Talk:New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi

Language describing Ravi's actions in lede

The following is what I believe to be Javaweb's position on the issue:

There is an editing dispute what Ravi did and was indicted for.
Here is my (Javaweb) edit:

The charges stemmed from incidents on September 19 and 21, 2010 in which Ravi pointed his webcam at Ravi's college roommate's bed twice during dates and the second time told 150 of his friends how to view it.

LedRush wants "The charges stemmed from incidents on September 19 and 21, 2010 in which Ravi used his webcam to view his college roommate kissing another man and told 150 of his friends how to view it. "

The second viewing and telling "everyone" to watch is what got Mr. Ravi indicted on the invasion of privacy charges. Here are the relevant edits:

• (What he did)
• (it is disputed it the camera was ever pointed at the bed)
• (It is undisputed he pointed the camera there twice. Ravi claims he later moved the camera away but does not dispute he pointed the camera there)
• (let's get down to the real issue)

Javaweb, please correct me if by shortening your post I misrepresented any of your views.LedRush (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The original also had the reason for the edit and the edit history to help folks follow it. My corrections are in green. The second viewing and telling "everyone" to watch is what got Mr. Ravi indicted on the invasion of privacy charges. --Javaweb (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I am actually not in love with the current language and would be happy to see it edited for clarity (currently it looks like Ravi watched twice, not one). However, I prefer it to the other language as it (1) doesn't get to the real issue - Ravi wasn't in trouble just for pointing the camera, he was in trouble for watching what happened and inviting others to do the same; and (2) by saying that he pointed the camera at the bed twice we assume that the prosecution case is true regarding the second planned viewing (and yes, Ravi admits to pointing it there in the beginning but says he changed it, but that nuance is lost in Javaweb's proposal). Also, forgive my ignorance on the issue, is it even 100% confirmed that the webcam was pointed at the bed the first time? If so, do we have a source?

Anyway, as I state above, there are a ton of ways to make this language better and I invite others to give it a try.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[1] This edit was excellent: factually accurate and precise. We may be able to trim it a bit, but I am wont to do so until others weigh in.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is the best version so far. I made a slight edit to trim it; I took "together, they observed the two men kissing, and later, Wei saw the two with their shirts off" and moved it into the body of the article. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 18:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

A strong suggestion, actually. Lest we end up with a POV-fork (either here or at the other page), I think the parts of this page about the events leading up to the suicide should be deleted, and covered instead only at Suicide of Tyler Clementi. (By the way, from what I see on my talk page, and in the edits, so far, at this page, I'm disappointed to see that the creation of this page does not seem to be solving the problems with disagreements over POV, just spreading them out over a second page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I strongly suggest that the webcam incidents, upon which this entire trial is based, be covered in full here and only summarized on the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article. Keeping the webcam incident and the suicide together implies a causal relationship between the two events which is very much a POV that Wikipedia should not be structurally supporting. Furthermore, that issue was explicitly a large contributing factor to the creation of this page. The webcam incidents were far less detailed until the trial as only the trial because the source for most of the details, another factor which weighs heavily in support of the inclusion of the detailed info here.

As a tool, ask yourself whether you can understand the trial/prosecution without having the details of the webacm incidents. Then ask yourself whether you can understand the suicide with a summary of the webcam incidents.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't surprise either of us that we disagree about that point. And, in fact, it goes right to the essence of where you and I disagree. To me, it seems obvious that one cannot write about the suicide without writing about Clementi's final days, and I'm guessing that it seems just as obvious to you that there isn't a cause-and-effect relationship between those final days and the suicide. (I guess I would answer your question to me, about the "tool" analysis, is that one cannot have a full understanding of either without it, but one can get that understanding on Wikipedia by following a blue link, in either case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is probably clear from my post above, but just to make sure...I agree that you need the context of the webcam incidents to understand the suicide. However, I don't think you need more than a summary of them to understand it. I think you need the entire explanation of the webcam incidents to understand the trial because the legal conclusions and analysis (of commentators and jurors) hinge on those very details.LedRush (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it might be worth deleting the section as I suggest, but recounting the specific issues about events as they are discussed in the context of the trial. For example, there would not need to be a section about the second attempted/planned viewing incident here, but the discussion of the trial could be expanded to describe how the prosecution and the defense each portrayed it, with respect to their respective and differing versions of Ravi's conduct and intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with LedRush on this one for the reasons he mentioned. I think the webcam events should be covered in full in this article since the trial was based on those events, and summarized in the other article with a "See also" link directed here, since they are only a part of what happened in his final days. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 12:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see about them being "only a part of what happened in his final days" is that they are, by pretty much any source one looks at, by far the most significant part of what happened in those days. We don't know why he committed suicide, but his final days logically belong on his suicide page, and not just as a brief summary. The more one makes the incidents a brief summary there, with a see also to here, the more one makes the other events that we know of, that might or might not have contributed to the suicide, an UNDUE emphasis on the suicide page.

