Talk:Mike Nifong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike Nifong article.
Article policies
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
North Carolina Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[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? -Bluedog423Talk 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. -Bluedog423Talk 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


I don't know, I think he did become so overnight. Before he was appointed to serve out the rest of Hardin's term, he was in charge of traffic tickets for years. It really doesn't sound like he was a competent prosecutor, however if he had served the final 4 years of his civil service as prosecutor, rather than ADA, his pension would increase by at least $15,000 annually... [that's $1,250 a month] and possibly even more! A fat pension check can make a man facing his fading years a little bit squirrely, don't you think?


This is actually the whole reason I came here today. I wanted to see if anyone has any info about any wrong doing prior to the lacrosse scandal. It seems weird that he'd suddenly become this huge scumbag after nearly 30 years of practicing law. But it wouldn't be the first time that a nobody who suddenly got a whole bunch of power and authority let it go to his head. More info is needed on his background and his personal life to get a more accurate picture of the guy who's Durham's most popular villain. --74.243.165.95 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You say 'whipping boy' as if Nifong is a victim; everything that is happening to him now is because of decisions he made and actions that he chose to make in this case. Duke53 | Talk 04:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Didn't mean it that way, obviously. Changed to a more appropriate term.--74.243.165.11 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The NC Bar Association Disciplinary Order says he had no prior disciplinary record, i.e. that he was never disciplined before. --Conant Webb 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[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)
You call for representation of 'the other side'. Does an 'other side' exist when it was nothing but lies? How can you reasonably claim the existence of an 'other' side when it was absolutely and totally and eternally a lie? Should we edit articles on chemistry, to include viewpoints from alchemists? Should we edit articles on astronomy, to include viewpoints and theories from astrologers? Should we edit articles on meteorology, to include viewpoints from rainmakers? To accurately represent the man to history, as an encyclopedia article should, his brazen criminal misconduct, breathtaking hubris, and 10 month torture of innocent students and their families must not be glossed over.

[edit] Infobox fix

In my recent edit, I fixed the infobox to read 'Prosecutorial District 14' instead of just 'Distict 14'. In North Carolina, DA's are generally assigned to districts that include a county or sometimes more than one county; on every voter's card issued to voters in the state, a Prosecutorial District is listed alongside the districts for US House, General Assembly, superior courts, school board, and local Gov't. (See DA Nifong's profile.) This change makes the box more accurate. - Thanks, Hoshie 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There have been at least a dozen edits by anonymous users in the last day or two vandalizing this page. It would help to semi-protect it for a few days, until the hubub surrounding this passes. Andyparkerson 09:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for this is the vicious tone of the original article. Mike Nifong made the mistake of defending black people and screwed up owing to his defective character. As a result, The Great Crackerboy Encyclopedia's article on him was libel. If you vandalize a person on your site, you lower the moral tone and encourage retaliation. In the future, be more multicultural, tolerant and TRULY NPOV and you won't get vandalism.

"Mike Nifong made the mistake of defending black people". This case involved Nifong prosecuting three white guys, does that equate to "defending black people" to you? Duke53 | Talk 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for a literal mind: oh to be stupid. Mike Nifong was DEFENDING the VICTIM of a racist party which had NO PLACE on a fucking COLLEGE CAMPUS, because the MISSION of education is not to support a bunch of animals who take places in higher education that should go to poor people and minorities. Or do only white people get to claim victim's rights? The screwy lady who was assaulted verbally using racist words (this not being in doubt) was so fucked up that she DESERVES not to have what's left of her good name INSULTED by forcing Mike Nifong to call the chief defendant a good old boy in a statement.

Ray Nifong: who dat ? Mike Nifong was not supposed to be DEFENDING anybody, that was not his job; are you confused about the role of attorneys in criminal cases?

Fuck you and your racist reply "who dat", cracker boy. I happen to be white, but I know what hatred is here for any WHITE person, including Mike Nifong, who tries (in his clumsy, stupid fashion) to cross the racial divide that the rich in Amerikkka use to stay rich.

"she DESERVES not to have what's left of her good name INSULTED". What 'good name' does a drug addled, drunken $20.00 hooker (a convicted felon, no less) have left?
The RACISM I am seeing here is being promoted by YOU ... Don't let the facts of this case stand in the way of your story. These three boys were proven to be innocent of all charges alleged by Crystal Gail Mangum ... there is your factual story, like it or not. Duke53 | Talk 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuck you, cracker boy. Don't call me a racist. Calling a cracker boy a cracker boy isn't racist. Racist is European and white American. Period.

p.s. The lacrosse party did NOT happen on-campus.  :) (Simple mistakes like that only prove your motivation here).

The lacrosse team was organized within and sponsored by Duke university. Why are rich white boys exempt from the re-assertion of *in loco parentis* at non-prestige schools, in which the conduct of poor white and minority college students is increasingly monitored? Why do these little bastards get a free pass because of a rich Daddy?

The faculty believe that the MISSION of a UNIVERSITY is EDUCATION, not sponsorship of exclusionary (exclusionary, that is, to a RACIST level, and in a way that is SEXIST to the bone) sports. The only reason why American universities and, to a lesser extent, English universities, sponsor athletics happens to be that because unsupervised, the barbarism of American youth in the late 19th century, aping the barbarism of the Amerikkkan ruling class, was out of control, and students at schools including Harvard and Yale were DYING in primitive "football" games.

