Monday, July 28, 2014

The Genealogy of the SLO Bureaucrat Who Tried to Deny Me Social Security in 1998

On 20 August 1998 I went into San Luis Obispo to apply for my Social Security retirement. The woman in charge let me know that she knew everything, but everything about me, including how little I had made as an apprentice telegrapher on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe in 1952. She grilled me on what I would be working on. A book, I explained, a biography of the writer Herman Melville. Would I make money from that book? Well, yes, Ma'am, I hope so, although you never know what agenda-driven reviewers will do to sales. Sorry, she said, if you are going to be making money from working you can't apply for Social Security. Manning up, I stood tall and said, "Woman, I will walk on the beach for a year if I have to, but you WILL sign me up for my Social Security." "Sick," I wrote in my diary, "sick from shock that they could try to deny me benefits--'self-employed' indeed. I would never write another word rather than lose my benefits after quitting my job. . . . Very stressful."

I  got that woman's name and now have traced her genealogy. I have traced 16 of her [male] GGG Grandparents and 32 of the [male] GGGG Grandparents and have found that all of them, without exception, were bureaucrats in charge of looking over Revolutionary War pension applications under the Law of 1832 and finding frivolous reasons for denying benefits to the aged vets, for of course only the aged vets were still surviving. In the 97 cases I have examined so far, the most outrageous one was the denial of benefits to Patrick McElyea S2789 on the grounds that he had claimed to be "in the battle of Alamance near the line of Guilford County North Carolina in which he lost his horse, saddle & bridle,"--this when the Battle of Alamance was fought in 1771 and there was no such battle in the Revolution. There was of course such a battle in which Patrick lost his horse, saddle, and bridle. But look at the money the bureaucrat saved and look at the actuarial tables for the chances that Patrick McElyea would live long enough to get word of his rejection and to get strength to reapply.

It is singular that so many of the SLO Bureaucrat's ancestors all but monopolized the pension-rebuffing system in several Southern states.

I wonder if she is on Social Security now or if she has moral scruples about collecting, as some Revolutionary veterans had turned Friends and refused to apply for their pensions.

Zarko on Top Villains in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax--Brodhead at #15--


Top Villains in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax by Zarko

It was not necessarily easy to pick a list of the top 15 greatest villains in that disaster of a Hoax. Some are sharing a spot in this list, as they are often difficult to tell apart in their nonsensical screed. The hatred the people on this list displayed for justice, freedom, and other traditional democratic values is astounding. Their methods of perpetrating injustice at any cost, including self-deprecation, is a testament to how far we still have to go before we can truly make a great society.

I have excluded the two principal villains, District Attorney Mike Nifong and the False Rape Accuser herself, the Hoax Enabler, Crystal Gail Mangum from this list, as they were clearly the #1 and #2 criminals otherwise. . . .

#15: Richard Brodhead, Wahneema Lubiano, Karla Holloway, Peter Wood, Maurice Wallace, Thavolia Glymph, and the rest of the Group of 88

There are more 88ers coming lower in the count, but these are the people I couldn't fit in this list.

The Group of 88 are 88 Duke professors with a chip on their shoulders, an irrelevancy complex, and an almost obsessive hatred of a large variety of things, often male and white. The lacrosse team provided a very easy platform from which to launch their views.

The original "Listening" ad and Wanted Poster provided enough fuel for the fire of hatred to last a long time. Under the guise of 'anonymous' students, the 88ers provided their own quotes damning the team. Lubiano even characterized it as a stake through the heart of the Lacrosse team.

Of course, when the case collapsed and the 88ers were (slightly) taken aback, they would no longer claim the ad was about the Lacrosse incident, but about other, more 'lofty' goals, such as speaking out against the sexism and racism on campus.

Facts, of course, were stubborn things, ignored exclusively by most people on this list.

One note however, is the signatory Arlie Peters. He distanced himself from the G88 and did not sign the clarifying statement later on. For that, he needs to be applauded. The rest continued their hatred long after the case they once so cherished... collapsed so utterly.

For a list of their behavior,, KC Johnson and others provide ample information.

Finally, the president of Duke, Richard Brodhead. He was not an 88er, but he certainly shares their views. Many people attest to his intelligence, and I have no reason to doubt any of them. He is a very smart, suave man, with a great eloquence, which is clearly lacking in most of the company he keeps (on this list and the 88ers in general).