Let me suggest this. As I look at this page now (and of course it's still a work in progress), it's a conspicuous paradox that a page that was created to cover the trial devotes very little space to the trial, instead focusing on what happened before and after it. What really is relevant to the court case is where the prosecution and the defense differ on what happened (and why) during the webcam incidents. Instead of having an in-depth section on those incidents here, and asking our readers to relate that to what happened during the trial, why not rewrite the material to be, instead, in the trial section, formatted in terms of the opposing arguments as they were put forth as the trial progressed? (Some of this is currently in the indictments section, but responses to the indictments can now be better written about in the trial.) The suicide page should only include an account of the webcam incidents in terms of what is not disputed by the parties, but should cover the non-disputed matters in detail. This page, in contrast, should cover only what is in dispute, and present the dispute fully. To me, that makes logical sense, and would tend to make both pages better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We are again coming to a fundamental disagreement. Currently, even with a summary of what happened in the webcam and not with the full details, there is probably WP:UNDUE weight to the webcam incidents in the Clementi article. You are right that we will never know the full extent of why Clementi committed suicide, a point brought up on countless reliable sources. Providing 98% of the info as the webcam incident and only 2% everything else in his life hardly seems like the proper perspective for an article that is supposed to be on the suicide. We should be dramatically expanding the information on Clementi's state of mind as evidenced through his texts (not just the "mad at Ravi, texts) and other interactions as has been reported by reliable sources. The Parker piece alone could contribute greatly to this.

Conversely, this page is all about the trial. The webcam incidents, what is in dispute and what is not in dispute, make up the entire legal basis of the trial, and therefore a complete, detailed telling of this information must be included here. Currently, the webcam incident description accounts for less than 1/3 of this article, with the case and the reaction to it taking up 60% of the article. Again, seeing as all the information of the webcam incidents constitute the legal basis of the trial, those proportions seem about right to me.LedRush (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That sure sounds to me like a disagreement about how to resolve POV issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...that's weird.LedRush (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that we disagree about some important editorial matters. Let me please clarify what I said above about this page covering the trial. I realize, of course, that we have lengthy sections, mostly brought over from the other page, about the indictments (including reactions to the indictments), the verdict, and the reactions to the verdict. And those are, of course, directly related to the trial. But what we don't have, at all, is what happened while the prosecution and defense phases of the trial were taking place. Currently, there's just a very short paragraph with the starting and ending dates. Having now, quite properly, created this new page about the trial, it's an excellent opportunity to cover... the trial! We should work on (and I'll be helping with this) covering what happened while the various witnesses testified. And actually, once we start seeing that take shape, I think it will become easier to see what forms the other sections of the page should take. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I want to point something out about the comment above, because it really goes right to the center of my concerns about POV and UNDUE, and about the very real danger that we are creating POV-forks. The suggestion LedRush makes is that, by covering the webcam incidents in detail here, we should treat them summary style at the other (suicide) page, and at the same time, expand the discussion there of other factors that might, perhaps, have contributed to Clementi's suicide. First, let me say that I'm fine with the idea of including more of Clementi's text messages from the Parker source. And we all agree that the consensus amongst reliable sources is that Clementi's motives are unknown, and probably unknowable.

But what about shortening the coverage at that page of the webcam information while also expanding the other information? Aside from a few fringe sources that we can discount, essentially all reliable secondary sources treat the webcam incidents in Clementi's final days as being very important to what we know about his possible reasons for suicide, or at least as being the final, proximal trigger of the suicide. The sources do not claim that we know this for a proven fact, and Wikipedia should not claim that it is proven, but they agree very consistently about its importance. The other possible factors, such as the interactions with Clementi's mother, are indeed presented by the sources as other possible factors, and we should not omit them (and we don't), but they are clearly treated by the sources as minority parts of the picture. The central part of the picture, according to the sources, was what happened with Ravi. Not proven, but treated as the most important part of what the sources can infer. (Also, as I have pointed out before, how we write about Clementi's mother is subject to WP:BLP.) From WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to... all other material as well."

