Talk:Wayne DuMond

Notes on getting started

 * Sources are easy enough to find through Google. Beware of using blogs.
 * No need to create empty sections. Let it grow organically and then sectionize when it becomes needed.
 * Follow WP:BLP, where ever it applies (e.g. living victims). Marskell (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope I'm doing this right - I reset the two "citation needed" markers to refer to the exact paragraph in the Arkansas article referring to the Freedom of Information Act violations and the fact that even the executive session would typically be recorded, - I had had it point to the article in general, was this better? In any case it would be good to have someone competent look it over, since I only started this one because the whole case is weird, and editing the entry as I got the facts straightened out helped clarify it for me. For a tour de force in 'ick', look at the free republic threads. Take care  69.130.188.67 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The refs are a bit messy, to be honest. But you were doing your best :). Start an account; it will be easier to give you pointers. Marskell (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Try to be extra-careful about WP:NPOV and WP:RS regarding the prominent politicians involved with DuMond, and about keeping this article's focus on Dumond himself. Mike Huckabee is only relevant to this article for his actions on DuMond's case. Before adding Huckabee material, consider whether it belongs here, or in Mike Huckabee or in Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2008.  Same goes for material re Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker which should only be included here when directly relevant to Wayne DuMond.  Huckabee's involvement with DuMond belongs here, including controversy about what Huckabee did or didn't do to get him released. Factual data about how and why anti-Clinton activists championed DuMond belongs here. General info re anti-Clinton activism or anti-Huckabee activism doesn't. -- LisaSmall T/ C  19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Privacy for children and wives
Dumond has six children, I believe. I do not know if the children should be listed in the article. It seems suspect to my judgment. Jmegill (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is no good reason to list his children here by name. Privacy and WP:BLP. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree on the names of the children. I found one reference claiming that some of the children were the product of rape, but even if it were a reliable source and even if it were true, listing the children's names would be a (needlessly cruel) invasion of privacy. However, as both of his latter wives played important roles in his pardon controversy, their names are relevant. Dusty met with Huckabee several times, and Terry Sue was part of the church group trying to get him out of prison.  The entry for his first wife's name presently reads "unknown" not out of concern for her privacy, but because I  couldn't find it. However, if I could find it, I'd still hesitate, as so far as I know, she played no public role in his life, unlike the later wives. -- LisaSmall T/ C  03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of name
This isn't something I want to make a "thing" over because it's a somewhat minor matter of accuracy, but is it DuMond or Dumond? Contrary to the claims of the editor who moved the page, most news sources have gone with Dumond, at least according to a Google News search. It would be nice if we could find some official source that provides us the answer. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this court document, the spelling is "Dumond". Given the fact that the Arkansas Times and many other news sources use this spelling, I would argue that this article should use "Dumond", not "DuMond". If no one objects, I will make these changes. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Both spellings may be legit. According to one unofficial source, a blog reply to this article, Wayne changed the spelling from "Dumond" to "DuMond" while in prison. Hence court records would reflect the original spelling, and the Ark. Times would have retained the original spelling, while those discussing the case after his imprisonment, particularly the Dunleavy articles which involved input from DuMond, used what seems to be his preferred spelling. Is there anything straightforward about this case? Rockgolf (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC) One other point: The Arkansas Democrat Gazette consistently uses the "DuMond" spelling.Rockgolf (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Alright, well if "DuMond" was what he called himself, then I guess that's what the article title should be (though I think we agree that more a reliable source  than a blog comment would be nice).  I did change "DuMond" to "Dumond" in the titles of article citations where the "Dumond" spelling is used b ut left the rest alone. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the main sources do. I was with lower case, in my first look. Do we have a source saying that he changed the spelling? Marskell (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Public support and conversion
Why was there "a groundswell of public support" for this man's release? He must of done a good job of fooling a lot of people. Is there a religious angle to this? Did he convert or pretend to convert?


