Talk:Katelyn Faber

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

???

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]

This article was nominated for deletion on December 18, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Old discussion archived to

/archive1 (Talk:Katelyn Faber/archive1)

[edit] Death threats against the alleged victim

Do you think that on any level the existence of this article could further endanger the life of Kate Faber? I do. I am very concerned that you have made an entry under the name of someone who has gotten so many death threats. I know you don't care- I just wanted to point out the obvious.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/25/bryant.hearing/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/22/lol.01.html

--74.130.65.25 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)survivor

[edit] Name published in The Globe

See [1]. This is a mainstream tabloid seen in many supermarkets. Guan aco 21:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This was the case back in March, as well. I don't consider the Globe to be a reliable source. anthony (see warning) 11:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ruling by federal judge - name must be revealed

FYI, I've added details about recent developments, vis a vis this news article [2] Fuzheado | Talk 03:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Using her real name

Her name is public record now and we should acknowledge the fact. Rick K 07:22, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. There is no reason not to now that it's a civil case and her name is on that paperwork. I am going to revert to the version with her name. In fact, now we should move this article to her real name. -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Agree. I moved it, but I was reverted. Now an admin is going to have to get involved if it's going to be moved back. anthony 警告 20:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree, definitely. During the course of the criminal trial, it would have been wildly inappropriate to use her name. But the case was dismissed and we are under no obligation at ALL to conceal her name. If anything, we are under an obligation to NOT conceal it, because it is information, and we are an encyclopaedia. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree Tom Leykis was the person who gave out the name, now that he did, there is no point in hiding it.

There are court cases regarding this subject, in that a law that prohibits releasing the name of a rape victim is generally unconstitutional.

"The State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, impose sanctions on the accurate publication of a rape victim's name obtained from judicial records that are maintained in connection with a public prosecution and that themselves are open to public inspection." Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).

Most media outlets have as a practice decided not to release the names of rape victims because of the trauma to them as a result. But, as it is noted, a person charged with rape who is in fact innocent might not have any means to discover previous false rape claims if the supposed victim's name is never reported or the incidents cannot be reported. On the other hand, if reporting a rape might cause the victim to have their name and photo splashed all over the place that might make them less likely to report the assault. There is a fine line and the issue is not simple. However, there is the issue of the 'Horse is out of the barn' and continued secrecy becomes irrelevant as widespread publicity exists, in which case it makes very little sense to continue to do so. Paul Robinson 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll about moving the page to Katelyn Faber

Since the criminal case was dismissed, and apparently she has refiled it under her REAL NAME, and seeing as we are an encyclopaedia and we are not in the business of censoring information, I definitely think we should move this article to Katelyn Faber.

This poll will run for one week, ending on November 7.

An older opinion survey is at Talk:Katelyn Faber/archive1.

[edit] Support moving the page

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 20:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
silsor 21:06, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic @ 23:42, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC) -- obv. the right way to go. (Note, this request is also on Requested moves.)
Rick K 23:52, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
anthony 警告 01:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 01:22, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) I'm actually confused as to how my month-old vote got here at all, considering the poll seems to be quite recent. Anyway, I'll take the other votes (I had one on support and object???) off and place this new one instead.
- I think Raul did this. He's gone in and added people's votes from a different poll to this one. anthony 警告 01:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - I'll recheck to make sure, but thank you for replying. Mike H 01:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
ugen64 01:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support move, and giving the article a real good going over. Come to think of it....... Moriori 01:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 02:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Do not support moving the page

It is not required, but would be appreciated if users voting no here would offer reasoning for their vote.

jguk 00:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Though this is confusing - I thought the poll at the top of the talk page was the live one. Shouldn't there be some disambiguation - or are we just adding these votes to those above?
—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

OK, here's the thing, don't move people's votes from one poll to another. That's just wrong. anthony 警告 01:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I voted Don't publish her name when she did not file a suit using her real name. I do not appreciate having my votes moved, and indeed, it was Raul654 who did this. All of the old votes should be deleted and the users re-contacted for a new vote. It's not under the same circumstances, so the votes can't be compared, much less VALID for a completely different time. Mike H 01:34, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  - I've left a note on Raul's talk page. So far no response. There are a number of votes which were made directly to this poll. They should be kept. But until I've heard from Raul that it's OK to move these votes back I've only marked the votes as being moved. I've moved the votes which I myself made back, and I'd suggest anyone else do so as well. anthony 警告 01:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - I'm OK with whatever you decide - since the old poll was started in march, I figured that votes registered in October were made in error. Either way, I archived it because it's a bad idea having the same poll in two seperates places on the same page (even if they were started months apart). →Raul654 01:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  - The old "poll" wasn't really a poll, just a "list of people who have thoughts and feelings on the topic of including or not including the name of this woman in this article and elsewhere in Wikipedia". It was never closed. I agree with the archiving. I've tried to sort out which votes were moved, and marked them, did I mark them right? anthony 警告 01:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Welp, I've done my best to fix this...but someone please doublecheck it it's confusing. anthony 警告 02:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we needed a formal vote (again) since it's clear that anyone who wanted the page moved two months ago would still want it moved today, and only two people have recently expressed a desire not to move it. That being said, once the vote was started, and had a stated end date of Nov 7th, I don't think anybody should have performed the page move until that vote had concluded. Lots of other users have been chastised before for that kind of action. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

