Talk:Duke lacrosse case

Template:WikiProject Durham NC

Note: Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. --tomf688 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal/Archive 1 - April 2006
Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal/Archive 2 - May-Oct 2006
Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal/Archive 3 - Oct 2006-June 2007
/incorporated material - edit history of incorporated material from Bio page

Why Has This Entire Fiasco Been Neutered?

There are no pictures anywhere on this page. Why not? Why is there an stubborn refusal to allow content here? There should be pictures of the charged kids, the accuser, and the DA at a minimum. All are available, yet everytime someone adds one, agenda-driven forces remove them. Why? Also, why is there no page anymore on the accuser? This is absurd! It's outrageous. What is going on here? Ikilled007 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A great many people desperately wanted the three victims to be found guilty of rape regardless of whether they were innocent or guilty in order to further their political agenda. Now that this house of cards has collapsed and backfired, leaving egg yolks all over the Marxist-Feminists' faces, they just want this entire incident to completely disappear. WhipperSnapper 10:50, 4 July 2007

It's because one of Wikipedia's most scummy contributors, "Cbertlet", spends a good deal of his time covering up the truth of left-wing/feminist/Marxist political correctness. He throws weight around here like an arrogant Nazi gauleiter, and threatens anyone who opposes him with a barrage of smears from the SPLC, of which he is a tool. It is as simple as that. Carthago delenda est 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of covering things up, I've been told that the Duke sororities often hired males strippers. I need this verified, yesterday if possible. And if anyone here writes for encyclopedia dramatica, make an article on Cbertlet over there. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Duke Alumni Association page as source

I've twice tried to delete info gotten from an unsigned page on the Duke Alumni Association page, which were questions and answers about the University's response, and of course, written heavily in favor of Duke. I think there are real WP:RS (we don't know what kind of editorial control there was) and WP:NPOV problems with the page. We are supposed to examine sources carefully when surprising claims are made. One claim I found very surprising was the allegation the first two games were cancelled due to underage drinking and other admitted behaviors, which certainly wasn't reported at the time, and that there was consultation with lacrosse players in "suspending" the season. I think that this is a very questionable source and we'd be better off without it, that the claims should be backed up by primary reporting, and if they cannot be so supported, deleted.--Wehwalt 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The "unidentified" thing

Let's not get in a revert war here, let's talk it out on the Talk page.

I see both of your points: When the accusation was made, the attackers were unidentified (in fact, they weren't just unidentified, they were unenumerated as well -- she initially said the whole team attacked her, then said five, then finally revised it down to three). However, in the specific sentence where the dispute is, I have to side with Batman: That sentence is referring to the scandal as a whole, and in that context the members of the lacrosse team who were falsely accused are not any longer unidentified. --Jaysweet 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "whom she did not identify"--Wehwalt 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe... it seems a little awkward for the intro, though. I'll read it again... --Jaysweet 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno. I'm not going to revert your change, but I'm not sure I like it. It just seems awkward.

I am guessing -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that your intention here is to reflect in the intro that, prior to being shown the photo lineup consisting only of lacrosse team members, Mangum didn't identify the accusers in anyway? It seems to me like it is difficult to reflect a subtlety such as that in the intro. I mean, she did eventually "identify" them, if by identify you mean point at a picture. So they were eventually identified by Mangum, in a sense... ---21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert myself, but you are right in a way. She did identify them in a way, by those names "Brett" "Adam" and I forget the other one. I think I am being oversubtle for a lede. So if someone changes it, I'm not going to change it back or try another way of phrasing it.--Wehwalt 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Over 200 footnotes...

That has to be some kind of near-record. Are there any tools to count <ref> tags?--76.203.48.177 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is 130 KB! Can we tolerate a re-factor? Anybody have a suggestion on where we should slice?--76.203.50.19 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Media Coverage" and "Response" could probably both be moved out to their own articles. I'd really like to see that material stay on Wikipedia, because it is an excellent collection of information that I have not found anywhere else, and I feel that it is reasonably encyclopedic (though both sections could use some copy-edit, reorganization, and a little bit of rebalancing). But it probably is a logical place to split the article.

