Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Many people in the discussion of the kobe bryant page believed that the Sexual Assault part was taking up too much of the article and making it too long.It was not true these people were just trying to get some quick cash. I thought that, since this whole section was objectible, I would add a link to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel 123 (talk • contribs)

You still need to clean up the references on this page (i.e., move the relevant citations from the original article here). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody had made "on bond" a link, but I changed it to on "bond" so as not to include "on" in the link.Daniel_123 | Talk 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Evidence in the trial

I think the readers would benefit greatly if we can add a section of evidence presented at the preliminary and the rumoured evidence the Prosecution never presented. For example, off my head I can think of the three semen samples found on Ms. Faber's clothing, inside her and on her neck, the night auditor's affidavit, the forensic expert's testimony, and Detective Winter's testimony. Centralk 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Centralk

[edit] Revert "***"'s

I reverted two edits that consisted solely of replacing the accuser's name with "***" on second and subsequent references. Note that the first reference was left intact. I am not taking a position on whether it is proper to name the accuser; I assume this principle was the subject of a long, heated debate on this page and other articles relating to sexual assault accusations. I am reverting this for two reasons: a) it makes absolutely no sense to censor subsequent references when the first instance of the name is left intact; and b) if consensus is that the accuser should not be named (and again, I am taking no position on this), "***" is an unacceptable way to implement this.75.139.35.32 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


People are innocent till proven guilty. If Mr. Bryant's name out there, and ruining his reputation, why should the accuser receive special treatment? we assume People are innocent until they're proven guilty. Kwame1234 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment to a certain extent, though cases of rape or sexual assault do have a profoundly different effect on the accuser/victim than most other charges. It would probably be best if the media wasnt involved in any court case regardless of how famous the accused/accuser is and especially when it is a case of rape/sexual assault. This case will always leave a question mark hanging over Bryant's head because people with different agendas can use it to their own end.

  • Whoever is taking out Dead Women Tell No Tales is full of bs. It's freaking been PUBLISHED and is a BOOK OUT, you guys who are taking it out are a joke. It's part of the CASE, the AFTERMATH of it, a WHOLE BOOK being published.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.1.112 (talk • contribs)
Not knowing more, I can't say how much credibility this book has. However, even if the book is a reliable source of information that could be used to source information in the article, mentioning it as "a book was written about this incident, see more at [link]" is more ad-copy than anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual assault?

Wasn't it rape? --Howard the Duck 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Same thing in legal terms. SabarCont 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of Kobe Bryant

Has anyone read Kobe Bryant's statement in its entirety? If so, do you think it would be reasonable to include the text (in its entirety, as a blockquote) in this article? I think it's probably the most illuminating document re. the trial, and--as the parties intended--sums up the case quite well. sæ (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Redacted

In accordance with Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy, I will begin redacting the name of the alleged victim. The following is why:

-She is not a public figure, and does not want to be a public figure. -Giving her name on this page will enable others to more easily search for her and begin harassment. Although her name can likely be found on other pages on the internet, I do not feel Wikipedia should take part in this. -Adding her name helps this page in no way. As wikipedia is not considered an appropriate source in any academic setting, all scholastic attempts to determine her identity could be found through scholastic channels. -Consistency. Although each page should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the same judgment should exist in similar circumstances. On numerous pages, the names of living persons have been redacted. If the name of an adult who made a video of himself playing star wars should be redacted for privacy concerns, certainly the name of an alleged rape victim who has received death threats should be redacted for similar reasons.