A few minutes ago, someone deleted a re-direct to prepare for a page move, but it hasn't happened yet. 66.32.244.146 02:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had a phone call. It's now moved. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:43, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realise that we'd decided to do this, but ok... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(from WP:RM)

[edit] Kobe Bryant's Accuser → Katelyn Faber

Now that this is a civil case, and the accuser's name is well-known, this article belongs at her proper name (leaving the redirects, of course). -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

I was coming here to do the same thing. Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:53, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Trial

I believe the Civil Trial section is not neutral. Kobe Bryant's statements to the police during his initial questioning are quite verbose and are a matter of public record. It seems unlikely to me that anything significantly more gossip-worthy would come out during a deposition. This section in the article seems to go out of its way to imply that Mr. Bryant settled to avoid deposed in court. Isn't it just as likely that he settled because he just wanted the whole matter to go away, and that Ms. Faber realized she had a difficult case to prove and was therefore willing to settle?

I'm not trying to get into a discussion as to which side was right, only that I believe this section of the article is horribly point-of-view. However, I do think we should discuss this. --Yamla 17:10, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

In regards to Yamla's comments: Some of this is the result of destructive edits never being reverted. I suggest the Wikipedians be extra vigilant about this on this article and on Kobe Bryant's. Most of this is the result of biased writers twisting words to make it appear as if a particular sentence is neutral when it is in fact loaded with modifiers such as "strong role" etc.

Continuing on the neutrality of this section. I believe we have to look at this settlement for what it was, a negotiation. In order for any negotiation to be successful for one, one must act like they have the better hand, or bluff. Thus, Bryant's impending testimony may have been used as leverage by Faber's counsel to raise the amount of the settlement. To give you an idea of the scope of the settlement we can look at the Michael Jackson accusation in the early 90's. His accuser made off with $20 million and that might be the reason Faber's counsel asked for that amount. This would play three critical roles - liken her to a victim (to some), create associations in the public's mind if the details of the settlement were released, and lastly to humiliate Bryant. The tradeoff technique was also likely used. This involves one side saying 'if I am willing to give into this, what are you willing to do for me.' It was most likely applied when the final settlment was decided and when the 'no fame' clause was inserted. In conclusion, over the past several months I have rewritten this article through and through and it is almost an entirely new writeup. I will stay abreast of the situation and make changes as needed. --e 2005 Aug 04

[edit] Michael Jackson trial and Kobe Briant

An anonymous user is adding this text as relevant to the article on Katelyn Faber:

"Kobe Bryant was listed as one of the defenses witnesses during the Michael Jackson trial but he never was called to testify. Jay Leno was on the list and did testify in the case."

Is this relevant? The user is assuming Jackson's reason for calling him, which is not documented. And what does Jay Leno have to do with anything? - Tεx τ urε 22:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV/NPOV?

White supremacists called for his death and hanging. Some even suggested murdering Bryant during a live game. Bryant stepped up his security before, during, and after games. They even went as far as to hand out flyers before the pretrial hearings in the Colorado area trying to scare the residents into not dating interracially. Feminists on the other hand had a field day. They were quite happy as they thought their day had finally come where they could make an example out of someone. IMHO the above paragraps, especially the part about feminists having a field day is strongly POV and needs to be reworded in some way. Or alternatively, just remove it and say feminists felt it or whatever... 60.234.141.76 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Most of the images on this page are copyright violations or very dubious fair use. I have tagged the obvious ones on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_September_22, but please read Wikipedia:Fair use. Justinc 11:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Needed

I have marked the article as needing cleanup. The material about the rivalry between Kobe Briant and Shaquille O'Neil (Shaq) may be interesting but I think material about them should be moved to articles about them and are not relevant to the article about this woman. Paul Robinson 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed. why is there only one sentence about kobe bryant's rape allegations/trial on the kobe bryant page but paragraph upon paragraph about it here? just seems kind of odd. 66.28.14.123 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Details of rape

I have tried several times to add details of the sex acts Bryant and Faber engaged in, only to have them repetedly deleted. I think the type of sex they engaged in (dry anal) give insight as to why Faber felt she was raped and Kobe feels innocent. To say they just "had sex" makes the article incomplete. The court records and police statements show this account to be true.