 * No, it was the right-wing campaign against Bill Clinton. The first woman that DuMond raped was a distant relative of Clinton, so the anti-Clinton movement turned DuMond into a cause celebre, claiming that he was innocent and had been railroaded as a political favor to the Clintons. Prometheus Press, a right-wing publisher, even published a book about the case, titled Unequal Justice: Wayne DuMond, Bill Clinton, and the Politics of Rape in Arkansas. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but... is the answer to "is there a religious angle to this?" Based on current and contemporary reportage, the pressure came from two components of the religious right, working together and with some overlap.  Part of it was routine right-wing opposition to Bill Clinton.  The same people who accused Clinton of a series of murders were willing to accuse him of railroading an innocent man.  The other part of it was a major effort from a particular Baptist church.  Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister himself, is/was friends with the minister of that church who lobbied him about DuMond.  Huckabee says he was convinced by the other minister that DuMond had experienced a genuine conversion. Then-Governor Huckabee then went on to lobby the parole board himself, after it became obvious that granting clemency or a pardon in his own right would cost him too much politically.


 * "After his second wife, Dusty, died, DuMond married a woman from the church which had fought for him. His third wife must have believed in the sincerity of DuMond's conversion and that he was planning to be an ex-rapist. Surely some of the church people besides the new wife thought DuMond was honestly a changed man; but based on the information out there today, the church got interested in the case initially because of the (anti-)Clinton connection. A great many men experience jailhouse conversions; DuMond was singled out for their support for a reason. It's hard to know how much of this to put in the article on Wayne DuMond without duplicating material that's being added to the article about Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential run. Did DuMond convert, or just pretend to convert?  Not a question Wikipedia can answer.  Not all prison conversions are fake.  Not all conversions, no matter how sincere, are permanent. If you can believe he castrated himself out of remorse in 1985, you can believe he was remorseful enough to convert to devout Christianity in the years thereafter. -- LisaSmall T/ C  04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Castration
From CNN.com on 6Dec2007: "The case of the rapist, Wayne DuMond, began in 1985, when he was accused of raping a 17-year-old girl. He was later convicted and sentenced to a life term. Before trial, DuMond was attacked in his home and castrated, and the local sheriff kept the severed testicles in a jar. No charges were brought in the attack." Is there another source confirming that he was castrated? If so, what form of rape did he use in his later attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.127.10 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As for raping after castration, it is far from impossible. Check the Wiki article on castration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgolf (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The DNA samples which convicted him in the murder of the first Missouri woman were taken from his skin under her fingernails, not semen. Numerous sources refer to his castration and to the possibility that it was self-inflicted while drunk.  Probably some of those will be added to the article soon, as Mike Huckabee has said Dumond's castration was highly relevant in creating his feelings of pity for the man.  Males (of any mammalian species) castrated after adolescence are usually still capable of erections and thus of penile rape; but I don't know if his assaults on the two Missouri women were penile.  The court records probably have these details.  -- LisaSmall T/ C  04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations confusing?
Reference #2 does not contain the quote for which it is referred. The quote might be in Waas' article referenced at #4? I may go look for it later if I have time as I know I have read that quote recently. Not sure #2 even belongs, as it's just Josh Marshall's (for whom I have nothing but respect) take on the recent Waas reporting/Huckabee team rebuttal. I have removed reference #5 as it was just a repeat of reference #3 (Arkansas Times 2005). Just as a side note I think it is humourous (in a sad way) that Dumond was rearrested 3 months after that horribly slanted Village Voice article. Also as a note the Clinton relative is not the first rape Dumond was alleged to have committed (he even confessed to one in the 70's), just the first for which he was convicted - 206.116.158.46 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The duplication on Ref #3 was intentional. I wanted to see how to correctly format a citation, and hoped someone would change it so I could correctly apply other citations. Even more ironic, is that the Village Voice article came out after Dumond murdered that woman in Missouri. I will try to add more citations when I time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgolf (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Village Voice: well-known organ of the right-wing noise machine. :-)
 * 18.181.0.51 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyviolations
To all new editors: Please do not just copy and paste text from other articles into this one. When you do so, someone else eventually will have to change or remove your entries. See the policy on copyright violations. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon my confusion - but if putting the exact quote in the reference is a copyright violation (I should think that would be fair use(?)), and just putting a link to the article is considered insufficient and gets a marker, I'm not sure of the correct citation method. Unless I accidentally copied something out directly - I tried to distill information down, but there's only so many ways to rephrase some factual information. Perhaps I lack imagination?  65.119.188.9 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * REPLY: I don't think you need (or should) copy the actual text from the original source. It should be sufficient to use the same format as the earlier references to the Arkansas Times article, for example at the current Ref #6. Preferable still would be to have the numerous references to this article as "citations", with a single common reference. But I haven't been able to succesfully format that. Any volunteers?Rockgolf (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done,  using standard REF NAME= for subsequent references to the same citation. Also put long quotes into BLOCKQUOTE format to make more clear that they are not Wikipedia's original materials. -- LisaSmall T/ C 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * REPLY: User 65.119.188.9, If I understand the Q&A above here correctly, I disagree with Rockgolf and believe that you should quote exact words when that's appropriate, particularly when the Wiki quote is of a news quote from one of the individuals involved. Extensive non-speaking quotes from news items are where we can run into copyvio trouble.  However, if (in this article or some other) you were quoting to show the kind of news coverage (as in a quote from an editorial), then a direct quote of the heart of the item might be necessary. -- LisaSmall T/ C  14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What about prior crimes?
Isnt' there a homicide which DuMond participated in plus a 1974 rape in Arkansas that was never prosecuted? Jmegill (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were several prior crimes. I added minimal information today, with citations, and will try to come back and be more thorough as more information is reported by reliable secondary sources. -- LisaSmall T/ C  03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

