Talk:Duke lacrosse case

No need for the n-word

There have been attempts to add in dialog where some of the players supposedly said the n-word and the stripper retorted with comments about their size. This dialog is unnecessary and it does not add to the article. Also, it does not move the article toward FA status--just the opposite. Why does the specific dialog have to added? Please explain this before it is added. Also, just saying that it happened or I think it is important is not good enough. Please provide encyclopedic reasons. Please explain what it is adding to the article that is not already there.--InaMaka (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article attempts to spell out a timeline of events. It initially discuseed the incident as a "verbal altercation" and had largely unsourced speculative sections. The current edits are accurately sourced and provide a fair depiction of the events that occurred. I'm not sure what your argument for leaving out certain facts would be. While it's understood that the players were falsely accused and that the DA was guilty of plenty, it's a false depiction to imply (by omitting such deplorable behavior) that the lacrosse team in this case was exclusively a victim. Much of the article presents information of events for the reader to determine the ultimate meaning (the implication to use the broom as a sextoy, the McFadyen e-mail, etc.). I see this as no different. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First here are the quotes in question:

""Short dick white boys" and "We asked for whites, not n-----s."

I'd like to add some new information that was just posted to my talk page.

"what was said merely serves to demonstrate that the women provoked the verbal altercation by insulting the men's manhood and their race, which is every bit as offensive as the racial slur that was thrown back at them. If that one woman had kept her trap shut, maybe the N-word wouldn't even have come up"

That's about the most racially ignorant thing I've heard on WP. To my knowledge simply referring to someone as "white" is not insulting their race (at least when the someone in question is white). And in my personal opinion there is no comparison between telling someone they have a small penis and calling someone a nigger. But, the vulgar assertion that if the woman had "kept her trap shut" she wouldn't have been verbally assaulted? This is just plain ignorance. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Keep your trap shut" is colloquial, not vulgar. And if you think calling someone a "small genitaled white boy" is not highly insulting, you need to broaden your education. And furthermore, the guys were paying the money for this service. You can't dis your customers' manhood and expect to get away with it. Maybe the women thought they were being funny. Maybe the guys thought they were being funny. But the women were out of line, and they were hypocritical. So they have no leg to stand on in that war of words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what would be your reaction if a white prostitute stripper 'exotic dancer' had called a black guy 'boy' ? Perhaps the insult here is in the word 'boy' ? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, all 3 words put together constitute the insult, although if it were "boys" without the other stuff it would have been OK. The real blame lies with the organization that sent them over. If they asked for white, they should have either sent white or said they didn't have any available that night. That's an angle that may not have been explored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion limited to constructive suggestions for improving the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Constructive suggestions ? Is that what this quote from above constitutes ? : ... "I'd delete it again—in accordance with WP:EL— but I've had enough of Duke53 and his bullshit for today". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on here. The IP opened this door by insisting on posting part of the war of words, instead of the previous version which merely stated that there was an argument. He left out what the women said, which was a serious POV violation in that it left the false impression that the men had started the insults, when it was actually the women who started it. Then there comments were posted also. So what it comes down to is, do the gory details need to be in the article, or is the statement that they had an argument sufficiently "fair and balanced"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you misunderstand I wasn't saying the words "keep your trap shut" are vulgar. I was saying that your assertion that a woman she need to do so to avoid being called a nigger was vulgar. Second, I made no claim that her calling them "small dicked" wasn't offensive, only that it wasn't racial. "You can't dis your customers' manhood and expect to get away with it." Yes, there were lots of options the players could have used to respond, complaining to the company, refusing payment, etc. Calling them niggers was not an appropriate response and your cavalier dismissal of this fact is as ignorant, if not more so, than that.

Duke53, calling someone "boy" has a differing context dependent on the subjects race. It is not the same thing to call a white man a "boy" as a black man.