If this can be confirmed by verifiable sources, I agree that the details should be included. Slicey 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Graphic details of the sex acts are inappropriate here, if this is supposed to be a biographical article of this woman. Those details should be in an article about the charges. Tufflaw 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a biography of this woman. The only reason she is notable is for her involvement with Bryant, the rape changes, and resulting civil suit, and that's what this article is about. So details relevant to the rape that are verifiable, and court records would certainly be adequate verfication, are appropriate to include here. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideas that I'm reading here and in the achived discussion on deleting the article, on the part of those who want to delete details, images, or the article itself, read more like arguments by people who are upset over the very idea of discussing such details, rather than of the feeling that this material violates any WP guideline or rule. Unpleasant as it may be to dicuss rape cases on their alleged victims, the fact of the matter is that details are perfectly relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This isn't a PC propaganda machine; it's an encyclopedia. Some modicum of detail in all subjects is fundamental. I intend no offense by this, but when people say they think this or that is "inappropriate", it sounds more like they're discussing their feelings, rather than engaging in a dispassionate, intellgient discussion vis a vis WP policy. Strictly speaking, Doug, it is a biography about her, but that makes such details perfectly appropriate, since the rape allegation is the reason why she came to prominence. Tufflaw's idea that such details belong in an article about the charges, but not one on her is utterly ridiculous, since the articles on Bryant and Faber are naturally the only ones that exist that would touch upon the case. There is no article that I know of on the case, and it's arbitrary to argue that mentioning anal rape is somehow inappropriate in the case's article, but not in Faber's. It's not like the article on Faber would exist if not for the alleged rape, after all. Nightscream 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the details of the rape (alleged from various sources) are important info that should be shared in order to ensure a fair balance presentation of available information, and to promote a NPOV. Although some might find the information objectionable to read, perhaps it could be worded in a more discreet manner. Regardless, although it is technically a biography about her, the only reason said biography exists is because of her rape allegations against Kobe Bryant. Had that event not occurred, in all likelihood there would be no reason for her wikisitance. Furthermore, I disagree with the assessment that it is "arbitrary to argue that mentioning anal rape is somehow inappropriate in the case's article, but not in Faber's." I think mentioning it would be relevant in both articles. An article on Katie Faber is as much about the allegations and resultant trial as it is about the woman herself. Any legitimate non-Kobe-related biographical information about her spans 2-3 lines at most, and I don't think it needs to go any further than that. She was the woman who accussed KB of rape, and here's the situation around the trial and what the results were. That's why someone would go to this page -- in all likelihood, to find out more info about the trial. Thus, I think an inclusion of the dry anal sex info is entirely relevant. Gabefarkas

[edit] Deleting Images

Please stop deleting images of Faber that are added to the article. Wikipedia is not a news organization, it has no rule or guideline that I know of regarding witholding such images, and at this point, Faber's name is publicly known, as is her face to anyone who does a Google search on her. The reasons I read on the part of people who keep arguing for deleting everything from details of the rape to images to even the article itself, seem far more like expressions of their personal discomfort at seeing such material voiced, rather than dispassionate or intelligent musings on the merits of including such material. As I stated in the section above, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine for political correctness or the feminist movement. It's an encyclopedia. And it is the job of encyclopedias to discuss topics with a fare modicum of detail, elaboration, and/or illustration, even ones that we find uncomfortable. I mean c'mon, there are images of genitals, sex acts, and fecal matter on this site, for crying out loud. Tufflaw in particular is presenting extremely specious arguments for his/her actions. In removing the image of Faber on March 4, he/she stated, that he removed it because it was an "irrlevant and inappropriate tabloid photo of an alleged rape victim". This is specious on mutliple levels. First, it's not irrelevant. The article is on Faber. Most articles of any considerable length have an image of the subject they mention. Thus, an image of Faber in an article about her is perfectly relevant. The word "inappropriate" is also impertinent, since it describes personal offense at the use of the photo, and has no bearing on whether it is relevant or WP policy, and the inclusion of WP material is not based on offense, but on neutral points of view. The fact that the photo is of a tabloid cover is also irrelevant, since WP's purview is the openness and freedom of the information it provides to users. Not moral judgments on where that information comes from. If we go down this road of censoring info because we have a personal issue with it (which is not NPOV), then where will it end? Should we delete all images, details or entire articles having to do with violence? sex? pornography? Unpopular political beliefs? Unpopular religious beliefs? Moreover, even though the photo ran in a tabloid, it obviously wasn't taken by one, since it is clearly from someone's private collection. Would it be acceptable to run a scan of it if one scanned the original photo? Lastly, Tufflaw mentions that it's of an alleged rape victim. So what? What is being implied here? That we can't run photos of alleged rape victims? Since when? Where does it say this in WP policy? Such a sentiment is clearly one person's POV, and not in line with WP policy. So please stop censoring the article, okay? Thanks. :-) Nightscream 00:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo is an intentionally offensive picture chosen by a tabloid for its shock value. Per Jimbo, "we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies". Tabloid magazines are known for publishing intentionally unflattering and offensive photos of celebrities in order to sell papers. Putting one of those photos as the sole photo identifying the subject of a biography is inappropriate, and the fact that subject of the biography is famous only because she is allegedly the victim of a violent rape should definitely be taken into account. I should also note that the use of the photo likely falls outside of the fair use rationale used in that photos accompanying text:

" * to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,

   * with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above,
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information."