When Finnerty and Seligmann were arrested, he gave his speech of: "If they did it, it's appalling. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough".

He knew, at that point, that all Seligmann and Finnerty did was drink beer. According to Brodhead, that was enough to warrant a 30 year prison sentence.

He failed his university, he failed his institution, he failed academia in general, and he failed to reign in a mob of morally destitute gangsters.

Cousin Lois Gore: In the South if you are Not Kin you are Connected

Well, Larry Burford, who recently established the power of Stewart DNA uniting us, mentioned that his wife is a Balentine. I notified my Balentine first cousin (daughter of a Costner and a great granddaughter of Nancy Ann Stewart Costner) and after a couple of exchanges it turns out that she is more kin to Larry's wife than she is to Larry. I am temporarily left out of double kinship with Larry and his wife, but we have not compared names yet. No one argues with Triple Cousin Lois.

Maureen Dowd and Killer Lightning on Venice Beach

Do words have consequences?
Did Maureen Dowd's relentless mockery of Al Gore affect even a few hundred voters in Florida?
Did those old folks worried about saffron-robed figures in temples give the election to George Bush?
Did Maureen Dowd give us an inattentive President in August 2001 and then give us the Iraq War?
Did Maureen Dowd give us accelerated Global Warming?
Do words have consequences?

Sometimes I wish things had been different.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Maurice and Heddy

Too many of our friends are dead.

Pyles, and the Psychotic David Fanning, after Yorktown

Because some of my ancestors pursued the infamous Colonel Fanning through several North Carolina counties I have been trying to find who served with them. As always when you work with documents (pension applications transcribed mainly by the ineffable Will Graves and Leon Harris) you resist by-paths if you can. Yet I cannot ignore Dr. John Pyle Sr or Dr. John Pyle Jr after learning that the young doctor's wife was my Aunt Sarah Brashear. Philip Higdon calls young Dr. Pyle the "major." And apparently it was not a hand or part of a hand but an eye the major lost at the Hacking Party held by the father of Robert E. Lee, for another applicant says that in the 1820s he saw the young doctor, no longer young but still one-eyed, in Illinois. Poor Uncle John, fleeing his shame! First he went with a troop of Tory Brashears in a mass migration to Greenville, SC, accompanied by my highly patriotic Grandfather Ezekiel Henderson and his bride, Elizabeth, Sarah's sister, then went on to Kentucky and Illinois. One son tried to erase the shame of being the son and grandson of Tory Pyles by rushing to enlist when the War of 1812 broke out. What did Ezekiel think and what did he say? And to name a son Brasher! That's all a by-path.

I am looking at the slaughter David Fanning carried out after Yorktown, when North Carolina might have settled down to reconciliation and reconstruction, you would have thought. William Ryan (transcriber Leon Harris--who after years of polite emailing turns out to be a Cockerham cousin of mine!) says it clearly: 
"The Tories under Col Fanning and other tory leaders seemed to be driven to despair by the surrender of Cornwallis  They divided themselves into small parties and prowled about the country & sought every opportunity to commit the most cruel and unprovoked murders & so frequent were murders robberies & Arsons committed by them that the Counties of Guilford Randolph & Chatham were in a state of continual alarm throughout the fall and winter of 1781 & the spring & summer of 1782--and the tories did not give up the control until the British wholly evacuated South Carolina."

Characteristically, after his retreat to Nova Scotia Fanning raped a female child, was convicted, and got away without punishment. The Single Most Evil Tory in the Revolution? Are there other candidates?

Back to looking at what the aged vets say about Fanning.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Larry Burford and Hershel Parker--and the Power of Stewart DNA

Oddities of DNA. Larry Burford (my sixth cousin two times removed) got a 95% match with me and a 20% match with a much closer cousin. We are wondering if there is something especially powerful about Stewart DNA.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

"Kathleen Stewart Longhurst" --Stewart Cousins are Hoping to Get in Touch with You

Kathleen, I hope you can get in touch with me at
One of our Stewart cousins has information to share with you.
Or you could comment here where I can read it but not necessarily make it public.

