Talk:Duke lacrosse case

Dubious claim

In the section titled "Lawsuits filed by players", the article asserts: "the players' civil rights claims, which constituted the bulk of their Complaint, were dismissed on the grounds that the applicable civil rights laws pertained only to persons of African-American descent." The stated source is "Judge James Beaty, Memorandum Opinion, March 31, 2011."

The players' lawsuit, which can be seen here, cites three Reconstruction Era civil rights laws as the basis for its civil rights claims: 42 USC 1983, 1985, and 1986, better known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or the Ku Klux Klan Act. The laws can be seen here by clicking on 1983, 1985, or 1986.

These laws do not limit their protection of civil rights to African Americans and their descendants, and any judge who wrote so would be laughed off the bench. They were invoked in the 1960s when local authorities were involved in the murders of two white men and a white woman. They were invoked in 2010 when a suburban Philadelphia school district was sued for spying on students in their homes. They apply whenever government infringes on citizens' civil rights, not just on the civil rights of African Americans. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I shows a very clear bias in your editing that you elected to not actually read the decision itself which explicitly states what you are claiming to be "dubious."

Here is one reference to the fact with a link to the decision. " ("As recognized by the controlling law in the Fourth Circuit, the only class of persons protected by Section 1985(3) are African Americans.") (citing Harrison, 766 F.2d at 161-62); Stock v. Universal Foods Corp., 817 F. Supp. 1300, 1310 (D.Md.1993) (dismissing § 1985(3) claim because plaintiff, as a white male, was not a member of a class that has suffered historically pervasive discrimination); Blackmon v. Perez, 791 F. Supp. 1086, 1093 (E.D.Va.1992) (dismissing § 1985(3) claims by white plaintiffs because "plaintiffs do not represent a class of persons who [do] not enjoy the possibility of []effective state enforcement of their rights" (internal quotations omitted))"

Seeing as the judge was not laughed off the bench, you are very clearly incorrect and should probably not make such statements of opinion as if they were fact in the future.

2602:304:CE5F:C290:3DDB:3A5A:8B70:3BA4 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Just A Passing Reader

References

Lede sentence

This case is notable because it was controversial; this should be included in the lede. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It is included: The case evoked varied responses from the media, faculty groups, students, the community, and others. The case's resolution sparked public discussion of racism, media bias, and due process on campuses, and ultimately led to the resignation and disbarment of the lead prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong. What additional information does the word "controversial" convey to the reader that those two sentences don't? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Having followed this case very carefully from Day 1, and having read copious amounts on the topic, my feeling is that it was the controversial aspects which made the news of this case go and stay viral enough that many people followed it closely until resolution. Thus, I suggest we include the word. And I think the very nature of the intensely contrasting postures of the early stage opinion camps is where the heat of the notability for this case arose from. Few cases of false accusations in recent times have stirred up this much controversy. Xerton (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you reply to the question I asked above: what additional information does the word "controversial" convey that's not already there? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the point at issue: Each year that passes, it becomes less and less known to younger adults how much of a ruckus this case was in the national media. And, given the ordinary propensity of the typical reader to want up-front information about long articles, for the more controversial cases we should include that word in the lede; thusly placed, it alerts readers up-front to the fact that this case was a big deal in the news. Xerton (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the point at issue: the word "controversial" is completely devoid of meaning. Controversial to whom? What was controversial? Social Security is controversial, the moon landing is controversial, the New England Patriots are controversial, and fluoride in drinking water is controversial. What meaning does the word convey? Only by explaining why people cared about a charge of false rape in North Carolina do we convey some meaning. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Go read the lede to O. J. Simpson murder case and tell me that trials and cases can't be notable merely because they are notable. They can and some are. Xerton (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I need a new pair of glasses, but I don't see the word "controversial" (or "controversy") in the lead section. Its only appearance in the text is in the "Trial" section, describing not the whole case but a specific decision by the prosecutor that "would prove to be highly controversial". So what exactly was your point? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe you are being intentionally facetious, because at no time did I say that either "controversial" (or "controversy") are in the lede section of that article. But what I did say is that the OJ article lede makes clear that cases which were widely reported in the news ought to be stated as such, in whatever terms are appropriate, in the lede of the article. Xerton (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Silly me. For a week you had argued for the inclusion of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other, I cited the OJ article as an example of the importance of noting such in an article's lede, when a case/trial was very notable in the media. Not all cases make big news, but some do; OJ's did, Duke Lacrosse did, the Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Trial of George Zimmerman - these cases all did. I'd like to see a consistent practice in regards to noting this aspect of the big news cases, up front. In fact, some cases are so (dare I say it?) controversial that the pubic reaction to the outcome literally shapes history, such as how the outcome of the Rodney King case touched off the LA Riots. Xerton (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Was this case proven a false accusation? (According to the sources cited, yes.)

(I have taken the admittedly unusual step to edit the section title because it was highly misleading and frankly attracting the wrong kind of attention. The sources cited by the main article indicate that the Duke lacrosse players were declared legally and factually innocent by North Carolina legal officials, which is as close to absolute proof as is possible to get. As the cited sources stand, the other position is a fringe position. I have, of course, not edited any signed discussion. Belovedeagle (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

It is showing some bias to label this case a "false allegation" because the case was never brought to trial, the charges were dropped. Not enough evidence to prosecute doesn't imply a false accusation. The alleged victim still maintains, even over 10 years later, she was sexually assaulted that night. The case was determined to be unsubstantiated. People BELIEVE the allegations were false. Jayx82 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles report what reliable sources say. Multiple reliable sources characterize Mangum's accusations as false, e.g.:

• Katz, Neil (February 18, 2010). "Crystal Mangum, stripper who falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, charged with attempted murder". CBS News. CBS. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
• Associated Press (November 22, 2013). "North Carolina: Woman in Duke case guilty in killing". The New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
• Yamato, Jen (March 12, 2016). "The stripper who cried 'rape': Revisiting the Duke lacrosse case ten years later". The Daily Beast. Retrieved March 9, 2019.