The photo is being used as a biography photo, NOT to illustrate the publication of the issue. For all above reasons, it's being reverted. Tufflaw 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's take these fallacies one by one:

The photo is an intentionally offensive As soon as you can establish the intent of the tabloid, let us know. As it stands now, this comment rhetorical, as it has no basis in fact, and it is facts that WP deals wtih. Not unsubstantiated rhetoric about others' "intentions" that you have no way of knowing.

chosen by a tabloid for its shock value The photo was chosen by the tabloid to show the world Bryant's accuser. There is nothing "shocking" about the photo, as it appears to be an image of Faber, wearing formal attire and smiling, taken on the night of her school prom or some other formal event. Nothing shocking about it. Second, the fact that it was chosen by a tabloid is irrelevant. The photo obviously comes from someone's private collection. That it ran in a tabloid is wholly irrelevant, as is the fact that they did so to sell papers. As soon as you can establish capitalism as a motive that violates some WP policy on images, let us know.

the fact that subject of the biography is famous only because she is allegedly the victim of a violent rape should definitely be taken into account. I fail to see what this has to do with the image. That seems more like one of your prior arguments for deleting the entire article, for which you were overruled. What does the reason for the article's existence have to do with the accompanying image?

The photo is being used as a biography photo, NOT to illustrate the publication of the issue. Funny, I didn't see anything in the passage that you quoted about using images for biographies or for illustrating publications. One must be profoundly ignorant of much of the content on WP in order to not know that the articles of a number of people feature accompanying photos of the subjects gleaned from the covers of periodicals, including Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Rosa Parks, Laetitia Casta, Cindy Crawford, Teri Hatcher, Joseph Stalin, Erick Morillo, Joe Jeanette, etc. Where you get the idea that magazine covers can only be used in articles about those magazines themselves, I have no idea, but you have not provided a single citation to that effect.

Your arguments are completely irrational, and I have proven them such. Please stop vandalizing the article. Nightscream 23:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Try to remember to assume good faith. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a vandal. I'm continuing to remove the photo for the reasons I already mentioned. Tufflaw 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were a vandal simply because you disagreed with me. I chose my words because it is clear that you are not acting at all on good faith, which one can only assume at the outset, but not after one gives clear evidence of the opposite. In a debate or discussion, one can glean a great deal about someone else's intellectual honesty/character by the behavior and tactics that someone else employs. When one presents clear, reasonable arguments, and the opponent refuses or fails to respond directly to them, it constittutes a concession that the arguments cannot be refuted. You say that you already mentioned your reasons for removing the photo, but you deliberately ignore the fact that I refuted each one of those reasons, directly and in detail, and in such a way that shows how those reasons are completely unfounded and irrational. I did this in my very first post on this issue, and your only response was to merely repeat those reasons, without addressing my refutations of them. You continued stonewalling in your last post above, with the one exception of citing one policy that does not say what you imply it does. Unless you can cite a specific WP policy that shows why the image is not appropriate, it will be clear that your motive is merely to censor the image because of personal feelings over its use, and not because of rational, dispassionate reasoning or WP policy. Wikipeida's mission is to make information free and open to everyone. Faber's name is in the article, and is known to anyone who does a Google search on her, as is her photo. Not including the image is without any basis or justification, given the raison d'etre of encyclopeidas. WP's mission is not to censor material because it causes you personal discomfort. This was clearly your motive when arguing to delete the article in December 2005, and it is clear that it is your motive now, given the fallacies you offered as arguments, and the fact that you are unable to respond to my refutations of them. Please stop censoring the article so that it fits your own personal vision. Continue on this course, and I will report your censorship to administrators, and if we become embroiled in an arbitration, I do not believe that your arguments will sway any reasonable administrator, much as they failed to do in December. Thank you, and take care. :-) Nightscream 05:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image removed Please do not re-insert with out consensus from a large number of users.

Image removed. Please do not re-insert with out consensus from a large number of users. --FloNight ^talk 13:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant whether the picture's offensive or not. It's not fair use. As the tag on the picture says, magazine/newspaper covers can only be justified as fair use when used to "illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". By Nightscream's own admission, this picture is being used to illustrate Katelyn Faber, not The Globe. It is therefore not fair use and, unless I'm missing something, should stay down. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I misinterpreted Nightscream's quoting style, thinking he'd said something when in fact he was replying to it. There do indeed seem to be a lot of celebrities illustrated by magazine covers, so this doesn't seem to be a fair use issue. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There may be a fair use violation. My understanding is that covers are not being used correctly on a lot of articles. The other reason for removal is valid based on WP:BLP. As a rule, I don't revert except for copyright violation or libel. And have a 1RR, so, you can see that I have a strong impression about this matter to become involved. FloNight ^talk 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use or not, I see this as questionable. Just zis Guy you know? 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a copyright violation (the fair use discussions on the email list are confusing and leave me uncertain) and there is not libel, so I'm outside my usual zone for insisting something immediately stay out of an article. I think it doesn't meet WP:BLP so I went with the do no harm rule.