I think this entire discussion taking place here is evidence that this needs to be included in the article. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All it does is damage the women's case further. Is that your intention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of an encyclopedia here. My intention is neither to improve or damage anyones case (also there is no case here as all charges were dropped). The point is to present the facts as they occurred. And that is what is being done here. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

""Duke53, calling someone "boy" has a differing context dependent on the subjects race. It is not the same thing to call a white man a "boy" as a black man." Who made that rule and when did they make it ? In my neck of the woods if you call any man a 'boy' you'd better buckle up: at the very least you're going to have one hell of an argument; worse than that, you will more than likely get your ass kicked and perhaps be seriously injured (maybe worse). I'm not sure when blacks were awarded the right to dictate the terms of what is or isn't insulting or racist and / or who can use certain terms. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming to the realization that I don't think I'll be able to explain rational theory to you. I'm really sorry you think "blacks" dictate what's racist. And it's really said that in your neck of the woods you anyone would likely seriously injure somone (maybe worse) for calling a white man a boy. Regardless, the passion, and in my view ignorance, are examples of why the specific quotes are relevant. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm coming to the conclusion that you can't explain 'rational theory' to anybody, or that you even understand it.

We have a substantial disagreement. I don't doubt you feel that way. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say that I would seriously injure anybody, so don't put words in my mouth. I said that it's more than likely to happen up here; there is a huge military installation here and these incidents occur daily. All anyone has to do is pick up local newspapers to learn about these incidents. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I revised my remark. My point was that you would do it, but rather it was unfortunate someone would. (it seems maybe we agree at least on that point?) 71.178.240.197 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Initially, the IP did not "present the facts", he presented one side of the facts, based on his POV that somehow insulting someone's manhood-plus-race is somehow OK and hence not worthy of mentioning. I'm inclined to agree with the OP that the dialogue adds nothing useful. You can link to the article if you want. Also, I had to laugh at your comment that the guys throwing insults back at the women was "not appropriate". If you cop the attitude they did, then you forfeit any expectation of an "appropriate" response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I never imagined anyone would consider that being called "small dicked" was comparable to calling someone a nigger. That said, once the opinion was expressed, I immediately supported the expanded inclusion. I'm sorry you think they forfeited their expectation of not being called niggers. I don't think there's even an appropriate time to use those words, but that's my opinion. However, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The bottom line is that the exchange is still relevant for the reasons I posted initially and for the reasons we are all having this discussion. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I can't believe you think that insulting someone's race-plus-manhood is somehow no big deal. Look, if someone calls someone a name, especially a name that has to do with a racial stereotype, then logic dictates that the insulter can expect to be insulted right back, and they have no right to complain about what specific insult gets used. Based on the cited quotes, the women are at fault for that war of words. So by including that dialogue, you dis the women even more. So, again, I have to ask, as did the OP: What value does specifically listing the insults serve for the article, other than to further impeach the women's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This argument is getting cyclical. I understand now you consider to "small dicked white boys" and "nigger" to have equal weight. I also now understand that you think the addition of "small dicked white boys" shows that the women were at fault. The point of my last comment was that there was no intent to hide "small dicked white boys," but nonetheless I disagree that those things are equal and that it further impeaches the women's behavior. Regardless, the facts are presented to the readers. The bottom line is that use of the word nigger is notable in the context and can not be accurately described as simple a "verbal altercation." If you and or other feel that "small dicked white boys" adds context or shares equal importance I have no objection to its inclusion. I have yet to hear any argument for it not being included other than generic "unnecessary" labels. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that calling a group of male strangers sexually inadequate is not hateful, then I don't know what to do for you at this point. However, if you're going to quote things, let's make sure they are in the right chronological order so there's no question of who insulted who first. If the guys threw the first insult, then they're at fault. If the women threw the first insult, they can't hide behind a cry of "hate speech" when they indulged in hate speech themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between hate speech and general insults or even something generally "hateful." I never confused the chronological order (I believe InaMaka might have), but regardless I disagree with your "fault" argument. Regardless, there is clearly, based on this discussion alone, room for interpretation, which is why the quotations need to stay. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever looked into the question of why the company sent black instead of white as they were apparently requested to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I believe that's likely because it's wholly irrelevant to the situation. I don't think anyone has investigated why the Duke players didn't politely refuse the strippers either... 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the double standard? The women grossly insulted the men (which, if you were a man, you might understand). Why should the men be polite back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So not that it should matter (though it seems you think it does), but I'm both male and white. First, the thing you disagree with (believe me I get you disagree) is that the Duke players calling the women niggers was a disproportionate response (and even without that two wrongs still don't make a right). That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying, if they wanted white strippers, then the Duke players could have politely refused them when then arrived, before the entire incident. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're focused too much on a specific word, and you're overlooking the drinking. You personally might not be insulted by a comment like what that woman said, but you don't have the right to tell someone else they shouldn't feel insulted by something - that's the depth of political correctness gone wrong. And if you did feel grossly insulted, why would you feel any need to hold back and not fire back with the most insulting response you can think of, especially if you've been drinking and your normal social inhibitions are impaired? (Which seems to have been true of everyone there. Like I said, there are no saints in this story, except maybe for the state's attorney.) You can't expect civil behavior in an atmosphere dripping with alcohol and who knows what else. Here's a more mundane example: If you've been drinking heavily, and you order a pepperoni pizza, and the delivery boy brings anchovy instead, how polite are you likely to be? Maybe you would be. But you can't expect everyone else to behave the way you might when under the influence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't whether you or I are personally offended by these types of words. It's not a question of should they have responded the way they did or if drinking contributed to it. The point in the language was used and al we're doing here is talking in circles further pointing out the need for this language to be here. The used the words and it clearly is relevant as part of the description of events. I think you for bringing this to a civil tone as well as trying to find common ground. I think we've gotten about as much out of this as we're going to. I'm happy leaving things where they are. Is there any disagreement on the current status of the page? If so, let's try to work that out specifically (while I do appreciate the discussion it has tended to get a little off topic). 71.178.240.197 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any verification that the words in questioned transpired beyond the claims of Newsweak? The altercation including the insult by Roberts regarding the student's "dick" and his response about the cotton shirt is familiar to me, but I have never heard of the racial response before now, and all quotes of it lead back to the Newsweak article as single arbiter of its existence. Where did Newsweak get it from? Is Newsweak a reliable source in this instance? HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. Here's where the issue of WP:RS comes in. Newsweek would generally be considered a reliable source. But one would think this would have received broader coverage than just one publication. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how hard you looked for alternate sources. According to the New York Daily News, Roberts said "They called me a damn nigger." And our own article quotes a Duke Chronicle article (dead link) that says Roberts called 911 complaining that the men called the women niggers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that why they cooked up the rape story? To get revenge? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, only Mangum complained of rape, not Roberts. And as to her motivation, you'd have to ask her. Last I heard, prosecutors said they thought she believed the stories she told police. That's the reason they didn't prosecute her for filing false charges. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like to know if their company was ever held accountable for not properly fulfilling the guys' request, assuming they actually made that request. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As it was, I looked quite hard, thank you. Since the clarification seems to suggest that Kim Roberts is the source for the claim that the players used the n-word, then that caveat needs to be present if we include the allegation (especially since Roberts' testimony changed considerably over time, albeit perhaps not as much as Nifong's or Mangum's.). The way the edit by the annonymous user stands, suggests that Newsweak's version is solidified by an iron-clad source. Roberts hardly qualifies. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Roberts hardly qualifies" 60 Minutes interview[1]: Asked how she responded, Roberts says, "I don't know if I can say that on 60 Minutes.

"I called him a little [expletive] white boy," she recalls laughing. "And how he couldn't get it on his own and had to pay for it. So, he was mad. And it ended with him callin' me the n-word. And it echoed, so you heard n….. once, and then you heard, n….., n….., n….. .

Roberts acknowledges that her taunting provoked that remark but tells Bradley, "But when I think about it again, I say he could’ve said black girl. You know what I mean? He could’ve said black girl. He didn’t have to go that route."

