Talk:Michele Dauber/Archive 1

Please do not remove verifiable edits
Hello Nosebagbear:

I got a message claiming my edits of this article were possibly defamatory and I could get blocked for them.

Seems like a bad way to start a conversation, please assume good faith on my part.

Professor Dauber is best known for running the Recall Persky campaign - I think information regarding her actions and credibility in that campaign are highly relevant to the article.

So, my sources for the edits I want to keep - I won't argue about all of them - are primarily Professor Dauber's own words on YouTube - you can see the actual video - and the trial documents. Hard for me to see any better sources than those - and, I would also point out, any more free from liability for defamation.

1. In an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now,  Dauber says she saw the famous Emily Doe victim impact speech before the public saw it, and that she helped Emily Doe disseminate the speech with the help of one of the makers of "The Hunting Ground"  documentary about sexual assault on campus.

I think this is an interesting and important fact regarding Dauber's actions in the recall - some people will assume Dauber helped write the speech - I did not say that - and really I have no source for it - I have never seen it either denied or claimed.

In the same interview, Dauber claims "Emily Doe" was severely injured by Brock Turner -no, worse than severely "gravely" injured - that is a very serious accusation -and Dauber claims this is a good reason for the recall - the gap between this severe attack and the short sentence.

But in looking at the LA Times trial documents online, one sees that responding police officers saw no injuries on Emily Doe, and that the EMTs said gthere was "no significant trauma" and the hospital did not treat any - and finally, that Emily Doe herself said she was not injured the next day.

Since the main thing Dauber is known for is running the recall, and she is giving this claim of a severe attack on Emily Doe, that left her nearly dead (that is what "gravely injured" means) as one of the reasons for the recall, I think his is ought to be in the article.

Again, this is impeccably referenced - I mean, it's a video of Dauber giving an interview - you can't get less defamatory than the person's own statements made voluntarily, knowing they would be widely disseminated, in full context.

Please discuss this with me = to me you kind of started with threatening to block me - this seems highly inappropriate to me and I hope you can just discus any actual problems with the material itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A0C0:1098:1BBA:9110 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Firstly I'll comment on tone - apologies for the fairly hostile phrasing, it's a warning template for BLP issues. It's one of the things wiki reacts most energetically to, so it's possible that I made an incorrect judgement call and picked too high a starting level - apologies.


 * Normally wiki doesn't accept primary/1st person resources for non-basic details, but you make an excellent point that the BLP policy is there to avoid defamation risks, and that a primary resource would resolve that perfectly well. Depending on the nature of the interview it might a proper secondary source, in which case wonderful.


 * In any case, if you can post the link I'll have a look through it in the next hour and see if any of the other sources also back it up. (That'll be post work on my side, so about 75 minutes or so) Or you can do it yourself with the help of Referencing Basics if you don't want to wait, whatever is easier. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the anonymous editor makes an excellent point - Dauber gave that interview voluntarily - I have seen it also -there is no doubt at all she is claiming Chanel Miller was nearly killed by Brock Turner - which would have meant, not only was the short sentence given to turner so striking compared to the crime - which was a point Dauber explicitly made in the interview, but also, Turner's claim Miller consented was completely spurious - no one consents to nearly being killed - but there was no evidence of violence at all, proving Dauber misrepresented facts she had to know.

I believe it also worthwhile to point out, Dauber said Chanel Miller wrote her famous "Everywoman" speech to convince Judge Persky to give Turner a longer sentence - but the speech itself is addressed to "girl's everywhere" - is it a violation of any Wikipedia rule to point out this inconsistency?

Dauber's position on Boy Scouts, College Fraternities and Stanford University "Full Moon On The Quad" tradition.
I think Dauber's own Twitter account should be viewed as a good source. In her Tweets, she calls for the end of Boy Scouts, college fraternities, (not sororities) and Full Moon On The Quad.