I think the whole article is badly named. The article is not about the person, it is about the case. Maybe it should be re-named or merged with an article about the case if it already exists. FloNight ^talk 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have made the point previously that this is not a bio, but rather an article about an event. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is indeed about the person, and not about the case. Just because the only incident/case for which Faber is known does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, the article not about her. Regarding the notion that it is "questionable" or violates "do no harm", can you please elaborate on how it is questionable or does harm? Nightscream 18:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this image should not be used. It's a violation of fair use because it's not being used to illustrate the tabloid. It's a disreputable source. It's an unflattering image, and as such harms her under WP:LIVING. And it doesn't seem to add anything to the article that would outweigh the drawbacks. Adding it makes us look a little malicious and spiteful, in fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP was written to 3-4 months ago to guide editors writing about living people. The guideline is strongly supported by Jimbo Wales and the arbitration comm. When making decisions, editors should consider the harm that our content might cause someone. We are read by thousands of people everyday. Our article about someone will inform a large segment of the English speaking world. With this power comes responsibility.

This tabloid cover image is intentionally unflattering. We shouldn't intentionally depict someone this way. Are other photos images available? --FloNight ^talk 18:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightscream asked me to weigh in properly, so: I agree that it's an unflattering photo (I thought when I first saw the photo initially that she was deliberately raising her skirt, but on second glance it seems it's just an ugly dress.) If it is going to be in the article, it should be slightly lower down at the top of the "Events with Kobe Bryant" section, not at the top. Whether it should be in the article at all depends on whether there is a fair use case for using magazine covers to illustrate the case in question. I'm not sure on that point. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The text on the picture is unjustifiably suggestive, from a notoriously disreputable source. The suggestion would never be phrased so explicitly, as per WP:RS, within the body of the article, so why should it be allowed in an image? If it were simply that image of her alone, it would be debatable, but i can see no justification whatsoever for including the entire front page. Rockpocket 19:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing was a stupid tabloid hoo-ha, so a stupid tabloid cover to illustrate it seems appropriate to me if legal. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to find a different image, but I think a picture of Faber should be included in the article; I would support the position that if a better picture can't be found then no picture should be included. It could be further down in the article as Samuel suggests. I also support the notion of renaming the article to something like Kobe Bryant (rape allegation) and refactoring the article to fit this purpose. Even as a renamed/refactored article though, a picture of Faber (hopefully a more neutral picture not intended to be unflattering) is warranted. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That should be Kobe Bryant rape allegation. Kobe Bryant (rape allegation) would be about a rape allegation named Kobe Bryant. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I find these comments surprising. If the photo was taken with Faber's consent, and she's smiling in it, apparently having taken it on the night of a formal event when she got all dressed up, then how is it unflattering? Also let me ask a hypothetical question, just as a thought experiment: If I were to obtain an actual copy of the photo (i.e.: on photographic paper made from the original negative, etc.), and scanned that, and then uploaded that pic, would it still be unflattering? I ask, because I wonder if this opinion of it being "unflattering" stems from the fact that it ran in a tabloid, even though it is clearly from someone's personal collection. Is it merely unflattering because the photo happened to have run in a tabloid? For all we know, Faber, once she got a copy of the pic after it was taken, framed it and put it on her dresser. If the photo were cropped to just show her head, would that be more acceptable? Some are also saying that this will cause her "harm". Can you please elaborate on this? And as far as renaming the article, I believe it was already renamed following a discussion to that effect in November 2004 (See above.) Thanks for your response, though. Keep 'em coming. :-) Nightscream 20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal objection is about context, rather than the image itself. For example, a picture of any adult with a child sitting on their lap may not be offensive or unflattering - far from it. But put that picture in the context of a headline referring to acccusations of paedophilia and attach a byline suggesting the picture somehow informs that, and you have an unfair and unjustified image. If you had an actual copy of that photo (rather than the front page of an unreliable gossip mag which does not meet WP:RS criteria) then you may have a valid argument, but you don't. So I think any other, more conventional, photograph would be more fair. Rockpocket 20:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Very good points. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightscream, it is unflattering. Period. I don't know any female that would pick that image/photo for their article. Globe edited the image to make it more controversial. Rape victim with a lot of skin showing. They are trying to sell magazines, right? FloNight ^talk 20:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the image available on wiki still so that we can actually judge it, or must we just go by descriptions such as "Rape victim with a lot of skin showing"? Jcuk 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to FloNight to pointing me towards the image. Personally I cant see a problem with it, you can see far worse in any newsagents in Britain any day of the week Jcuk 21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jcuk, glad to be helpful : ) I'm not saying that this is an absolutely horrible picture. It is just not the type of picture that someone would expect to find in a biography or a profile. Can you imagine anyone choosing this picture for their article? It is exactly the type of pov picture that a tabloid wants to use. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. FloNight ^talk 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this: I don't get someone that argues an image should not be here. She's not a rape victim. She doesn't merit any protection under the eyes of the law. Accordingly, any time we can better illustrate or add information, be it textual or visual, to an article, we should. That said, the image that was added is not appropriate. Magazine covers should not illustrate encyclopaedia articles. Particularly tabloid magazines with NPOV headlines. If someone can find a decent photograph, I wouldn't have any problem. {{User:Blankfaze/sig}} 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone argued that NO picture should be used, I know that I never suggested that. My problem was with this particular image. Tufflaw 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that the consensus is against using this particular image, and as it seems to be a violation of the fair-use policy, does anyone mind if I delete it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Delete the fair use aspect is foreign to some users because it is violated so often. Most administrator don't go and search for these fair use violations. But when an image comes under scrutiny like this, you can't ignore it. --FloNight ^talk 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That course of action has my vote. Rockpocket 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mine too. As I understand it, magazine covers are fair-use only in illustrating articles on the magazine which this is not. NPOV is a side issue here, although the cover undoubtedly violates tha as well. Just zis Guy you know? 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Globe edited the image to make it more controversial." In what way?