Colin Dewey and his Turk's Head Braiding

Monday, July 21, 2014

James Alexander Bell and 2 Bearded Stewart [?] Men

Are there any Mississippi Stewarts out there who can identify the seated man and the full bearded man on the right? Could they be Dougherty cousins?

Saturday, July 19, 2014

More on Mark Wylie''s Amazon review of William D. Cohan's THE PRICE OF SILENCE

More on Mark Wylie''s Amazon review of William D. Cohan's THE PRICE OF SILENCE

Your post: Jul 13, 2014 2:06:37 PM PDT
Weeks have passed and I am moved to make another comment. This is the rare sort of review that makes the reputation of the writer, if the writer is young in the profession, as I think Mr. Wylie is. Nothing published on Cohan's book in any magazine or newspaper compares with this Amazon review in sweep and quality. Rabinowitz's review is more historically important simply because it was published in the WALL STREET JOURNAL and repudiates an earlier puff review in the same newspaper, but Wylie's review surpasses every other in scope, detail, and rigorous application of high intelligence. With this review Wylie exalts Amazon's progress as a great honest democratic reviewing site.

On Re-writing History -- Wikipedia Discussion: "Talk: Cathy Davidson"

I just said that KC Johnson's blog Durham-in-Wonderland was an amazing performance of [writing] history on the fly, taking the phrasing from Stuart Taylor's calling LieStoppers an amazing performance of journalism on the fly. Writing history is much harder, and KC Johnson has been writing history, day by day for 8 years. This Wikipedia discussion is about Re-Writing History.

Talk:Cathy Davidson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Lacrosse case

