Talk:Cheryl Araujo

Redirection

I've reverted the redirect, and am curious why an article about a real person was wiped out -- without so much as a syllable merged -- in favor of a highly fictionalized treatment of the subject.  Ravenswing  20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need an article on this person at all is what baffles me. I'll afd it later, SqueakBox 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because she was in a celebrated rape case that made national headlines and from which a Hollywood movie was made. What grounds do you think make this an AfD subject?  Ravenswing  23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Raven, I agree this article should exist however atm Im very uncomfortable with the tone and content. There are three categories: Introduction, "Rape" and "Death". It is absolutely unacceptable and disrespectful that we have summed up an entire human life in such a manner. I will be doing some extra reseach; my thought is we must either add a significant amount of content or at the least rename the article "Attack of Cheryl Araujo" or better yet name the defendants in the article name and redirect Cheryl Araujo. (Certainly the redirect shouldnt go to the film that is ridiculous) I cant help thinking that by creating an article for this woman and not for her rapists we are doing harm and not living up to our best standards. Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyrights?

Large portions of the article seem to be copy-and-pasted from http://www.projo.com/specials/century/month10/mass7.htm (which is linked in the article, too), without any copyright notice. What is the status of those copyrighted portions? /mike What a ridiculous question asked by Squeakbox! There are many reasons why an article should be done about this woman. Firsly, people in general want to know who the film was actually based on and what happend to Miss Arujo after the court trial. Cheryl also became an activist in raising awareness of gang rape and support for other women who had been through such an ordeal. You may not be interested in these things Squeakbox, but many of us are. Its tragic that Cheryl died when she had found some happiness in her life and her children left motherless. Can you not at least show some respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondlady11 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The article states:

Six men were originally charged with the rape, though only four were eventually tried

and

The four defendants were convicted of aggravated rape, two men were acquitted of the charges.

If only four were tried, how could four be convicted and two acquitted? David (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheryl Araujo. 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 https://web.archive.org/20130118224807/http://news.providencejournal.com:80/breaking-news/2009/03/history-for-pub-38.html to http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2009/03/history-for-pub-38.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 14:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheryl Araujo. 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/20140225150403/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/projo/access/45980674.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/projo/access/45980674.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 02:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

removal of cited content

While I agree that some tweaking of the verbiage might be required, deleting a significant cited fact about this incident is unwarranted. The article clearly indicates that these facts were widely reported, "So did a score of other reporters, from the television networks and the news magazines and the big national newspapers" - that pretty much describes wide coverage. The rest is even more on target with what is in the New York Times article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No facts are being deleted. Again, the points being made in this section are repeated, in better English, in the paragraph which precedes footnote 2, which is in fact the SAME source. Furthermore, the Times article notes an important fact which is absent from the article, namely that one witness acknowledge yelling "Go for it" while in the bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.228.89 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

First, per WP:BRD, please allow consensus to be reached on this page before attempting to make the change again. If you do, you'll be in violation of WP:3RR. Second, not sure how you equate those two passages as containing the same information. One discusses the trials (the second paragraph), while the first paragraph discusses the disparities in the allegations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring your ironic comment about 3RR, the paragraph I reference says

Other concerns about media coverage of this case related to the press' repetition of the first police report, without adequate attribution. They published Araujo's initial account of a crowd cheering in the bar. It was found that there were fewer men in the tavern than she claimed; during the trial, she said the attack resulted in her being distraught and distorting the number. But the dramatic first account had staying power; it was repeated even after more factually accurate accounts were published and broadcast.

It's almost ENTIRELY about the disparities in the allegations. Futhermore, you've acknowledge that your own preferred paragraphs needs "tweaking", but haven't made any changes yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.228.89 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

First, that's not what I said, if you're going to quote someone, please attempt to get it right. Second, now I see where you are referring to, you simply said prior to footnote #2, and I went to the first time that footnote is referenced (unaware it was duplicated later in the article). In my opinion, both mentions are warranted. The first section is talking about the actual event, and this info is certainly germane to that section, while the later discussion is about media coverage, where it is also pertinent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where I quoted you, so I don't see how a misquote is possible. You now claim that the first section is about 'the actual event', while in your first post on this page you talk about the article mentioning facts that are widely reported and wide media coverage. Of course, I'm sure I'm misquoting you again.

The two sections could easily be combined into one, without the unnecessary repetition the ruins the continuity of the article. The second section is also written much better. Now, when are you going to get around to the tweaking of the facts in the first section? And when are you going to insert the victim's explanation in court about how her earlier claims didn't turn out to be true? If the apparent contradiction in her stories is worth mentioning, surely we need to include her explanation why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.226.213 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)