"They are trying to sell magazines, right?" Again, what does this have to do with anything? What does that have to do with either POV or appropriateness. I think some people have offered some valid arguments agianst it, the best one being the point about the text that accompanies the photo, which now that I think about it, takes away from the dispassionate nature of WP. The analogy of the person with a kid in his lap is also well-put. But no one has answered any of my other questions, like whether it would be okay if the photo were cropped, or if it would not be Fair Use since the person who gave it to the Globe was essentially releasing it to the public. Instead, I'm reading unsubstantiated bits about it being altered, without any evidence offered for this, and irrelevant comments about the motives of a paper to (gasp!) sell papers. I'd like to know your thoughts on a cropped verison of the photo. Would that be okay? And what if I procurred an actual copy of the photo on photo paper? And if not, would any of the other images on the net be okay, if I gained permission to use them? Thanks. Nightscream 02:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You agree that tabloid magazines desire to manipulate the public so they will buy their magazine, right? And doing this is pov because they want to make a specific impression on potential readers. Tabloid's manipulate in a way that is provocative and unflattering because their business is selling sensational material. Sensational, provocative, and unflattering material is harmful to real people and unencyclopedic.

No, we can not use the cover by croping. Fair use requires them to be an accurate depiction of an actual magazine cover to illuminate what the magizine cover looks like. Wikipedia:Fair use explains the policy, but it is confusing because copyrighy law is complex. : ( FloNight ^talk 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You agree that tabloid magazines desire to manipulate the public so they will buy their magazine, right? And doing this is pov because they want to make a specific impression on potential readers. Um, no, that has nothing to do with POV. POV's are verbotten when they are the WP contributor's POV (which ends up looking like WP's POV). Not the POV of a magazine. Nor does "wanting to make a specific impression" have anything to do with POV. POV refers to an expressed opinion or point of view; Not the mere desire to sell papers, which every periodical does. I agree in retrospect that the cover's text is not appropriate, but I do not see how the image itself is "unflattering", unless it was manipulated in some way, which no one here has been able to show. It would seem that the Fair Use rule and the cover text is what clinches the image's inappropriateness, not feelings over the capitalist motives of tabloids, which is more your POV and mine, rather than the mag's. Would one of the other images of her on the Web be okay if permission were obtained from the cr holder? Nightscream 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightscream, the image we are talking about is the entire cover of a magazine including the text and the obvious fact that it is a tabloid magazine cover. I think you focused on her photograph that was edited on to the cover. Most of rest of us looked at the entire cover and felt it wasn't appropriate. I'll read your reply, but for now, this is my last post on this part of the discussion. I think we have exhausted the topic : )

I think articles are better with images. And I have no problem with an image for this article as long as it is not a copy right violation by Wikipedia policy/guidelines. I'll look and see if I see any thing on the web. FloNight ^talk 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't infringe on Fair Use or copyright i don't see what argument one could have against another image. I tend to agree with you that "unflattering" is in the eye of the beholder and it was clearly the image AND the text that made it inappropriate. However, if we had the option of a more conventional portrait and the picture on the magazine cover, i think it would be prudent to chose the more conventional portrait. Afterall, i think its no great assumption that a standard head shot is less likely to be perceived is infringing on fairness or suggesting bias than the one showing a bit of leg. If you can come up with another representation of her, then i don't think there will be many complaints against its inclusion. Rockpocket 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A second look

The image *is* unflattering. That most likely *was* the point of the Globe using it. However, that's exactly why the image should be used, in a section describing the Globe's use of the image. This would resolve the fair use problem as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.219.0.124 (talk • contribs) .