Great suggestion! Done.--76.203.126.39 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the copious footnotes, I think to a certain extent that is necessary with such a controversial topic, especially one that involves living persons. Trimming the article should help somewhat with that though. --Jaysweet 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the other big news events with over 50 footnotes? Terri Schiavo, Virginia Tech massacre, September 11, 2001 attacks. Really, 50 Kb on an article size is a good cut-off point if you are aiming for "Good Article" status someday.--75.36.169.98 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I will first just try to excise all the dead links in the refs. That will get rid of about 40 of therm.--75.36.169.98 18:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the "Development" section to the end of the article because it is very "newsy". With some effort, I think that the prose of that section can be folded into the more subject-oriented sections.--76.203.126.39 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the accused

Footnote 101 links to a CNN article that is said to have revealed the accuser's name. I could not find her name in the CNN article (and actually saw a parenthetical saying "(victim)" that looked like it was placed over her name). Does anyone else see where CNN reported her name in the linked article (or elsewhere)?

It was on CNN for about half a day (so you'd have to look through the cached versions, but I can't find it anymore). It was just a word for word transcript of the AG's conference when he declared them innocent and a reporter used Mangum's name in a question. I saw it and added that particular reference. However, CNN changed the wording within 8 hours so the link doesn't show it anymore. Don't really know if this should even be mentioned; it's probably not significant enough. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the top part of the article says that CNN, MSNBC etc never revealed the name; while at the bottom it says they did. Whichever we're going with for each company, can the article at least be consistent?

--Nick Roberts 04:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research re: Moezeldin Elmostafa

The article quite correctly discusses the very dubious decision to arrest one of Reade Seligmann's alibi witnesses on an unrelated 2.5 year old arrest warrant. However, at the end it says that '"the News & Observer has alleged that in order "[t]o get warrants, police made statements that weren't supported by information in their files."' That the N&O has made this observation is true, and it is correctly cited.

However, the article it is cited to makes no mention of Elmostafa. It may be that the police have been making a habit of obtaining warrants by making statements that their files did not support for 2.5 years, but a more reasonable interpretation is that the N&O meant that in the Duke lacrosse case the DPD has been discovered to get warrants in this case, and the warrant for Elmostafa was not gotten in this case, merely brought out from the archives and used with questionable judgement in this case. Accordingly, I'm commenting it out. -- 192.250.34.161 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Full names for all

I think it is very good that the full names of the accuser and the three accused are in the lead section. That clears up a lot of problems of referring to the persons in this story.--SallyForth123 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This probably just got lost in an edit somewhere, but the full names of the accused are either missing or too late in the article. They are all referenced initially by only last names, as if they have been introduced. Finnerty, Seligmann, Ross, and Evans have full names in the investigation timeline, but they are referenced earlier and therefore full names should appear earlier. I would suggest that someone put a list of the accused 3 in the intro, and somewhere someone should clear up who was in the 5 who were accused before it was changed to 3 (I guess Ross was one of the 5, but I don't think the other one is listed). I am not doing this because I don't feel familiar enough with the case or Wikipedia editing to make changes to such a controversial page, but it shouldn't be hard. --No Username, just an observer.

residents of house

I changed the number of residents from two to three. Perhaps I should of been clear as to my source for this (I am new to wikipedia editing). I will not change this back now in order to avoid an edit war. Several media accounts as well as the nc attorney general's report state that 3 co-captains lived in the house. See source 40, the end of the 1st paragraph and source 42 page 5. SPearl 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WTH - Why has the NAACP's involvement in this case been left out?

The NAACP during the opening stages of this case labeled these 3 innocent boys as hate criminals no different then the KKK or Neo-Nazis, and backhandedly called every one that did not agree with them a racist as well. These are slanderous crimes and made up a big part of this case and should be included in this story.

If this is not added then this is not a true account of this event, and is a sugar coated lie built as to not offend the NAACP or anger the radical black hate groups out there.