It seems to me that we risk POV-forking if, while properly making this page an account that treats the webcam incidents as a matter of courtroom debate, we make the other page one that treats the minority views as roughly equal to the mainstream. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think that your concerns could easily dealt with at the suicide article. Just like every other article on wikipedia, we have to weigh the sources and make sure that the article doesn't put undue emphasis on one or another idea. I have a suggestion for the suicide page that I will present there.LedRush (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You have now made that proposal at the other page. I am deeply concerned that it would accomplish exactly what I have warned against here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Tag

A POV tag exists at Suicide of Tyler Clementi. I feel that the tag also needs to be here until the underlying issues have been resolved, because much of the content that gave rise to the original tag have been migrated to this page, and it currently is not clear where the content will ultimately reside, much less how the POV concerns will be resolved. There are lengthy discussions of the issues at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Please understand that I don't intend this as a criticism of the creation of this new page, which I appreciate and agree with. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if, per WP procedure, you detail specific issues with POV which exist on this page. With the current split of articles, one major POV issue has been resolved structurally, and most of the others remain solely at the Clementi article.LedRush (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's start with two areas. One is the talk thread (#Suggestion) I started just above: that hasn't been resolved yet. The other is the list of issues at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi#POV Tag. I realize that the creation of this page addresses your point number one, but many of the other issues, particularly your point number six as well as related concerns that I and other editors have raised, have migrated to here (things like the Dan Savage comments, or the reactions to the prosecution case, or the reactions to the verdicts). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(1)Your claiming the use of details of the webcam incident in this article introduces POV into this article? I don't understand.

(2)If you think other issues persist here, please raise them specifically in a manner that can be discussed here. For example, Savage is not mentioned at all in this article, so I don't see a POV issue with respect to that. I suspect that I agree that there are still POV issues, but I'm not sure that they require a tag until they are actually laid out per WP policy.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, we don't know what material will stay here, and what material will instead be in the suicide article. Fundamentally, we cannot resolve a POV dispute at one page without simultaneously looking at the other. As for (1), yes, I think that having one version of the incidents at this page and another version at the other page is a recipe for a POV-fork, or maybe two mirror-image forks, neither NPOV. As for (2), it's really not that hard to look at the other talk page, where there is already a great deal of discussion. At this point, we don't really know what will stay here and what will go there, but clearly the material about responses to the prosecution's case and about responses to the verdicts is currently here, and if there were POV concerns about representation of sources before, those issues are here now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone who edits here will edit the other article. POV issues with this article have to be discussed here, independently of the other article. Also, if there were no POV concerns regarding the webcam incidents as construed in the other article, other than that they were in the other article and not this one, the POV issue is non-existant. I understand your concern about a POV-fork, but this tag is not appropriate for that issue. I won't remove the tag now, but we really need to address specific issues on this page to justify a tag for this article.LedRush (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You won't remove the tag now? Thank you! And I won't remove the tag at the other page, nor have I ever suggested that I would. Here is my list, with apologies if anyone has to click on a blue link. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all the snark. Per wikipedia guidelines, you need to list specific incidences of POV and be actively discussing them to put up a tag. You didn't do that despite several requests. I let you know that despite the fact that you didn't follow the proper procedures, I would not take the action that the procedures say that I could. It was a good faith indication that I wasn't going to edit war on this issue despite our disagreement here.LedRush (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "sigh" in your edit summary. I seem to remember that you came to my talk page when I did that. Generally, good faith editors do not edit war, so they don't need to announce that they aren't going to do so. Anyway, I actually did explain right from the start what my POV concerns were, but you've been wikilawyering issues of exactly how I wrote it, trying to make it sound like I'm somehow not following policy. In contrast, when you put a tag on the other page, I responded carefully and point-by-point, which you then tried to paint as somehow being a battleground. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't believe I've gone to your talk page for saying "sigh". I have gone there for repeated personal attacks, though. Second, your semantic argument is not helpful. My point was that I wasn't going to take down the tag even though I feel policy clearly says I could have. You have yet again attacked a good faith gesture. Also, I have never said that it is battleground to reply to my points. Your tone, your attacks, and your edits are WP:Battleground. Also, the fact that I continually extend you olive branches, and you continually crush them, leads me to this opinion.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would very much prefer to be discussing how to improve this page, but unfortunately I feel that you have left me no option but to correct what you said about me here. Olive branches? You came to my talk page after I used "sigh" in an edit summary, to suggest that I stop editing. Repeatedly, when I and other editors make good faith suggestions about fixing what we feel is inaccurate representation of sources, you fill up article talk pages, user talk pages, and WQA, with accusations that we have made "personal attacks" that actually never happened. The battleground atmosphere is one that you have brought into being. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The fastest way to start talking about edits and not making attacks against me would be to stop making attacks against me. It might also help if your edits contained fewer misrepresentations. (1) I asked, in a friendly way, if you needed a break after you make edit summaries like "is it any wonder?", "at the end of my rope" and "stupid me". In these edits you said things like "As I grit my teeth and try not to lose my temper" and "Yes, I'm stupid." Please see diffs here [2]. Also, I made my suggestion on March 27 [3]. You did not say "sigh" as an edit summary until March 29. [4]. However, you have said it since then as well, each time with no reaction from me. (2) I have not made a WQA about attacks against me by anyone who regularly edits the articles. I made a WQA regarding Fae, who said that I said that accusations of homophobia are appropriate on a talk page when I said no such thing. All editors on that WQA who commented on the accuracy of Fae's statement agreed that it was not accurate, including you. (3) I have thanked you and praised you on several occasions, each which could be considered an olive branch. For example I say, after you make an attack against me to which I take exception "Having said that, your edit was 100% right and made the sentence more encyclopedic." You replied "Thank you for agreeing with my edit. But please don't make it sound like I corrected an error that you made. This is a quintessential example of the concerns that I have." This is just one of many examples where I praise or thank you and you react with an aggressive or rude manner. (4) You have, on many occasions, said that I cherry-pick information from sources to fit my personal beliefs. This is a discussion of me as an editor, not my edits. You have also said that I don't act in good faith. Again, if you want to discuss edits, it's best not to attack me as a person.LedRush (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is my list of specific issues. Because the content of this page is changing rapidly, I reserve the right to add to it.