http://www.theeventmagazine.com/images/kobe/katelyn_faber_globe_cover.jpg

[edit] Category:Crime witnesses

IANAL, but I know enough about the law that I am removing reference to this category. Inclusion thereof carries the potential for libel against Mr. Bryant: while Ms. Faber and Bryant's prosecutors may have believed (and may still believe) that a crime had been committed, the criminal case was dropped and cannot ever be refiled. Further, the civil matter was settled with no admission of guilt. In the eyes of the law, Faber is no more a witness than a victim, as there is no "crime" for either to reference. If she's somehow a witness to an unrelated crime, there is no reference in the article to support inclusion therefor. Radio Kirk talk to me 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IAAL, but I don't think this is really a legal argument anyway. I don't disagree with removing that category, although I think the rationale is not entirely sound. Just because someone is not convicted does not mean a crime did not occur. For example, no one was convicted of the double murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, but I don't think anyone would disagree that they are victims of a crime. The presumption of innocence is a sort of legal fiction that exists solely for the benefit of a jury in a criminal case. If I kill someone without justification, I am intrinsically guilty of murder, even if I'm never caught. Even if I'm caught and later acquitted, that just means that a jury did not believe that I was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm still guilty of committing the crime, because I did it. Tufflaw 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'll allow me, I feel the comparison is inaccurate. Consider: clearly, in the case of the murders of Simpson and Goldman, presuming murder-suicide is ruled out—and, clearly, it was—there remains an unsolved crime with an unidentified (per a jury) perpetrator. The same is true with your hypothetical—a victim and an unidentified perpetrator. In The People v. Kobe Bryant, the charges were dropped by the people and dismissed with prejudice by the court. In Faber v. Bryant (civil), settlement was reached out of court between complainant and respondent, with no admission of guilt and no further avenue of complaint left open. Therefore, you have a "victim" who legally is no victim, and a "perpetrator" who legally is no perpetrator—and, therefore, no "crime". I believe my argument stands, and I submit it on the evidence, counselor (with all respect and tongue planted firmly in cheek—and with aforeknowledge of the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"). :) Radio Kirk talk to me 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you're assuming that the word "crime" as used on Wikipedia is using the same "definition", so to speak, as the legal definition (for example, there's a specific legal definition of "insanity" which may differ from the popular conception or how it may be defined on Wikipedia. Let's say for example that Kobe Bryant went to trial and was acquitted, much like OJ was. Does that mean that no crime occurred? You called the Simpson/Goldman murders unsolved crimes with an unidentified perpetrator. And would it make a difference if the accused rapist was not someone famous and easily identifiable like Kobe Bryant (his defense was consent, so a not guilty would presumably mean that the jury didn't believe that force was used). Suppose it was Kobe Smith the bus driver whose defense was that he had nothing to do with it (misidentification). A not guilty would mean the jury either believed that the rape never happened, or that it did but the wrong man was caught. Since the deliberations are secret, we would never know the rationale. Does that mean a crime never occurred? It may be semantics after a while, but I think it's important to have a distinction between the legal definition of certain words (ie: guilty), and the general definition, or for lack of a better word, the "moral" definition of the word. Tufflaw 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment re legal and general definitions, but I'd still have to argue that a real-world misapplication of a legal term could open Wiki up to real-world litigation, which was my motive for killing the inclusion of the category. Meantime, if I may persist with Apples v. Oranges (grin), your hypotheticals still bring a case to a ruling; whether by judge or jury, you still have someone deciding "not guilty"—as opposed to a finding of "factual innocence" or, in the instant matter, a case dismissed with prejudice. Is this not the same, in the application of law, as if the case never existed? In real-world terms, a crime may have been committed (with "justice" brought financially) but, as far as the courts are concerned, I still see no perpetrator, no victim (and, therefore, no witnesses) and no crime. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you're half-right :) If a defendant is found not guilty, or if a case is dismissed with prejudice, as happened here, as far as the courts are concerned with respect to "it never existed", that means that this particular case against this defendant never existed (so to speak). The record of the arrest should be expunged (depending on the jurisdiction). In my jurisdiction, the arrest is erased, the fingerprints are destroyed, and the files are sealed. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that "it never existed" with respect to the crime itself, vis a vis the victim in the case. I suppose it would have to be very fact specific. For example, I tried a home burglary case based on circumstantial evidence where the defendant denied being involved. No one disputed that the home was burglarized. A safe was taken from the home, open with a crowbar, emptied of valuables, and dumped into the river. Therefore a crime occurred, and there was a victim. The defendant was accused, arrested, indicted, and tried. He was subsequently acquitted after trial. In the eyes of the law, he's not guilty and should be considered a "criminal" (at least not based on that case). However, the acquittal doesn't mean that no crime occurred, or that the victim was not really a victim. Conversely, let's suppose hypothetically that someone is charged with an assault, and the defense is self-defense. The defendant is admitting to causing injury to the victim, but claims justification. If a jury believes that defense, and acquits the defendant, an argument could be made that no crime was committed at all, because the alleged victim was responsible for bringing the harm upon himself. The only problem with that is there's no way of knowing why a jury finds a particular way. In theory, the jury may acquit someone simply because the People don't prove their case, and they may never reach an affirmative defense. They may feel that the identity of the assailant was not properly proven, meaning that they are not necessarily acquitting because they feel no crime was committed, but because they feel identification was not proven, thus not even reaching the issue of the crime (or lack thereof). I'm not really sure how this has a practical application to Wikipedia, but it's still an interesting discussion :) Tufflaw 16:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe the "practical application" was no more than justifying removal of the category. :) As for the discussion, I still think we're apart on point (sorry to persist, but I'm trying to make sure I've got it). Your res burg case clearly was a crime with a victim; a jury simply did not find the evidence to find the accused guilty. In fact, if memory serves, he's still technically an accused burglar until and unless a finding of "factual innocence" is made in an action he must bring. The hypothetical assault is closer to my assessment of the Bryant case, though still a bit different; again, you have a jury reaching a "not guilty" ("maybe you did it, but the people didn't prove it") decision that could be based (as you note) on several possible factors. Bryant never reached a decision, either criminally (charges dropped, dismissed WOP) or civilly (settled OOC). That's why it struck me that, strictly from the perspective of law enforcement, there is no crime. Fascinating discussion, BTW, thank you :) Radio Kirk talk to me 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to learn that the arbitration comm stated in a case that categories are not part of an article. Instead they are a navigation tool to help a user find information. Putting an article in a category does not assert a fact (paraphrased not a quote).