ANONYMOUS, don't you think you've been READING Zippy the Pinhead ALL too MUCH? Afc 01:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


What if Nifong engaged in a bad faith prosecution for political gain, and mislead the public and incited racial resentment? Isn’t that acceptable politics in the US? Wiki authors should not have the same vicious tone as Nifong. Racism was alleged, so normal standards should not apply. A trial is needed to end the public controversey. posted by 172.163.196.14

"A trial is needed to end the public controversey [sic]". Who, in your opinion, should be put on trial? Complaints of criminal contempt have been made against Nifong already, by the three former defendants. Duke53 | Talk 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Note to everyone: As clearly stated in the template at the top of the page, this is not a forum. Please, please confine discussion to the article, its contents and how it can be improved. Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current case status

The article still states that he has yet to drop the charges and makes no mention of the recent legal proceedings from this week. eRipley 06:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I put it in the past tense as it was true only as of that point in time. The article already cited the April 11th dismissal of charges. Wahkeenah 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also wondering why this article still refers to this as a "rape case" in several spots. At the very least, it should be called an "alleged rape case" or better yet, a "hoax" perpetuated by the alleged victim.

Bullshit. The woman was raped when she walked into the door to be confronted by rich white boys who wanted white women, and proceeded to abuse her because she was black. The trial makes a mockery of forty years of protection for victims of rape, attempted rape, and sexual abuse, because it has deprived this woman of every shred of privacy, rights which a white woman would get. The Great Crackerboy Encyclopedia, in a just world, would be up on charges of libel for the crap in this article.

Those goddamn rich boys were probably VIOLATING THE LAW in more than one way when that gal walked in the door, through underage purchase of alcohol and drinking of same, and, probably drug use.

The case has turned into a crackerboy witch hunt for anyone who manifested any sympathy for the sex worker, including the Duke faculty and Mike Nifong, because this is what AMERIKKKA is going back to: a white man's country with Lynch law.

[edit] Origin of last name

What is the origin of the name "Nifong"? I always thought it was an Asian sounding name, like Vietnamese or something, but then I saw a photo of the guy and he is obviously not Asian. Theotherday 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Neufang/Nifong (same pronunciation) is Germanic. 12.10.223.247 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC) One of those sited that hawks fake "familly crests" (even though arms refered to individuals not families) is claiming that is is Scottish (Mac Naoimhin). 12.10.223.247 23:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nifong is no longer DA

I am of the mind that Nifong is no longer an attorney, let alone a DA. He immediately surrendered his license to practice, as per several stories on the case (for example, this WaPo story). Therefore, the article should reflect that he stepped down on June 16, 2007.


Is it generally agreed that, when discussing events that occurred before 2007/06/16, he should still be called an attorney? For example, "the ethics charges were filed against DA Nifong" is technically accurate but colloquially awkward; he Was a DA at that time... -t

[edit] Pension

Did he volunteer to resign and did he peacefully accept disbarrment with the ceveat that he keeps his pension? This is once piece of info that I have not been able to learn. 67.87.92.56 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is yes to both of your questions. He resigned and he was disbarred, but being disbarred doesn't affect his pension. He still will get around $5500/month, according to the NC Office of the Treasurer. What I would like to know is if the criminal charges he may be facing, criminal contempt I think, will affect his pension. Anyone?--74.243.165.95 03:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20512112/ for more info on his criminal contempt charges. --Cooleymd 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Gail Mangum

It has been proven that Crystal Gail Mangum was an escort and that she made false accusations about these three white boys; the article should be clear about these facts. Duke53 | Talk 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a way to say it in a manner that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Duke Chronicle. Blueboy96 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Does the 'Wikipedia way' require referring to an hooker / escort as an 'exotic dancer' ? :) 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Duke53, there is no situation where stating facts in a tabloid-like tone beats stating them in a neutral manner. By the way, how exactly is it relevant to this discussion that she accused "three white boys"? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, the three players she accused were widely vilified as having supposedly had racial motives for the non-existent assault. -- 192.250.34.161 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 26 public apology and statement

Do either of these merit mention? Assuming they do, where would his recent admission that there was never "credible evidence to support the claims" belong -- on the case page or his page? JasonPresyl 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggest we remove Sowell quote

I think we should remove the Thomas Sowell quote at the end of the "District attorney's actions" section. He's a commentator who comments on all kinds of things; there's nothing especially interesting about his opinion of Nifong. We alreay have quotes from less obviously opinionated sources (like legal experts and journalists) that are just as damning of Nifong, and that's the real story here. --Allen 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No response; removed quote. --Allen 06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unified timeline?

Most of the prose paragraphs of this article are written in the form of a timeline, but broken up by topic. The criminal case, resignation, disbarrment, and subsequent civil suit are really related. I think it would make sense to create a single unified timeline covering these topics (though not using the <timeline> extension). Any thoughts? —dgiestc 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New York Times

The article states that "Nifong came under severe attack not only from advocates of the indicted students but also by mainstream news sources such as ... The New York Times,[8][9]..."

However, the two New York Times citations are to op-ed columnists David Brooks and Nicholas Kristoff, not to the news pages of the Times.

In the recently-published book "Until Proven Innocent," Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson are highly critical of the coverage of the case by the Times in its news pages. (Taylor, by the way, was a former correspondent on legal matters for the Times and is cited in both the Brooks and Krisfoff op-ed pieces).

4.156.189.227 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Chuck Christenson