
- In both cases, what turned out to be unfounded charges were widely given credit and generated immense publicity; celebrities and politicians rallied to the cause of the alleged victims, lengthy and costly legal investigations followed, and at last it emerged that the accusations were groundless. In both incidents, the charges were seized upon as self-evident, incontrovertible proof of the incorrigible and ineradicable racism that continues to permeate and infect every pore of American society. [1]
[edit] Contradiction in "Aftermath" segment re: Maddox
The article tells us: Maddox was later disbarred after being accused of billing and abandoning clients in an unrelated series of incidents..
List of disbarred attorneys tells us: for failure and refusal to disclose files involving Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton.
Maddox own homepage [2] tells us: Maddox was suspended from the practice of law in May 1990 amid his representation of Rev. Al Sharpton in a 67-count indictment ostensibly because he failed and refused to disclose files involving Tawana Brawley and Rev. Al Sharpton. (I wonder what the word "ostensibly" means here - does it mean that it is his interpretation?)
Another page [3] tells us: Maddox later was disbarred in New York, but not because of his role in the Brawley affair; it turns out he had engaged in false billing of clients.
CNN [4] tells us: During the arguments, Stanton told jurors that Mason, Brawley's former lawyer, was disbarred for stealing from clients. Mason was disbarred in 1995 for price gouging, theft and abandoning clients. He has claimed his disbarment was an act of revenge by state officials angry over his role in the Brawley case. (Note that this is Mason, not Maddox)
So, whatever the truth is, either this article or List of disbarred attorneys should be corrected.
Maddox own article is just a stub at this time. While googling for his name it seems to me that he's whining a lot, that its all a white conspiracy against him, etc. --Tilman 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