I am not sure FMOTQ is of enough general interest to be in the article, but political opinions such as being against multiple male organizations seems relevant to me- and as in the discussion below about her false claims Chanel Miller was badly injured by Brock Turner, these are her own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2C72:C435:DE47:247A (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Dauber an Attorney?
It would be enlightening to know whether Ms. Dauber was admitted to the Bar of any state or other jurisdiction. She is a professor at the Stanford law school by virtue of her expertise in sociology. Her curriculum vitae posted at the law school website indicates she obtained a J.D. degree, but does not indicate her membership in any bar organization.

Michele Dauber and #StandwithLeah Movement at Stanford.
I believe the history of Dauber and her relationship with Leah Francis, who accused Stanford of "protecting my rapist" - a fellow Stanford student, who was not only never charged with rape, but was explicitly cleared by the local prosecutor, who said, assuming everything Francis said was true, there was still no crime committed by the man.

The #StandwithLeah movement at Stanford preceded the big one Dauber is known for, the largely false Brock Turner narrative Dauber promoted.

Dauber explicitly called for the accused man's expulsion from Stanford, even though he was cleared of any crime. I believe this is newsworthy, as showing Dauber's attitudes towards the subject she is best known for - to Dauber, clearly, you do not have to be guilty of any crime to get expelled.

https://paloaltoonline.com/new/2014/08/11/alaska-da-will-not-bring-charges-stanford-sexual-assault-case

I am still looking for the articles quoting Dauber saying the man should have been expelled. Considering all the facts known, it indicates political attitudes i believe the public would find of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:494C:8782:AE7F:4603 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Suicide of Dauber's daughter Amanda as possible motive for her sexual assault activism?
As the article states, Dauber's daughter, her first born Amanda, committed suicide about ten years back. There was an online campaign, I guess you would call it, started by Michele Dauber but including her husband Ken later, in which she wrote to members of a science fiction convention organizing group, accused her older brother Michael Landis of "raping" her five year told daughter, (clearly Amanda) and warning the people running the SciFi convention that he might assault their children, as he was involved in the organization and could have opportunity to do so. After a short time, the Dauber's cancelled the warnings, posting a final message saying they had "resolved" the issues with Landis, and all their previous messages should be "disregarded". In one article online, Dauber mentions getting involved with young Stanford women who alleged they were assaulted not long after the suicide. Since these are all Dauber's words, like the reference to the video where Dauber misrepresented the facts of the Brock Turner case to make it far worse than it was, this seems impeccably reference, both are Dauber's own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:913D:64B3:28C6:8015 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"Rape threats"—plural or singular?
, thanks for understanding about the additional info. My only issue with the "rape threats" statement is that, from my reading of the RS, there was only a single rape threat in "February 2018"—although it seems clear she has received others at different times. And "along with" seems to indicate that the "rape threats", plural, came in the same envelope. My suggestion would be something like:
 * "On Valentine's Day in 2018, Dauber received "an envelope containing white powder and a note, which contained a reference to the Persky case and threatened her with rape."

Or, if you think it's important to note that she has received other rape threats in different contexts:
 * "On Valentine's Day in 2018, Dauber received "an envelope containing white powder and a note referencing the Persky case. The note also threatened her with rape, and in response, Dauber said she has received many similar threats in the past and would not be deterred from her work for sexual-assault victims."

To my mind, the other threats aren't really relevant or necessary to highlight here—although it is interesting that she "acknowledged that after threats against her job, rape threats are likely the second most common." I leave it to you, but I think "rape threats" in this context is not factually correct. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think at this point that we're nitpicking over a single 's'. The substantive issue is that a threat of rape was made - one or more - and that that information is clearly sourced reliably - A l is o n  ❤ 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not intending to nitpick at all; simply trying to be as precise and accurate as possible for the encyclopedia. And after your reversions, I didn't want to simply change it without having dialogue and consensus. I agree that in the current context, RS report a rape threat, but if you want to make it plural, I believe you'll need to clarify. Is it fair to say that's a consensus? Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'm fine with this being/staying in the singular - A l is o n  ❤ 23:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good deal–thanks and have a great day! Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)