Talk:Desiree Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is very POV to say there is lack of proof, when the jury disagreed. Should wikipedia substitute its judgement for that of the jury, who did hear all the evidence? PatGallacher 02:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Look up the word "proof" in the dictionary. Majestic Lizard 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to RfC, I don't object to current version of article [[1]].
I would object to this version: [[2]]. If it comes back, will join PG in reverting. FRS 01:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with the current, NPOV version. I removed "to this day," as it would be impossible to confirm without asking Tyson every day if he still maintains his innocence. Also, not WP style. IronDuke 21:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not known whether Desiree Washington was actually raped; there was no audio-visual proof, nor proof of any kind. Furthermore, there were no witnesses; only Desiree and Tyson were in his hotel room (which she entered consensually). Therefore, the only people alive who know whether she was raped by Tyson are indeed she, and Tyson.

I find the claim that she was raped to be unscholarly at best, and at worst a disgusting case of gross bias against Tyson.

I see no mention of "lack of proof" in the Mike Tyson article, which appears to be a reasonable summary of the case. PatGallacher 14:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Article looks OK to me -- He was convicted, but maintains his innocense. There's a RfC on this article. It looks fine to me now. Should be merged with Tyson though, shouldn't it? Herostratus 02:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No current problem. I don't see any reason it should be merged with Tyson, though: Washington does have an independent existence.--SarekOfVulcan 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to request for comment

It seems highly POV to contradict the jury's verdict. Mr. Tyson has had ample time and money to appeal the decision. Legally this is a settled matter. Durova 08:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to RfC. I agree with Durova that the matter is settled. I think we have to err on the side of what the jury decided.--Alhutch 06:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Quote someone who said the trial was unfair, biased etc., and include that if you want. Sethie 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you go down that road then also cite Ms. Washington's refusal to accept appearance fees from the media or to profit from the publicity in any way. Many Tyson supporters accused her of a profit motive. Durova 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I don't understand your point.... let me try again: I have no opinion on this trial, because I know almost nothing about it. I was trying to communicate that if you want to include the idea "the trial was unfair/biased/etc." get a quote from someone notable. Otherwise leave it out. Sethie 05:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In order to protect her credibility Ms. Washington refused to benefit financially in any way. She could have earned thousands from interviews, appearance fees, and book deals. Mr. Tyson chose not to appeal the verdict despite ample financial means and connections. At around the same time he was arrested for beating his wife and the became defendant in two civil suits for alleged assaults against his wife and her mother and alleged death threats against his wife's publicist. He bit off an opponent's ear in the ring a few years later. To my knowledge, Ms. Washington was never involved in another controversy. I realize Mr. Tyson has adamant supporters, but what circumstance contradicts the court's verdict? Durova 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not beyond reason that Ms. Washington honestly believes she was raped, and Mr. Tyson honestly believes that no rape occurred. Mr. Tyson believes the jury was wrong to believe her, not him, but that's the one thing appeals CANNOT be based on; judges are prohibited by the US Constitution from substituting their own judgment for that of a jury in matters of fact. Mr. Tyson is powerful man skilled in personal violence, which makes him especially vulnerable to accusations, whether valid or spurious. Let's stick to the facts: she made an accusation and he was convicted. ClairSamoht 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


This whole conversation really isn't making any sense to me, minus Clair's comments. Sethie 05:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The jury convicted Tyson, finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard of proof is very high, but does not mean "to an absolute certainty," "definitly," or "beyond any doubt." It is very possible to be wrongly convicted of a crime. Because of this, absent overwhelming and truly incontrovertible evidence, I would hesitate to say that someone actually did commit a crime (for example, we can say that Sirhan Sirhan actually did kill Robert F. Kennedy). I would apply this same standard to avoid calling people innocent who are found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. To me, saying Tyson "allegedly raped Ms. Washington," followed by a statement that he was convicted and but still maintains his innocence, is not POV in any way. Jrkarp 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually that wording is highly POV. That's the way an article would refer to pending litigation, not settled cases. Prisons are filled with people who maintain their innocence. We do not change all references to their crimes as "alleged." Durova 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Thank you, this conversation is starting to make sense to me again.

How is it POV to say the crime was a alledged and he was convicted? Maybe accused and convicted is more neutral....

In sitting with this, that is the MOST neutral description possible. Sethie 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm currently investigating the Wiki interpretations of the concepts of neutrality, but in the meantime, if it is 'pov-pushing' to state the lack of proof in this case, it is FAR more so to include hostile commentary by Tyson - and if said commentary has a place, it is on TYSON's page.

I shall bring the full resources available to me to ensure that the anti-Tyson, anti-male bias STOPS in this article. And it will.

Jaybee From his Castle 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting for 2 reasons. Firstly, the previous version seemed to represent a consensus, or at least the nearest we had to one. Secondly, it is factually incorrect to say that there was "lack of proof", since if the jury believed Ms. Washington's testimony then that was proof. I would cautiously remind everyone of the 3RR. PatGallacher 01:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow guess what you did pat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desiree_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=33544277
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desiree_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=33541709
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desiree_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=33538175

I won't call you names, but what's the term for saying not to do something and then going ahead and doing it yourself?

Your revert of me was for changing a portion of the article. I did not change the article back to the last one. I did a section. Jotunheim 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR, count them properly. You are allowed 3 reverts in 24 hours although it is bad practice to do so persistently, it is the 4th edit in 24 hours that is out of order. Jutunheims edit of around 2:14 on 2 January was a revert, although I never claimed it was a breach of the 3RR. I have tried taking this article to Requests for Comment, I thought a consensus of sorts had emerged, maybe not, I am considering taking this to a higher level. PatGallacher 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, can anybody provide an authority for the statement that there was "a lack of proof" from either the defense or the prosecution. This is quite an important point, a statement like this ought to be verifiable. PatGallacher 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be quite grateful for this article to have gone to the Wiki authorities some 6 months ago, but better late than never. Moreover, I am not in the habit of doing research at the request of those who distort the truth - find your own sources...if you can.

Jaybee From his Castle 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely it is the responsibility of those who make controversial statements to find sources. Is it admitted, then, that there are no sources for this statement? PatGallacher 14:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the behaviour of Jaybee From his Castle has now become disruptive of the Wikipedia process, and should be raised under Requests for comment as a complaint about user behaviour. This is mainly because he now admits that he is making changes to the article for which he has no sources. Also he is changing what seemed like a consensus version of an article after it had already gone to RfC, and generally adopting a belligerent tone. PatGallacher 14:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As a litigation paralegal, I'm surprised that there is any dispute here about this at all. A jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyson was guilty of rape, and as such, he is a convicted rapist. It is certainly valid to say that many people disagree with the findings of the court (as is typically the case where heroic sports figures are involved), but the word "alleged" or any claim of lack of proof is now POV. Wikipedia is NPOV, but we are under no constraint to be nice and weasel-word every turn of phrase one faction or another doesn't happen to like. That Mike Tyson is a rapist is no less (nor any more) a matter of settled law than it is that Charles Manson is a murderer. RGTraynor 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope the Tyson fans will actually read what you just wrote, RGTraynor. I saw someone had slipped the claim "Tyson ALLEGEDLY raped her" (yes, in all caps) into the external links section of all places. If anything it should say "Tyson was convicted of raping her" which while still off topic for the section would at least imply the NPOV and nothing more, nothing less. The word "allegation" or "allegedly" is completely inappropriate at this point, regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter. Machine Man 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just one question

Why is this article here? All it does, period, is smooth over the fact that this girl entered a beauty pageant and was raped by Mike Tyson. You could easily go into Tyson's article and do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.244.23 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)