Greyfox-csa

I believe that it was under Reactions to the scandal, but was so large that it was moved into its own article, Responses to the lacrosse case. It needs to be summarized under the Reactions to the scandal section. Although the Responses to the lacrosse case article doesn't cover the NAACP case as well as it should. If you're interested in summarizing that article into this one, it would definitely improve this article. Cheers, Jude. 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Falsely accused" vs. "Now-discredited"

I've thought for a while that the intro wasn't clear; we would be better off with the following: "...Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American stripper and escort, falsely accused three white members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping, beating, and sodomizing her at a party". It is all that is really needed, IMO. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment into its own section for organizational purposes. First, I'm not sure, but I believe that "Black" is the current politically correct term, since "African-American" implies that a person is either an African immigrant or directly descended from African immigrants, while "black" simply refers to skin color. As far as "Falsely accused" vs. "Now-discredited", in my opinion, "now-discredited" is a better term, since it makes clear that her accusation was credited for a period of time. It isn't about whether the term is too harsh, it's about what gives the reader the most accurate view of events. To say "falsely" doesn't show that her claims were believed for a period of time, which is the reason that the scandal occurred. Perhaps "raping, beating, and sodomizing" should say raping and assaulting, as the specifics are explained later in the article. "Sexual assualt" might also be used. --Jude. 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum lied about the events of that evening ... her accusations are, and were, false. Whether they were believed, by anyone, is beside the point. The statement that the accusations were false is factual, and easily proven. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the accusations were believed is factual, and easily proven, as well. I'm not attempting to argue the point that she lied or that her accusations were false; I agree with you. But the fact that her accusations were believed is very important. It's where the scandal stemmed from. If no one believed her, then there would be no scandal. The fact that her accusations were believed is exactly the point. If you're concerned about whether the fact that the accusations were untrue is clear, the use of "now-discredited" makes it perfectly clear that the accusations were untrue. --Jude. 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it as "falsely accused". Now discredited doesn't carry that same connotation of intent. For example, there is a now-discredited theory that the earth is flat. No one lied about it, they just got it wrong. Mangum did not get it wrong, she lied. --Wehwalt 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And Duke53 and Wehwalt "know" she "lied" - as opposed to was just crazy - HOW? Because they can read minds? Because they know more than the N.C. DA? You made the entire case against yourselves - not to mention by sounding like Rush, you discredit this entire article, more than WP is a joke in general. Not that I care about a bad article online, but OUTING people and taking justice into your own hands is not a laughing matter. You are HELPING rapists by discouraging others from reporting "alleged" crimes. 64.26.72.143 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted. Please read up on assuming good faith. As for her mental health, I have heard nothing that indicates her children have been removed or that she's been recently committed. And her name is in the public domain, used by many news services. As for the justice into own hands comment, I'm somewhat puzzled by that.--Wehwalt 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"And Duke53 and Wehwalt "know" she "lied" - as opposed to was just crazy - HOW? I know that Crystal Gail Mangum lied because it has been proven that she did not tell the truth; according to your logic crazy people cannot tell a lie ... feh! :) Duke53 | ^Talk 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys are mostly arguing on semantics, in my opinion. But, in any event, we could look to mainstream media for what phrase to use. Here are some examples:

• The Chronicle of Higher Education in June 2007 - "three lacrosse players [...] were falsely accused of rape last year" [1]
• Associated Press's Aaron Beard on July 26, 2007 - "three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape" [2]
• WRAL on July 20, 2007 - "An attorney who represented one of three Duke lacrosse players prosecuted on false rape allegations" [3]
• Another AP article on July 12, 2007 - "the now-discredited Duke lacrosse rape case." [4]
• Another AP article on July 26, 2007- "Attorneys for the three falsely accused players" [5]
• CBS News on June 15, 2007 - "the now-discredited rape scandal." [6]
• Baltimore Sun on June 30, 2007 - "after now-discredited rape allegations were lodged against three players." [7]