I've restored the section on the Lacrosse case/ad issue. Before re-removing, please state why it isn't notable. I do realize that, in general, BLP prescribes that potentially damaging claims be referenced, but considering it included a link directly to the article that had the reference anyway, a simple 'fact' tag likely would have sufficed. Either way, it's a moot point now. I just copied the reference from the other article. (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It was originally challenged as not factual because there isn't any citation that Cathy Davidson was one of the signatories. After spending some time researching the issue, it seems that the original ad ( does not "attack the players" or "prejudge" their guilt or innocence. The ad seems to be a compilation of student comment about racism and sexism at the time of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. I further researched for any substantiation on the "Group of 88" and couldn't find anything outside of the Wikipedia entry about it. The entry mainly quotes articles about the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, which has its own wikipedia entry, and the works of KC Johnson. There was quite a controversy over the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, and all political statements at the time received quite a bit of press hype. But, it seems that this section is an unsubstantiated and sensationalist claim, that can, at best, be considered an argument held by a minority group. Given that this is a BLP, wikipedia editors must err on the side of caution. There are several tags that could have worked here - WP: UNSOURCED, WP: VALID, WP: UNDUE, WP: NPOV, WP: WELLKNOWN. It just seemed like the simplest tag was that it was unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Erm... actually...
First, you seem to be making a personal judgement over whether or not the ad really was fair. Besides being Original Research, it's entirely beside the point. Reliable sources have decided that it's noteworthy, as is membership in the so-called 'Group of 88'.
(That said, "These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman..." pretty much discards any notion of not pre-judging)
If you feel that the 'Group of 88' itself is non-notable, then you should probably address that at the appropriate article, rather than here; since that would be the central point to debate it. However, I'm not sure what you mean when you claim to be unable to find any other substantiation of the Group of 88 outside of Wikipedia. It's It is easy to find references to the Group of 88. So, it was certainly a documented and notable term, irrespective of judgement over their actions.
If you're referring to proof that she was a member of it, there are a couple of links across the articles to lists of signatories.
If you think it's undue weight by virtue of size, then try to refactor it. If you think it's undue in the sense of irrelevant to her, well, in addition to adding her name to the ad voluntarily, she's since explicitly commented on the whole affair. So, she certainly felt that her involvement in the ad was notable.
I'm not sure what this 'minority group' argument is about. You need to be more specific if you're going to blank an entire section.
I'm restoring for now because your personal Original Research isn't a valid argument, and notability has been more than established. Everything's sourced. So, even if it isn't written well, it certainly doesn't meet any threshold that would warrant entire section-blanking. If you wish to rewrite it, do so (while still preserving relevant facts). However, there's already clearly more than enough evidence that outright blanking isn't warranted. (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me try to be clearer about my concerns. According to WP: BLPDEL, "Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard." When you first restored it on Feb 17, it had been removed (not by me) because the sources did not link Cathy Davidson to the 'Group of 88'. I understand you have found two sources to provide that link. So, it's not entirely unsourced. But, it is written in a non-neutral, negative way. The flags on this subject, going back a couple years indicate that it cannot be restored to a previously acceptable version. I also don't see a way to edit the section to provide a balanced view without making it even longer than it is now.
As it is, the subject is already given undue weight. According to WP: UNDUE, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed a description as more widely held views.... Discussion of isolated events, criticism or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This topic of the article is Cathy Davidson. The accomplishments listed in her career section are quite short entries. For instance, she co-founded HASTAC, which has been around for 10 years and has 10,000 members. That ten years has one sentence in this wikipedia article about Cathy Davidson. The section on the Duke Lacrosse controversy, which concerns one advertisement and one statement by Cathy Davidson in 2006, is four sentences long, and has its own section.
I hate to further bog us down in discussion of citations, but most of the citations here aren't reliable sources. WP: SOURCES says to "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." And, according to WP: BLPREMOVE, wikipedia users are supposed to "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." These are the citations currently in use:
1. Johnson, KC. "Source Notes for Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" Retrieved on 27 July 2012. - There is no description on this webpage that actual says it's "source notes" for KC Johnson's book, and there's no indication that this list was actually published.
2. The Johnsville News: Duke Case: The 'listening' statement. (2006-11-10). Retrieved on 2012-04-20. - This is a blog post without a declared author, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source in wiki's policy.
3. Bauerlein, Mark. (2010-05-26) The Group of 88 Is Doing Just Fine – Brainstorm – The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 2012-04-20. - While this is on the Chronicle's website, it is a blog post, with the comment next to it that: "Posts on Brainstorm present the views of their authors. They do not represent the position of the editors, nor does posting here imply any endorsement by The Chronicle."
The two additional citations you gave are: 4. Whatever Happened to the Group of 88? - This is an "essay" posted as part of Minding the Campus online magazine, but there's no description of the editing or fact-checking process that happens to their "essays." It looks quite a lot like a personal blog post to me.
5. "Group of 88" faculty hears criticism in the wake of lax scandal - This does cite a published news article. It gives a much more balanced account, though, including comments about how "the advertisement's content has been widely misinterpreted." Then, we've looped back around to the section being written in a biased and negative way.
Any of these three reasons is sufficient to blank the whole section, especially because this is a BLP. I'm not trying to be abrasive by quoting the wikipedia policies, but my references to the tags wasn't providing enough context to explain the reasons why this section should be blanked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it needs a rewrite, but, in the meantime... "...when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard." pretty much guarantees that blanking was the wrong course of action. I know your heart's in the right place, but the action was certainly wrong.
I'd also say that it does need to still be included because (as our friend has pointed out on the BLP page) it's not only documented, but also addressed by Davidson herself.
I tried taking a look, and I don't have it quite figured out yet. My closest rewrite is, During the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, she was one[12] of the so-called Group of 88 professors who, shortly after members of the university's lacrosse team were accused of rape, signed a controversial letter thanking protesters for "making a collective noise" on "what happened to this young woman."[13] After a year-long ordeal, the lacrosse players were found innocent of the rape charges.