1. Until we resolve what, of the webcam incidents, belongs on this page, and what belongs on the other, we have too much potential for POV forking. It is appropriate to tag for that. First, we need to resolve what goes where. Then, we need to make sure that this page does not present the incidents from one POV.
2. This page now includes a quotation from Chris Cuomo of ABC News. The POV issues associated with that quote have been discussed here, and are not yet resolved.
3. This page now includes responses to the verdict, about which issues of source representation have been discussed here. Again, not yet resolved.
4. This page now includes responses to the prosecution's case, about which issues of source representation have been discussed here and here. Again, not yet resolved.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

1. First, there is no indication that either article presents a different POV, merely different level of details. If you think there are different POVs, please explain. Second, could you show me where in the policy [5] it says the tag should be used for POV Forks?

2. The discussion has gone dead after you said you would support inclusion, though you did say that you would be open to different formulations if they addressed other editors' concerns.

3. We've come to an agreement on Cohen and I would not fight Bazelon if we come to acceptable resolutions on other items.

4. I thought we came to an agreement on Abraham. I am willing to live with Profspeak's edits on Weinstein if we come to acceptable resolutions on other items.LedRush (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

At the other page, you place a POV tag with a numbered list of your concerns in talk. I responded with a numbered list of my own, as you have now done here. Your reaction to that was to claim that there was a battleground.

1. I have explained. If you know of another template for POV forks, please direct me to it; otherwise, please stop wikilawering.

2. Yes, I took the position of agreeing with you that it should be included for NPOV purposes, but other editors disagreed. I don't know that they've said that they are dropping the issue.

3. If I recollect correctly, the most recent edit about Cohen was you deleting a part that you objected to, and no one reverted you, and the discussion is very much still open.

4. Look again at the first of the two discussion links I provided. And I think a look at the second hardly shows a happy conclusion.

If you have decided to agree with the corrections that I and others have asked for, that would be very helpful. But your decision that you are happy with the page as it is does not mean that everyone else has agreed with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant to say above, not what you are saying I said here.LedRush (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the Cuomo quote, part of the Cuomo quote was deleted and other sources' perspectives have been included. I am still not keen on Mr. Cuomo's rhetorical way of telling us what most analysts supposedly are thinking, but his inclusion is now placed in a larger context of varying opinion.Profspeak (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that LedRush has removed the POV tag that he placed on the suicide page, which is, of course, his prerogative. He also removed the tag that I placed on this page, which was not his decision to make unilaterally, but which I will not revert, so long as this page does not grow into a POV-fork of the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see this [6] for the proper procedures for adding or removing tags. Anyone can add them (as long as they bring up specific issues for discussion and they deal with specific POV issues within that specific article) and anyone can remove them (if there is no discussion, discussion is dormant or with consensus. I removed it as discussion on the topics seemed dormant to me. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Also, not that it matters, but the person who puts up a tag has no greater prerogative to remove it than anyone else. So, if you disagree with my removal of the tag on the Suicide page, you should feel free to revert, assuming you are willing to engage in active discussions regarding resolving the POV issues.LedRush (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters, since I've already said that I will not reinstate the tag at this time, but you previously made a point of saying "and cannot be removed... until everyone agrees that the tag should be removed."[7] I took that to mean that you would object if anyone removed it without your agreement, and I even recently did this: [8]! You were inactive in editing for a period of time, and unilaterally decided that the absence of anyone disagreeing with you in the interim constituted me agreeing that this tag should be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not believe that no talk meant that you agree that it should be removed. The policy is clear on how tags should be added and removed.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Source for description of MB

This is not a big deal, but the source (New York Times) for the statement "In conversations with Wei and later text messages with friends, Ravi expressed distrust..." does not say anything (that I found) about later text messages with friends. The sources of Ravi's characterization of MB are Wei's testimony and the arguments of the defense. Is there a source with the text message info?Profspeak (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a general physical description of how the NY Times reporter saw him at trial. A second reporter also described him in general terms.I'm not sure this helps with your question.

