Talk:Glen Ridge rape

Incomplete
Where is the trail, verdict and subsequent events section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.28.60 (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Title
Hey, I know I created the page with this title, but I'm not sure it adheres to WP:BLP. The title implies that they were convicted of rape, but I am not sure that they were convicted of rape (I know they were convicted of something, but I don't know that it was "rape").Schnapps17 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They were convicted of Aggravated Sexual Assault, based on the New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(5)(a)-(b).
 * Also, the facts in this page don't exactly match up with the Superior Court's re-telling of the story on appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.207.162.110 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They were convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, and that is how rape is prosecuted in New Jersey. Also, the convictions for this offense have been upheld in two appeals. (I have added this information to the article (with references).) 74.205.216.190 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Critical information missing
This article has a major problem, in that it's missing the most important information about the case: what the people involved were charged with and convicted of. Without that, it's left to the reader to speculate; given the title, they could be forgiven for assuming that most or all of those involved were convicted of rape. Given that their real names are used here, that means as it is (without stating the eventual convictions), this article has serious problems with WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 74.205.216.190 (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Glen Ridge rape
Hi MikeyLin! Sorry for not providing a longer explanation earlier - normally I would, but things are pretty awful in real life at the moment. Anyway, I didn't really revert because of the mention of Grober, but due to your inclusion of a second person who was subsequently not convicted. In this case it isn't really a BLP concern, for sad but obvious reasons, but I tend to be wary of listing people of serious crimes where they weren't convicted, and BLP can extend to relatives. In this case, because the charges were dropped, it seems best to not mention an otherwise non-notable person in regard to a crime which it was never shown that he committed. For Grober the situation is a bit more complex - he was convicted but only given probation. Given the seriousness of the crimes, and that the out one was relatively mild, my inclination was to only list the names of those with the major convictions. I certainly respect it if you feel differently, and won't object to Grober being included. It is hard to feel any sympathy for any of those convicted, given how terrible it was. The relevant part of WP:BLP is WP:BLPCRIME, although that is not directly related to Grober, and better relates to the second (now deceased) individual. - Bilby (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I'm not convinced Grober's conviction wasn't major, in his jurisdiction a third degree conspiracy conviction is a felony can result in a three to five year sentence. He was fortunate that he was only sentenced to probation.  In the case of the deceased person, it should be mentioned here that the source linked indicated the case against him was dropped mainly because the family of the victim did not want her to endure another trial, not because of lack of evidence.
 * This article needs a lot of work as most of it is uncited. I don't object to leaving out mention of the deceased for now, but we might want to revisit the issue if the article ever gets improved.  MikeyLin (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)