I think when dealing with living people extra care should be taken, especially with non-notable or non-public people. But, this doesn't preclude putting notable people in some type of category that denotes criminal activity even though they were never convicted of a crime. In this case, the alleged rape victim is famous for being an alleged rape victim so the crime witness category would be okay as a navigation tool. I don't think it is a very meaningful category in this case, so I'm not suggesting it should be used. FloNight ^talk 15:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Flo, do you have a link to where the arbcom said this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if someone saw such an entry and decided that it constituted acknowledgement of a crime in a case where the courts say there isn't one (speaking in general), ArbCom might (not necessarily would) have fun making that stick. If there was a "Famous Rape Accusers" category (I haven't looked), I'd say that works. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

BLP says: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so neutral point of view needs particular attention. Make sure all categorizations are relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. For example, add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals, and make sure the conviction was not overturned on appeal." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 16:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, me too. Tufflaw 16:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) SlimVirgin ^(talk) I Found it! You were a complainant in the case. This concept changed my opinion a tiny bit after I first read it. I used to be adamant that Wikipedia is not a directory or register of criminal, so most criminals or accused criminals should not have articles. And only convicted criminals should be in any type of crime category. And of course, I still agree with your above statement. But now I think some notable people can be included in Crime-related categories versus Criminal categories if the categorization is relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. The difference being someone is guilty of a type of crime vs. someone involved with a case related to a type of crime. For example, I think it is a mistake for Michael Jackson and 2005 trial of Michael Jackson articles to both discuss the sexual abuse trial and sexual abuse allegations, but for neither article to have a category tag that informs a users about the type of criminal trial. Following that way of thinking, a crime witness category would be okay for this article. FloNight ^talk 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What case was I a complainant in, Flo? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the Yuber case. That ruling was quite different because it involved something that was a matter of opinion and argument, not fact, viz. "Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. In the instant case, inclusion of the category "Category:Geography of Israel" in the article Golan Heights is not an endorsement one way or the other of the status of the territory. Thus both "Category:Geography of Syria" and "Category:Geography of Israel" are appropriate and useful to a reader looking for information."

In the case of "criminal," it's a matter of fact, not opinion, that a court of law has or has not ruled that someone is a criminal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

SV, the main distiction is that we are talking about people vs. geography. And of course Arb com rulings aren't binding toward other situations, just a guide. That said, the arbcom ruling says that Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. Based on this ruling I see categories more as naviagaton tools and we can use them in a more inclusive manner if we desire.

While it is true that courts have not found a certain indiviuals to be a criminal, these people were involved in a criminal investigation or trial. That fact is notable in some instances. I'm thinking of sometning like Category:Murder case or Category:Fraud case. Of course all of the other notability criteria would apply. FloNight ^talk 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I was right with you until the last sentence (grin). I'd still recommend a "Famous Rape Accusers" (or similar language) category. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't perjury a crime?

If she was raped, then she was a witness to that crime. If not, then she was witness to the crime of lying about it to a court.

That said, these categories are stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.219.0.124 (talk • contribs) .

It's not that cut-and-dried. If she truly believes it was rape and he truly believes it was consensual then, theoretically, neither perjures. Oh—and, thanks for the editorial. ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consider...

Please consider that Kately Farber is NOT a rape victim! Kobe Bryant had his day in court, plead not guilty, and in the united states of american, his home country, he is not considered a rapist!Dan 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/Talk%7EKatelyn_Faber_395c.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | Unassessed biography articles