Here's a source that describes Ravi's description of MB in a later text message to Huang.http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03/05/defendant-keep-gays-away Profspeak (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The link is from Headline News, a CNN-spin off --Javaweb (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Wei chat about viewing

I included Wei's instant message about what was seen in the first viewing because 1) Wei was an important actor in the first viewing and more coverage of her is warranted, and 2) what was actually seen by the youths remains a bit murky. Certainly there is no physical evidence to contradict the youths' testimony that they just saw "kissing," something which the teens were well aware of, so there might have been a tendency for them to downplay what they saw. You are right, Javaweb, in noting that more of the quote should be included. The colloquial "like" could have different meanings; it is essentially used as a conjunction. Of course, in her message Wei may been hyping what they saw just for drama.Profspeak (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What Ravi said could help. Ravi was interviewed by police in a video shown at trial.

Mr. Ravi says that on the screen he could see one of the men’s backs and “movement.” When the investigator asks if the men were being “intimate,” Mr. Ravi replies, “Yeah.”

— NY Times

Also, One of Ms. Wei's friends testified at trial what she had seen in the 2nd viewing that Ravi did not see. --Javaweb (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Trial resources

Here are 3 high-quality well-known local newspapers that covered this trial and here are their articles:

NY Times Index for Dharun Ravi

start on page 2 for trial

NY Times Index for Tyler Clementi

The Record Index for Trial

search for "FEB " on page

Star-Ledger Index for Trial

Covering the trial using these sources, especially since editors can verify their accuracy since in many cases 3 independent reporters are available to refer to is generally the way to go.
--Javaweb (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks Javaweb, that's very helpful indeed. And I hope that LedRush will be pleasantly surprised to learn that I like his edit that moved the mid-trial responses into the part of the page about the trial itself. And those two things bring me to a larger suggestion that I mentioned briefly earlier, but I want to emphasize here. This new page is about the trial in very large part. That's a topic where we really ought to be working on expanding. Now, we have responses to what happened during the first parts of the trial, but we don't yet actually have what those responses were responding to! We have a brief passage on the start and end dates of the arguments before the jury. We now should expand on what those arguments and witness evidence actually were, because it's very central to what this page is about. And I'm firmly convinced that once we see how that is shaping up, it will be easier to envision how to handle the background information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem I anticipate is that there is so much detail about various testimony in the trial--the opening arguments, the testimony of the students in the first incident, the testimony of MB, the testimony of Grover, the testimony of the students in regard to the second viewing, the IT testimony, the testimony of the character witnesses, the showing of the police interview. Then there are events after the verdict, such as comments of jurors. I would hope that many of these subcategories could be covered briefly, but many of them contain a lot of detail. For example, the testimony of Lokesh Ohja alone might contain several sentences (what he said about testing the position of the cam, his admission of withholding information earlier, his conflicts with Altman, his conversation with Ravi the next day, the references to his testimony in the closing arguments). Altman had good reason for his friction with Ohja because his testimony was significant in refuting Ravi's claims about the second viewing. Altman, indeed, in the closing argument said of Ohja that "he hates me" (a personalization that was probably a mistake). This could end up being a long article. As another example, do we need information about what in Clementi's conversation with Grover was permitted to be entered as testimony? It's quite complex.Profspeak (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Mr. Clementi was dead, he could not be cross-examined and under the Confrontation_Clause of the Sixth Amendment, a man has the right to confront his accuser and hearsay cannot be used in trial. The rules are complex but somehow readers should know what evidence was left out and why. --Javaweb (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

These are tough questions, to which there are no easy answers. But one thing that might help, part way, is to consider the extent to which individual aspects of the trial were commented upon by secondary sources. Thus, something lengthy during the trial that, nonetheless, got relatively little secondary commentary probably does not need detail here, but other things that did attract commentary would be appropriate to go into. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It may also be useful to focus more on testimony and evidence, and less on legal arguments about admissibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I really want to congratulate the editors, especially Profspeak, who have been expanding the coverage of the trial itself. I think this page is becoming very impressive. And, in regard to comments I made earlier about this page, I think that it's worth noting that the trial section is now providing a lot of material about the timeline of what happened in the dorm rooms. That, in turn, may mean that as editing here continues, we may find it appropriate to shorten the background section of this page, because much of the same information will fit better in the trial section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of Wikipedia style in regard to quotation marks and other marks