Please feel free to weigh in. I am not saying he was innocent or guilty, or that any punishments should happen to anyone. I am saying that wikipedia should not be an avenue to violate privacy of a living person.75.80.82.112 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much, since anyone can just check the history and view an old version of the page. I don't care about this enough to revert it, though. --154.20.148.86 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your reasoning is faulty and foolish. Billywhack (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons is very clear about a non-public figure seeking privacy. Unless these situations don't apply, please explain what's different about this situation. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons Policy (please excuse my lack of knowledge concerning links and tags):

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

I fail to see how using her name benefits this page. Any scholarly research will be done through peer-edited journals, and anyone simply trying to sate their curiosity can look it up in a tabloid or google search. Including this woman's name has only the potential to harm. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph again: ...who are not directly involved in an article's topic... Kate Faber is directly involved. Therefore, your logic fails. Her name stays. Billywhack (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The case is about Bryant's alleged actions, not about the alleged victim. This woman did not pursue any media attention and clearly wanted her efforts to be private. If she had brought a civil suit against him and made television appearances with her attorney, it would be a different matter. Her name does not have any encyclopedic value. Also, please be civil and constructive in your comments. 75.80.82.112 (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In case editors get the impression that I am performing harmful edits, I will stop editing this page until this issue is resolved. Further, I would like a clear explanation as to why redacting her name is inappropriate. I feel that wikipedia should be very cautious concerning biographies of living persons and as I currently see no benefit having her name displayed, I am leaning toward not doing so. Any constructive comments would be appreciated. BigScaryGary (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts Having just looked at the talk page for The Star Wars Kid, I see that someone mentions the following from BLP: Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Given that this is the only thing she is notable for, the inclusion of her name is debatable. However it looks dumb to replace her name with [REDACTED]. Replacing her name with "accuser" or something similar is more elegant.OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, let's debate the inclusion of her name. To sum up my statements, I feel that the inclusion of her name benefits the page in no way. She is only notable publicly for this one event, she has not pursued publicity over this, and this case is more publicly linked to the defendant (i.e. people know it by Kobe Bryant rather than by her name). Based on this, I believe that her right as a living person to privacy under wikipedia's policies outweighs the mere satisfaction of curiosity by including her name. Please comment. BigScaryGary (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do all facts need to meet this standard of extraneous “benefit” to be included in an article? The accuser’s name should stand unless there is a legitimate reason for removing it. The name is relevant and well known. I don’t see a reason. Comments? Rustdiamonds (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber's identity is well known after being published in several major newspapers. 24.165.11.183 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Faber's name should be left in the article. The privacy argument is not valid because her name was already printed in the New York Post, Newsweek, The Globe, as well as widely available on the internet. Keep the facts of this case intact as the allegation has already been dropped.Ramblinmindblues (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Her identity being found elsewhere on the internet does not mean wikipedia should be an avenue for that. Please read the above arguments. My argument - which has yet to be addressed - is that including her name has no benefit whatsoever to the page. If some benefit could be established, I will drop my argument. Otherwise, I ask you not to dodge the issue. BigScaryGary (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Faber was one of two parties involved in this case. The fact that her name is widely publicized (in major publications, not just on the internet) is highly relevant, as there is no value in concealing the name if it’s already available everywhere else. There is no harm in stating a pertinent fact about an individual directly involved in this topic, IMO.Ramblinmindblues (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. I don’t believe the names of rape accusers should be published. However, her name appears to have already been published before and the case is several years old now, so it should probably stay.CinnamonCowgirl (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fairness, Katelyn Faber’s name should be left in the article. Kobe Bryant was never convicted. Why should only his name be attached to this case?

Back in Oct. 2004 U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch ordered that Faber refile her lawsuit under her name, stating "The parties appear as equals before the court and that fundamental principle must be protected throughout these proceedings." After Faber filed her lawsuit under her full name, newspapers began publishing the name, beginning with Denver’s Rocky Mountain News on Oct. 15. John Temple, the Rocky Mountain News editor, stated "today we are naming her, after she made the decision Thursday to refile her lawsuit in her own name seeking money damages against Bryant." Both names should be included in the article. It would be wrong to remove it. 24.165.11.183 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a really tricky issue, but consensus seems to have been reached, so I'll honor that. My main belief is that since she is trying to fade into obscurity and is only notable for being an accuser of a public figure who seeks notoriety, her name should be removed. However, I don't believe it's that important though, since like others said, her name is already published. BigScaryGary (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates or timeline?

Should some sort of timeline be added to this article? Seems like there are a lot of scattered dates. What about a picture? Ramblinmindblues (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)