Conclusion: there is no clear answer really. But none of the articles used Mangum as the main subject. In any event, they pretty much mean the same thing! Personally, I like "made false accusations against" if you choose to use Mangum as the main subject performing the action. I could see how somebody might argue that she was crazy and actually believed what she said, so saying "she falsely accused" is misleading (somebody could argue) because that suggests she maliciously made false statements. Obviously, it is certainly possible that she did, but we don't know. We do know, however, that the accusations ended up being false. Either "players were falsely accused" or "she made false accusations" would clear up this uncertainty because they don't make any judgment on if Mangum maliciously and knowingly made false statements - they merely point to the fact that they were false. Take from this what you want. -Bluedog423^Talk 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. For your first proposal, I generally oppose using the passive voice simply because it gives such an opportunity to fudge. If you feel "when Crystal Gail Magnum made false accusations against . . . " does the trick better, I guess it is OK.

--Wehwalt 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I would find it odd, but nothing on Wikipedia surprises me that while the whole Duke nonrape was about people being “falsely accused”, Duke53 , W and others are more than willing to “falsely accuse” Crystal of being a liar.

If you have any evidence that she is a liar, I suggest you go to the NCDA. Likewise, I may have a theory that many of the people here are liars, but I give the benefit of the doubt that they are “mistaken” and if were being checked into the mental hospital – I would give the possibility of crazy/delusional.

Passive voice English lesson for the average teenager Wikipedian:

Iraq was falsely accused of having weapons of mass destruction. = true

Bush HONESTLY accused Iraq of….., but Bush was mistaken. = true if Bush thought it was TRUE

Bush FASLELY accused Iraq of… = false if Bush thought it was True

The first and third are not the same, and only a liar or fool would try to pass them off as the same.

Stay in school instead of wasting you time trying to write an “encyclopedia” by fools. 64.26.98.90 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Our beloved country is flipping out. The effects of The Age of Stupidity ushered in during the '60s and '70s are omnipresent", writes Dennis Prager in Why I Fought for Two Boys I Never Met, about a case very similar to (more outrageous, actually, than) this one. "The story is so angering that one can only wonder whether America is suffering from a surfeit of district attorneys who are either incompetent or just lack elementary human decency." I would like to add that sentence to the article somewhere, but can't find a place to put it in. Asteriks 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If the accusations were provable as false accusations, why was Crystal never held accountable for filing a false report with the police? Is there actually proof that the rape never took place? If so it should be included, and it should be included why Crystal was never held accountable. Otherwise, all we know is the facts can not prove what happened either way. Nhall0608 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the attorney general of North Carolina to start with . . . but WP is not bound by the definition of a crime. Mangum made an accusation, it was false, not true. The men were declared innocent. It is not an unknown it ws known that her accusation was false. Q.E.D.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

High School?

Does anyone know what high school Crystal Gail Mangum went to? I've been working on Durham High School articles and if anyone has any information, could they please contact me via my talk page or post it here? Thanks --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Yeesh. I think we have some WP:NPOV problems here -- lots of strident language and advocacy. If I get a chance, I'll try to clean things up. SkipSmith 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is disgraceful. -Emily D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.13.216.208 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Help: Attempts to Suppress Page on Group of 88

I have been trying to start a page on the Group of 88. People in Wikipedia are actively trying to suppress the creation of such a page. This article mentions this group, but the reader is not able to see who was part of this group or get more background information. Please contribute to that page, and support me in my attempt to keep it from being deleted [8]-The kekon (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) I have a partial list if you need it. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Any help appreciated in expanding this article

1990 St John's Lacrosse Team Rape Case . There were a few aquittals and actually a few convictions as well. Uconnstud (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked for broken links

{{citations missing}} I've checked and noted where links are broken. Original citations are commented out.--15stamps (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that they were the original sources, and should be preserved, even if it's difficult to verify them now. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the original source information was not deleted, but commented out and a "{Updateneed}" added. They need to be updated, and the information there can be of use. But there's no need to keep dead links. See WP:LINKROT.--15stamps (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That applies to external links, not citations. If the dead link is that much a concern, then just strip the link from the citation but leave the rest intact. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New source

A new paper on this incident by Robert Mosteller of the Duke Law School is at http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=duke/fs . I'll leave it for someone else to milk appropriate stuff from it. McKay (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)