What is Wikipedia style in regard to the use of quotation marks with other marks? It is standard American practice that periods and commas go inside the quotation mark regardless of whether the quote is a phrase or a complete sentence. The British put the quotation mark outside a period only if the entire quote is a sentence; they put commas outside quotation marks. As an example: Ravi was not using the legal definition of "invasion of privacy," and thus the defense could state that he did not admit to a crime. The preceding is American practice; the British/Canadians would put the comma outside the quote. Profspeak (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Okay, I see that Wikipedia uses the British style, but I notice that this sentence (that I wrote) was not changed: The defense raised reasonable doubt...by characterizing the incidents as a "frolic" of "first-year college students." Shouldn't the period there too be outside the quotation in British style? Profspeak (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, in WP, the period goes inside the quote if it is part of the quote. WP:Style#Quotations is the reference. I can't look it up right now but please feel free to contact me if you don't get an answer. From your edits, I am learning how to craft text. Thank you. --Javaweb (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I found the Wikipedia style page. "Logical" quotation style (or the "British style") is used. Americans might not be so sure about the logical part; I suppose Americans prefer simple efficiency (commas and periods always inside).Profspeak (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you've already found it, but the answer is at MOS:LQ, and please see also MOS:QUOTEMARKS, the part at "Quotation characters". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Some prominent gays ask for leniency

• Kate Zernike (May 21, 2012). "In Rutgers Spying Case, Voices for Gay Rights Urge Leniency". New York Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

is a good resource for covering the topic. There is also a Reuters story that came out before but this one seems more comprehensive. --Javaweb (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Yes, but also, the news in this case is going to be changing very rapidly, hour by hour, today, so what appears current one moment will be stale just an hour later. This would, paradoxically, be a good day to take it easy on the editing here, until the dust settles. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Wikipedia is not news. Accuracy is more important than hour-to-hour coverage. Today a just-the-facts update with the sentence makes sense. I know that is what you are saying but just wanted to make it explicit. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting. --Javaweb (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Exactly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sentencing

• MB's victim statement
• Live coverage

Warning: The live coverage of the verdict was not entirely correct so don't depend on this for 100% certain info. The reporters are doing this in real-time without a chance for editing and have misheard things previously ("charges" vs "counts"). --Javaweb (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

--Javaweb (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

• Ravi's parent's statement --Javaweb (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Charges and Counts

Presently, the article states that "Dharun Ravi was tried and convicted on 15 charges, including invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with evidence, witness tampering, and hindering apprehension or prosecution." If these are 5 of the charges, what are the other 10? By the examples given, the Wikipedia article is using "charge" in the sense of the type of crime committed. But the 15 items refer to specific incidents or activities that relate to these crimes. The 15 items are called "counts" in the source cited, and rightly so. There were 8 crimes charged: 2nd and 3rd degree bias intimidation, 3rd and 4th degree invasion of privacy, 4th degree attempted invasion of privacy, 4th degree tampering with physical evidence, 3rd degree witness tampering, 3rd degree hindering apprehension. There were 15 counts. While "counts" and "charges" may be used interchangeably sometimes, it is clear from the examples here that by "charges" is meant the type of crime committed, not the number of counts in which the crime was committed. That usage is consistent with the source cited also.Profspeak (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest one of these alternatives: "tried and convicted on 15 counts involving crimes of..." (and include 'attempted invasion of privacy'). Or "tried and convicted of 15 charges involving ..." (and list the crimes). However, I would prefer the first, since the source uses "counts".Profspeak (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Those both sound fine to me. I actually changed it from counts to charges yesterday since there were "subcounts" for some of the counts for which he was found not guilty...but still you make a good point that counts would be more appropriate. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty confused about all of this, I have to admit. There is a parallel discussion at the other talk page. Are the two pages now worded consistently, or do they need to be coordinated? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Parents' statements

I've restored to the other page the parents' comments, after the verdict, that were about the suicide, rather than about the trial. I'm going to delete them here, because those particular comments are really not about the trial or the legal issues at all. I've also commented on that at the other talk page, where I suggest that we follow a practice of having reactions to legal matters here, but reactions to societal matters there. I see there are other comments from the parents, that are about the court matters, so I will leave those here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Impartial views of what MB looked like

ProfSpeak, thank you for working on the Trial portion of this article. There are two descriptions of MB from reporters. Perhaps they should go with the student's descriptions. --Javaweb (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

