Talk:Prospect Park alleged police sodomy incident
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Flatscan in topic Sources
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prospect Park alleged police sodomy incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Prospect Park alleged police sodomy incident appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 9,822 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Request for Comment
editWhile the subject is certainly notable, I'm not sure that publishing the names of living rape victims in an encyclopedia sets the right kind of precedent. Why is the victim's name published, and not the 3 officers who were charged with felonies? This gives the article a decidedly pointed slant. I'd like to hear some thoughts from other editors about opportunities for improvement. --digitalmischief (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- This request for comment was posted for feedback from other editors. I am not fixing the article myself, to avoid any further claims of bias or "ruining the project". --digitalmischief (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Are there other talkpages where I'm not allowed to comment, or only this one?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article looks much better. I'm surprised you let it out of the bag as it was. I withdraw any reservations about the article as it stands now. Cheers. --Digital Mischief 04:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your kind words. I unleashed the article very "barebonesy" cuz I was hoping other editors would help. The article did get some contributions but not the type that I was looking forward to ;-)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources
editThe New York Times has a number of articles covering the progression of this case. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The trial has started. I remind editors to avoid presenting statements from either side as fact. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)