To be honest, it has a bit of a 'whitewash' feel to it, though, because it takes out all notion of prejudging, which "what happened to this young woman" certainly does. It wouldn't be hard to find a citation pointing out the prejudging, but the other IP thus far has only found Ann Coulter, right? Technically valid, but I think I'll borrow his/her 'shudder' on that one. Still, other than that one aspect, what do either/both of you think? (Additionally, since that'd make it shorter, I'm not sure that the section header would really be necessary, but first-things-first, n'est-ce pas?) (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
A wiki administrator blanked it on Dec 20, so I still don't think it was out of line to take it down, especially if the section needed this much attention. Also, Cathy Davidson has an active blog and there are lists of articles by her. If we included everything she'd commented on once, her page would be tremendously long!
If we're considering rewriting, I found a few citations that would be helpful: 1. Text of the paid advertisement: 2. Text of Cathy Davidson's commentary: (the Raleigh News & Observer archived article is linked off of this page:, but the link doesn't seem to work) 3. Another blog post for the list of signatories - - It shows 89, rather than the notes of KC Johnson that gives 88. I know there's some controversy over this, but this was the most reputable list I could find, and it's still only a blog post.
Here's my try at a rewrite (that represents both Cathy Davidson's and the critics' viewpoints on the issue): In 2006, Cathy Davidson was one of 88 or 89 signatories (cite one of the blog posts?) of an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle that begins by saying that the faculty are "listening to our students....the Durham community, the Duke staff, and to each other" about "the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be the objects of racism and sexism" (cite) during the Duke Lacrosse Case. Some later interpreted the statement "what happened to this young woman" in the advertisement as a presumption of guilt in the case. (cite) In an article in the Raleigh News and Observer, Davidson stated that "the ad we signed explicitly was not addressed to the police investigation or the rape allegations. The ad focused on racial and gender attitudes all too evident in the weeks after March 13. It decried prejudice and inequality in the society at large: 'It isn’t just Duke, it isn’t everybody, and it isn’t just individuals making this disaster,' the ad insisted." (cite) I still think this is giving undue weight to the issue (WP:UNDUE), given that there is one sentence about her 10-year involvement with a 10,000-member organisation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
No, there are no WP:BLP issues here and it most decidedly is not WP:UNDUE. It is more likely a case of buyer's remorse on the part of Cathy Davidson . I intend to re-add the information to the article. Ms. Davidson, I am sure, made a very calculated decision to add her name to the list, and to write the subsequent "commentary" on a case that received extensive national attention. I find it very odd that one IP editor wrote that if we "included everything she'd commented on once, her page would be tremendously long!". But then we aren't, are we, just those that have garnered national attention, and that's hardly undue, is it? Hammersbach (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The lacrosse controversy passage was resolved as WP:UNDUE on the Noticeboard (Archive171) in March 2013. I'm removing the section again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Please re-read the applicable section on the Noticeboard. You’ll see that the lacrosse controversy passage was “resolved as WP:UNDUE” as one of the commenting editors (the only registered editor) found the comments to be “clear cases of copy-paste based on negative/controversy blog sources which do not mention any of the living subjects at hand.” That is hardly the case with the edit that I have made and in fact, I am providing a direct quote from Ms. Davidson. Hammersbach (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the section was immediately removed because of "the clear cases of copy-paste" but that comment goes on to say "Any hands and eyes as to sourcing and WP:WEIGHT will be appreciated.". It was agreed that a section like this violated WP:WEIGHT and that same editor earlier stated "I'll give the IP a moment to remove these sections. I will curtail them myself if they remain." Helpsome (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I have reviewed this talk page and the applicable section on the Noticeboard and I am unable to find anywhere that “It was agreed that a section like this violated WP:WEIGHT…” I would like to point out that the sentence you quote, "Any hands and eyes as to sourcing and WP:WEIGHT will be appreciated", does not imply closure, rather that the editor is clearly asking for assistance. Additionally, it should be noted that this comment was made in reference to the articles on Houston Baker and Anne Allison, not Cathy Davidson. However, the main objection from that editor, correctly in my opinion, is that the passages in questions are “based on negative/controversy blog sources which do not mention any of the living subjects at hand.” That is distinctly not the case with the edit I made. I have used none of the offending blog sources. My edit is balanced, properly sourced and, as I noted above, I am providing a direct quote from Ms. Davidson on the subject. As such, I am restoring the edit. Hammersbach (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to assume good faith but it is impossible to come to the conclusion that you have by reading that noticeboard. Literally everyone except the person adding that information agreed that it violated WP:WEIGHT. There isn't a single comment against that consensus except the IP adding the information. You are adding information that violates WP:WEIGHT and doing so in direct opposition to everyone else who has commented on this issue. Please stop POV pushing. Helpsome (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, I am "POV pushing"... hmmm... let's take a look! The first thing we should note is that the previous editor points to the quote on the Noticeboard, "Any hands and eyes as to sourcing and WP:WEIGHT will be appreciated." and then declares that it "was agreed that a section like this violated WP:WEIGHT". When I tried to point out that the phrase "will be appreciated" clearly is a request for assistance, not a statement of closure, I was informed that it is "impossible" to come to that conclusion, and this can only mean one thing; that I don't understand the future tense of the King's English, so... push, push, push! The second thing we should note is the mathematical fact promulgated by the previous editor that "Literally everyone except the person adding that information agreed that it violated WP:WEIGHT. There isn't a single comment against that consensus except the IP adding the information." Yut, that's right, I must confess that there was literally only one IP editor who disagreed on the Noticeboard. Now the fact that there was only a grand total of just three editors to comment doesn't matter. The plain fact of the matter is that the third editor made the definitive difference and sealed the ironclad "consensus" on this weighty matter. For me to disagree in any way with this well established consensus is, well... push, push, push! The third thing we should note is that the edit that I have made is distinctly different from the edit that is being discussed on this talk page and on the Noticeboard. The one that is being discussed is a “clear case(s) of copy-paste based on negative/controversy blog sources which do not mention any of the living subjects at hand” while mine is a properly sourced and balanced edit and which directly quotes Ms. Davidson, but apparently that doesn't matter so... push, push, push!
Whether or not the previous editor chooses to assume good faith on my part or not troubles me not at all. The bare fact of the matter is that Ms. Davidson choose to insert herself, through the media, as a member of a group and as an individual, into a controversy that had gained national and international attention. I have attempted to add this fact in a neutral, balanced, and impartial way, and one that is completely different from the previous version. If my edit has violated WP:Weight then I would like to know specifically how. As it stands right now, I find the accusation that I am "POV pushing" to be inaccurate. Hammersbach (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest violations