The next section I thought would be the testimony of MB. Perhaps it could also go there. Maybe we can wait and see how the MB section goes. It is surprising what a lot of time it takes to write one section. It would help if all the information were from one source, but unfortunately, that is often not the case.Profspeak (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks as well. I think these edits have been very helpful in improving the page. Please don't feel that it's necessary to go as far as writing a day-by-day account, with a separate section for each day of the trial. Rather, I think a section for the prosecution testimony and a section for the defense testimony might well be enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wondered about the detail to be included. The prosecution case was much longer, and it included a showing of the interview with the police, which the defense later chose to include in the summary argument. The defense case, following the character witnesses, seemed to be mainly about procedural details in the investigation (not well covered by the media). The one section of the prosecution case not yet written would deal with Ravi's communications (tweets, e-mails, conversations) in regard to September 21. Perhaps too there should be something about the testimony of Grover. And probably a brief summary of the summaries. Perhaps there is too much detail in the entries; on the other hand, the Wikipedia article is about the trial.Profspeak (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one argument for including more detail of the actual testimony is that there is presently so much detail about reactions.Profspeak (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC

Can I get more reaction to the amount of detail in the first three sections of the Trial before proceeding?Profspeak (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was good. I deleted some information on M.B. and his relationship with Clementi because I thought it was not particularly useful in the context of the trial and a potential BLP issue for Clementi's family and M.B. The only other guidance I would give is that the weight of the detail should have a correlation to the coverage of the information in secondary sources. If only a few sources reported on it at all, the perhaps no mention needs to be made. Also, we are supposed to summarize what the sources said-meaning that we don't need to include every detail reported on in the press. Finally, once you add the section on the text messages, I think the corresponding info should be deleted from the indictment section. I would delete it now, but it could be useful to you in crafting the prosecution argument.LedRush (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Indeed, I left out a lot of detail. Some detail, I confess, I included simply in an attempt to make the text more engaging--such as Cicco's quote that MB was not "obscenely old." I could have just paraphrased, but couldn't resist including a commment that sent ripples of laughter across the courtroom. The phrase also gives insight into the witness's character.

The next section I envision would deal only with the text messages pertaining to the Sept. 21 incident, not the cover-up charges.Profspeak (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest Ravi Apology

I think some context will have to be included here. The judge scolded Ravi for not having shown remorse. In particular, he said the pre-sentence letter of Ravi (presented by the attorneys) was "unimpressive." Moreover, he singled out Ravi's failure to apologize to MB and to apologize for having corrupted the investigation of the case. The judge went on for some time about the disregard shown the judicial system by Ravi's tampering with evidence, lying, etc. These observations need to be included as context. Other than that, I would hope that we don't get bogged down in a lot of commentary about Ravi's apologies or lack thereof. More important, eventually, will be a presentation of what Berman gave as the rationale for the light sentence and some of the reactions to the sentence (although there are already more reactions than summary of the trial). Here is an article that reports Berman's irritation at the supposed lack of remorse: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0521/Why-Dharun-Ravi-got-30-days-in-jail-in-Rutgers-webcam-spying-case-videoProfspeak (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I am also finding murkiness in media reports about Berman's remarks. To be sure, he said that he didn't think that the NJ legislature intended bias charges to be included in nonviolent crimes, but he also emphasized that the charge was "bias," not "hate." Of course, one of the reasons for media murkiness may be that everything Berman said doesn't fit together. After all, Jim Florio, when he signed N.J.'s hate crime law in the early nineties, mentioned phone harassment and slurs accompanying vandalism--hardly crimes of violence. Well, at any rate, there should be some context for the latest apology.Profspeak (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Javaweb, I think you mean reaction to the "sentencing decision," not the "verdict." Also, I am not sure what "statement" you are referring to. Did Ravi say other things in this statement?Profspeak (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The cite in the article section has the complete text. He did not mentioned any specific person he thought he hurt or any particular act, just the date something happened and a blanket apology to anyone he hurt, without indicating who he thought that included. This apology usually says what was done and who you hurt and how they were hurt but this one is not specific. <speculation>Perhaps he was being vague to avoid providing proof of civil liability for his actions.</speculation>

Definitely, the context of this latest apology needs to be there. Also, the context of the previous apology is not there. Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi#Second_attempt has a good model. In checking that section, it is missing a critical piece of information. Ravi was convicted of lying about the events of September 21st

You are correct it happened after the "sentencing decision". Could someone please place it in the right place. Also, the Judge's statement is a critical missing piece that needs to proceed this. There is a complete video of that day online somewhere. --Javaweb (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

This article says that Ravi will remain out of jail during the appeals process. Haven't researched this thoroughly.http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120527/NJNEWS/305270022/Prosecution-faces-uphill-battle-appeal-process-begins-Ravi-caseProfspeak (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ravi changed his mind. See

• Dharun Ravi. "Text of apology by former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi in New Jersey webcam spying case". Washington Post. Associated Press.