So here we have a participant trying to dictate the 'rules of engagement': she can say whatever she wants to say but wants to decide which 'route' others must follow. I call bullshit on that theory. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. When you insult the manhood of a roomful of drunken paying customers, you have no right to complain when they insult you back. One thing worth mentioning is that Roberts was one of the first, as I recall, to refute Mangum's rape story. But since Mangum was merely an observer of this verbal exchange, then I wonder what the gory details have to do with this article - unless someone can demonstrate that the verbal exchange is what gave her the idea to invent the rape charge, to "get even" with the guys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Revenege would be difficult to demonstrate, particulary when some investigators think she believed the story she told. ThatSaved (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

February 2011 question

77.86.81.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
77.86.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hmm .... I wonder if the editor who falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet Hull End 1 (77.86.81.199) is doing a little sockpuppetry Hull End 2 (77.86.124.158) himself ? If so, I believe that the original editor is in the midst of a ban; could this affect that ban ? Inquiring minds want to know. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why ask that here? You know by now, Duke53, there are places you can go to put more savvy admins than me on notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not ask it here ? This is a talk page about an article that 'might' be getting edited by a sockpuppet; I don't have the tools to check to see if it's a sockpuppet, so one of the admins who are involved with this article can do their admin thing if they want. If they choose to do nothing then the record is here and I have done my part in being a good WP editor. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check WP:ADMIN. I assure you that admins have no such tool. Were you looking for Checkusers?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know or care who has those tools, I just know that I don't have them.

I don't know or care if anybody does anything about this, I just wanted to put something on a record in case it becomes a problem.

I do find it odd that admins trip over one another every time that I am accused of anything, but can't seem to want to get involved in what is a fairly obvious sockpuppet incident. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The second IP is obviously the same guy as the first, but he only made the one edit, so it's unlikely the admins will block him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but the article was protected this morning—before Duke53's first comment—to prevent further disruption by said sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit advances April 2011

Read here and here RexZeedog (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Mangum is notable on her own

Given the rape case, the arson charges and that apparently she's killed her boyfriend,[2] I would think that Crystal Mangum is notable on her own and we should have an article about her. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support split. The factors that made us redirect here no longer exist. She is an accused who has gotten press independent of the Duke incident. See Joran van der Sloot, we held that as a redirect for a long time until the murder charge in Peru came up and we redirected from Natalee Holloway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aw heck, should I just be bold and start the article? I'm kinda busy so all I would do is one sentence and a ref and I suspect people will take it from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support split. RexZeedog (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll move ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a stub, Crystal Gail Mangum. Perhaps someone will work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to resurrect the article that had already existed a couple of years ago before it got "deletionist-ed"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me see what is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of the deceased is Reginald Daye.[3]

I'm having some difficulty in accessing the deleted revisions of the article, I'm not sure why. It may have been oversighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite that, you've already got a pretty good start on it. Most of the stuff about Mangum after the rape case ended could be summarized in a sentence or two, and the rest of the content moved to the new article. I wonder if the current mugshot is public domain? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Check this article's talk archives, I think we've discussed that (if I recall correctly, it's "no".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

[4] or [5]. Obviously, a lot of the material is out of date. Nevard (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Election

One thing the article has little to say about is how this case helped Nifong win re-election by cynically catering to the black community in Durham. It's mentioned in the suit section, but it's important to realize that this was being discussed in the press at the time of the election, it's not something the kids thought of after their ordeal was over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Now that depositions and discovery are on the way, previously concealed and unknown information is coming to light about Duke's actions during the false accusation scandal. The question is where does this get positioned? Should it be put in a section for responses/actions by Duke administration et.al. Or put in a section for the subsequent lawsuits since that is where we are finding things out (i.e. the fact that Duke edited Kennedy's letter about the boys' innocence and criticsm of Duke's attempt to prevent them from hiring lawyers). Suggestions are welcome. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)