I thought it was suspicious how there was no mention of Davidson's role in the Group of 88 in this article so decided to examine the various IPs who have all been so firmly against such inclusion. made quite a few Davidson related edits accords Wikipedia. While some were uncontroversial, at least 6 significant edits were made opposing the Duke Lacrosse scandal material in 2013, either posting here and on noticeboards or simply removing engaging in wholesale removal of the content. While the initial version of text added did have some minor sourcing issues it's extremely clear that the material in question is highly notable and not UNDUE in the slights as was incorrectly being argued. Perhaps most worrying of all was that the IP also opposed inclusion of any such mention of the group of 88 controversy for any of Davidson's colleagues either, some of whom played even more significant roles in the Group of 88 than she did. A WHOIS check of the IP shows it to be from Duke University, who were Davidson's employer at the time.
On 1st of July 2014 a second IP started editing the page, their very first contribution being the removal of the Duke lacrosse material (despite the sourcing now being improved). The IP is question belongs to Graduate Center of the City University of New York and Davidson started work there on the 1st July 2014 (her husband also moved from Duke to CUNY at the same time). The CUNY edits, reasoning, style and knowledge of the issues appear remarkably similar to the Duke IP, therefore suggesting it may be the same editor who used both IPs. Term dates show the final examinations were on May 18th and the next semester begins on August 28th [1], meaning there are few students around thus significantly increasing the likelihood that the edit was made by a staff member.
As far as I'm aware, neither of these two IPs disclosed their WP:COI on any of the issues at any time. I've now tagged the IPs and reminded them about our policies on this matter. The various comments above and elsewhere by the IP should therefore be viewed in the context of the conflict of interest of the author, and I'd ask them to be a little more honest about this in future please.
Update - some further "interesting" edits from a different Duke IP [2][3]--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I note the account User:Nigel Pap was registered within an hour of my posting of the above revelations. Nigel has almost exclusively made posts in support of removing Group of 88 material, in a manner quite similar to the COI IPs and also appears to have a similar level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and proceedures.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no affiliation with with Duke University, CUNY, any of the professors in the Group of 88, or anyone else involved in the Duke lacrosse case. I have no conflict of interest. The fact that I registered shortly after these comments were posted is a coincidence. Although there may be a connection between the IPs listed by Shakehandsman, I see no reason to assume that they are Cathy Davidson herself or that they have a conflict of interest. Nigel Pap (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstand our polices here. It's reasonably certain that the two IPs are related, but even that doesn't matter so much. We've proved beyond any doubt that they both belong to institutions that employed Davidson at the time of the edits by the IPs. For those affiliated with Duke and CUNY to be removing Group of 88 material represents a blatant breach of our COI guidelines. If it's not Davidson making these edits then its likely to be one of her colleagues (possibly another member of the 88?) or perhaps one of her students and none of these things are allowed. It wasn't so terrible the first time when the sourcing/prose was less than perfect, but the most recent edits in particular really do not seem motivated by a wish to improve the article. Anyway. please read up on our COI guidelines, it's important that editors understand them. I should also note that none of those IP editors have reappearance since Nigel joined us here, and while that proves nothing in itself, is it a little strange on top of everything else--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be reasonable to expect that students or educators at Duke (or other institutions) would be especially interested in this issue. There is no conflict of interest simply because the IP is associated with Duke. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is. Any person seeking to gain a qualification from Duke has an interest in the reputation of the institution and that reputation is damaged by the scandal (particularly for any of the departments strongly associated with the 88). Very few of the 88 lost their jobs as a result of their actions, and most seem to still be there today so its not as if we're taking about ancient history or simply the actions of former long-gone staff. Now there's nothing wrong with these COI editors engaging in this discussion, though of course they should declare their COI first, the real problem is the censorship of group of 88 material by these COI editors/editor--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I see they now both work at CUNY so it's quite brave a of him to do that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a tribute to KC Johnson, Who For 8 Years Wrote History on the Fly