If he gets a longer sentence on an appeal, the time Ravi does now will go towards it. --Javaweb (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Please alert me to the complete video if you find it--at least the judge's part. I listened to Berman's part, and I remember quite well some of the ambiguities in regard to "hate." He rebuked Altman for his saying that the Clementis "hated him." He noted that the statute referred to "bias," not "hate." But then he segued into the idea that he didn't believe Ravi hated Tyler Clementi and later the idea that the legislature did not intend application of the statute in nonviolent crimes. Right now, my goal is to make more progress on the trial section.Profspeak (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Defense questioning of MB

What, if anything, should be included about the cross-examination of MB? As reported in a number of sources, the defense spent significant time in its cross examination of MB (widely reported as "tense") emphasizing the sexual nature of the encounters. Was this important? Well, the defense obviously thought so; it was an attempt to impeach his character and also to emphasize that "he didn't belong there," as Altman put it. I think the original sentences could be shortened, perhaps paraphrased more, but as a record of the trial, something about this line of cross examination probably should be included.

In cross examination, Molly Wei was asked if she told more people about the incident. I suppose that this too was an attempt to impeach the witness's testimony, even though much of what she said may have been favorable to the defense. For the reader, and for the jury too, this fact is important in understanding that the viewing was quickly publicized. Perhaps that is why there was the group of students looking at MB when he left. (On the other hand, he may have just been paranoid.) I would say that all of the trial information included need not be crucial to the verdict; on the other hand, one does not want too much detail.Profspeak (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clementi's parents reaction to apology

This was deleted. I added it to the article because it is a critical part of covering the apology and it balances coverage of Ravi's statement. They are the one's representing the major victim. It comes from two of the best sources (AP and NY Times). It appeared after the complete quote of Mr. Ravi. Here is the deleted edit, in context:

On May 29, 2012, Ravi released the following statement:

I accept responsibility for and regret my thoughtless, insensitive, immature, stupid and childish choices that I made on September 19, 2010 and September 21, 2010. My behavior and actions, which at no time were motivated by hate, bigotry, prejudice or desire to hurt, humiliate or embarrass anyone, were nonetheless the wrong choices and decisions. I apologize to everyone affected by those choices.

Clementi's parents responded:

“As to the so-called ‘apology,’ it was, of course, no apology at all, but a public relations piece produced by Mr. Ravi’s advisers only after Judge Berman scolded Mr. Ravi in open court for his failure to have expressed a word of remorse or apology...A sincere apology is personal. Many people convicted of crimes address the victims and their families in court. Mr. Ravi was given that opportunity but chose to say nothing. His press release did not mention Tyler or our family, and it included no words of sincere remorse, compassion or responsibility for the pain he caused.

I'm restoring it because it is a major part of reporting Mr. Ravi's statement. No one seemed to mind when I added Mr. Ravi's apology in the first place. --Javaweb (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I think you are correct that it belongs somewhere in the article. I only removed it from the sentencing section since it's not really encyclopedic strictly in terms of the sentencing itself. I'd argue that it probably belongs in the reactions section, would you agree? I didn't mean any disrespect by deleting it. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It may belong in the article (it may not), but I agree it doesn't belong where it is. The only reason that the Ravi apology might belong where it is is because it's a direct response to the judge's statements. Otherwise, it, strictly speaking, doesn't fit perfectly there either.LedRush (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The two statements belong together. If they get moved, they should be moved together. Burying the Clementi statement in a section away from it makes no sense. Both statements are part of the aftermath of the sentencing and the crimes Ravi was convicted of victimized their son. The reaction of those intimately affected by the actions and who a reader reasonably would suspect would be the target of the apology logically goes there and not artificially moved with those of pundits with no intimate connection to the case. --Javaweb (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I just know that I don't like this structure. The reactions to the verdict should come after the verdict; and those to the sentence, after the sentence. Right now we say in the first paragraph of the trial section that the trial ended March 13. But "trial" is broader than the testimony and arguments. Perhaps we should have a separate section on Testimony and Arguments, or perhaps Prosecution and Defense Cases. Then we could have a separate section on the verdict and another on the sentencing.Profspeak (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

NJ poll

New Jersey Reaction to sentence:

• Kathleen O'Brien (June 7, 2012). "Poll: More than half of N.J. residents find Dharun Ravi sentencing too lenient". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved June 14, 2012. Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.

--Javaweb (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Adding a free image of anything?

If a photo of a Hudson River and George Washington Bridge is too strong, what are other free images must I add other than Dharun Ravi? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Rutgers campus, NJ courthouse, NJ prison at which Ravi was jailed?LedRush (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I found no suitable images... Well, I see some in Rutgers University. --George Ho (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_supreme_court_strikes_down_part_of_states_bias.html#incart_river http://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-bias-intimidation-law-1.1290736

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402161824/http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/04/20/news/media/042011_ravi_indict.pdf to http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/04/20/news/media/042011_ravi_indict.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)