cgnghjmn ndtfgxhbcdfjj dty dtrh y udtrh fghy dr hdr d drhdrywsy yguil kftdfty hseeyunyg ,hg sa edds ikdeled s d l dkdfy kdyedth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.23.8 (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"slaughter a village of Cambodians"
I would like to know more about this. Who were the victims? How many died, and how did they die? How did DuMond's experience in Cambodia influence his later actions? People get angry about the Americans DuMond murdered, but barely a mention is made of the Cambodian "village" of human beings who died in the "slaughter". Why? Isn't this an important insight into why he commit his later crimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.103.116 (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know more about it too, but we can only go by what's in the public record, and the comment in the article is all that there is about this. You can follow the citation to read the original article. -- LisaSmall T/ C  08:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Huckabeefacts.com video - Worth mentioning yet?
I believe the size and weight of the info that Lamarcranford is adding on the huckabeefacts.com video are out of proportion to the actual impact of the video. In the 4 days the video has been up (to Dec 17) only about 45,000 views of the video have taken place. That doesn't even put it in the top 25 if all views were in a single day. Hardly "viral". It may yet become "devastating", but at this point, the long article, including a complete transcript of the video, seems to be more of a way to get publicity for the video than any realistic statement of the video's impact. Rockgolf (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Identify board members
I took this out of the article today: ''Two more have confirmed that statement but did not wish to be named; however, since the board chairman, Leroy Brownlee, has gone on the record denying that Huckabee sought to influence the board, the two anonymous members can only be August Pieroni and Fred Allen. '' This sentence relied on the "REVISITED" reference. I pulled it because it is speculation, which Wikipedia policy does not allow. Also, although I was tempted to do the same thing myself (at least in my head, not for use in Wiki), it may be inaccurate speculation.

We don't know, for instance, whether Brownlee himself was the anonymous board member in 2002 who said Huckabee applied pressure. Brownlee's public statements to the contrary now don't prove he didn't say something else anonymously then. Also, one board member has died. Perhaps that board member was the anonymous fourth member. Three who went on the record in 2002 saying Huckabee applied pressure were Chastain, Suttlar, and Pondexter, plus the anonymous fourth. In 2007, the only two named in recent articles (as of research done the first week of December, 2007) were Chastain and Suttlar. So the other two might have been Pondexter and the deceased, or Pondexter and Brownlee, or Pondexter plus either Pieroni or Allen, rather than Pieroni and Allen. I don't know the name of the deceased member, nor whether Pieroni and Allen are still alive. -- LisaSmall T/ C 08:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a "criminal", he's a rapist and a murderer
This is ridiculous. The introductory paragraphs call him a "criminal", but don't mention him being a murderer until the very end and don't mention him being a rapist at all! A "criminal" can be someone who embezzles money, someone who litters or someone who drives with a busted tail-light. I'm going to edit the introductory paragraphs to make it clearer what he actually did. Odiumjunkie (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

isnt rape and murder both crimes? thats like saying an orange isnt a fruit, its an orange. obviously the subject is a bad person, in every sense of the term. however, it seems like you have an axe to grind. rather than updating the introductory paragraph, which is easy. why dont you elaborate more on his crimes. im not sure what the page looked like almost 2 years ago when you made your statement, but i think changing the introductory paragraph because you think its ridiculous rather than for clarity is ridiculous. Elmuhfuh (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wayne DuMond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210150234/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199910/ai_n8875958 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199910/ai_n8875958

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)