I quote the tribute while reminding everyone that KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr., are the authors of the definitive book on the 2006 Duke false-accusation case, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. What an extraordinary achievement KC's blog (DURHAM-IN-WONDERLAND) was, for 8 years, and now will be available as an archive, I trust.

Friday, July 18, 2014
Farewell to the most important blog ever for the wrongly accused

Durham in Wonderland, Professor KC Johnson's hugely influential blog that chronicled the Duke lacrosse false rape case starting more than eight years ago, has completed its mission, and Prof. Johnson has posted his "closing comments." At its height, the blog had in excess of 100,000 readers per day. For me, KC Johnson is the greatest blogger ever.

How influential was this blog in helping to draw attention to the injustices in Durham? After the three young lacrosse players were declared "innocent" by the state's attorney general amid a media circus usually reserved for the rich and the famous, one of the young men, Reade Seligmann, issued a statement in which, among other things, he thanked Professor Johnson for his efforts.

It was Durham-in-Wonderland that inspired me to start this blog.

Ground-zero in the Duke cesspool that Johnson chronicled were, of course, ex-district attorney Mike Nifong and Duke's infamous "Group of 88," the Duke faculty activists who exploited the young men's distress to advance their extremist ideologies. For those not familiar with the Group of 88, Johnson gives us a summary in his closing post:

. . . for dozens of Duke faculty, [the] evidence appeared irrelevant. Eighty-eight of them rushed to judgment, signing a statement (whose production violated Duke regulations in multiple ways) affirming that something had “happened” to false accuser Crystal Mangum, and thanking protesters (“for not waiting”) who had, among other things, urged the castration of the lacrosse captains and blanketed the campus with “wanted” posters. As the case to which they attached their public reputations imploded, Group members doubled down, with most issuing a second statement promising they would never apologize for their actions. (Only three Group members ever said they were sorry for signing the statement, and two of that number subsequently retracted those apologies.) For months, the Duke administration was either in agreement with the faculty extremists or cowed by them—or some combination of both.

Johnson's blog was as distressing as it was illuminating. It ripped off a scab to reveal an ugly, progressive pus that animates policy-making on campus, especially on issues of gender and race. It also exposed the news media's fealty to political correctness in its largely biased reporting of the incident.

Professor Johnson is a frequent contributor to Minding the Campus, and readers are urged to follow him there.

We must pause to add a chilling footnote. Despite the atrocity of Duke lacrosse and many, many other cases in the years since, the academy has grown ever more hostile to due process and fairness when it comes to presumptively innocent young men accused of sexual assault. Prof. Dan Subotnik, for one, openly wondered if the Duke players would "have had any chance of justice" after the Department of Education's "Dear Colleague" letter? The persons who drafted that letter should have been required to read Durham in Wonderland.

On behalf of the community of the wrongly accused, we salute KC Johnson for his unstinting work to advance the cause of justice.