Reliable sources allow us to avoid arguments about what people believe or don't. In this case, reliable sources say the accusations were false, so that is what this article reports. Lagrange613 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that seems like cherry-picking... I would point out that plenty of reliable sources do not refer to the allegations as "false" but as baseless or unsubstantiated, which is a different category from false accusation. I'm just wondering why the wording "false" was decided on as opposed to unsubstantiated? Is it because the sources use the exact phrase "false accusation" in them? Thank you. Jayx82 (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A source calling the allegations baseless or unsubstantiated would not contradict the multiple sources calling the allegations false. Lagrange613 12:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It does show that the preferred term in the media is not "false accusations". Combining the two (stating that false and unsubstantiated can be seen as the same thing) is OR, specifically WP:SYN. Further, WP:NPOV isn't just about having an RS - just because you can show that some places have said that its false, it doesn't mean that you can put it in the lead. For example, many reasonably reliable sources (including the Australian government) state that chiropractics are a good treatment; however, stating in the lead that its good, while not explicitly contradictory to the truth which is that it's deeply unproven, would give undue weight. While in this situation, it's not quite that obvious that the two are different, it would still be WP:UNDUE or a WP:BALANCE issue to put false in the opening sentence if it is not the majority viewpoint. I believe aiming for balance is why an edit combining both was proposed below. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Jayx82 Thank you for bringing this up. I agree. I do not think the current lede sentence is NPOV. The three citations are also not about the basic story but about much later events. As an alternative lede, may I suggest: The Duke lacrosse case was a widely reported 2006 criminal case in Durham, North Carolina, United States in which three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team were charged with sexual assault. The charges were eventually dropped and are widely accepted as false. Beauxlieux (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Tara Reade's Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden is also a case in which the accuser has largely been discounted but the Wikipedia page does not state that it was a false accusation. I think consistency across these types of cases would be appropriate. Beauxlieux (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

After waiting over a week, I made the lede sentence factual NPOV. The wording is now more in keeping with another case widely recognized as a false accusation and which is listed in the "see also" section: Tawana Brawley rape allegations Beauxlieux (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As the article states, the falsely accused were all declared innocent, that's totally different to cases where charges are dropped, such as due to a lack of evidence, and arguments above discussing such scenarios are utterly irrelevant here. Thus, anyone suggesting this might not be a false rape accusation is completely wrong, particularly in relation to those who were falsely accused. On top of all that, we know the original prosecutor to be a "rogue prosecutor", which is surely the nail in the coffin for any of those attempting to deny reality. I strongly suggest people read the superb book "Until proven innocent" to learn more about the reality of the case, that's by far the best and most comprehensive resource availableShakehandsman (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Above talk shows that there's consensus for the pre-existing lede being NPOV and confirmed by multiple sources. Moreover since the change was accompanied by adding irrelevant information about the history of the victims in this case, I'm a little doubtful about the good faith in this instance, as I would be in a change to any article which adds irrelevant information about victims. I have reverted both changes.(I would support re-changing the lede to remove the fact that the rape accusations were false if the change also added reliable sources that the rape actually occurred. None of the existing RS on this article seem to support that position.) Belovedeagle (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The above talk may show consensus, but this talk is a new one and doesn't have consensus that

Further, could you explain why that's not GF? I agree, it's the wrong place and possibly irrelevant to include, but that's why articles are written by multiple people. The two edits co-occuring also isn't any reason to be suspicious, not only were both adequately described in the edit summary, they were also in separate edits. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Could I request that in this discussion, we use names (or players/lacrosse players for Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann as a group), as that would make it easier to follow the conversation. EG the use of victim is confusing, because both the players and Magnum have been described as victims in sources. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that the players were victims in fact, and Magnum was not. This is perhaps the clearest case in recent public memory of a false accusation which was later proven as far as possible to be false, and to deny this because it's so rare and proof is essentially impossible is perverse. To change the article from correctly pointing out that the accusations were false to anything else is to rewrite history to suit current political objectives, and nothing more. There are, I repeat, no credible sources who even entertain the likelihood of the accusations being anything more than a total fabrication by the perpetrator (who is currently serving a jail sentence for murder), among all credible sources which post-date the discrediting and trial of Mike Nifong. (Sources predating this are generally not reliable as they were tainted by proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt lies by powerful government officials. This is no different from how we would not use sources pre-dating Einstein to say that Newton's theories were correct and general relativity is doubtful because those sources did not describe Newton's theories as incorrect.) It is not NPOV to claim that something which demonstrably, factually, historically did not happen might have happened. To claim that the accusations might be true is essentially no different, as far as NPOV policy goes, from claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen (with apologies for Godwin's law, but I think it's an apt comparison for what the NPOV policy does and does not mean). There are not two positions on the matter to balance between; there is only one position. It may be appropriate to have a "Duke Lacross denialism" page to match Holocaust_denial, if you can find sufficient sources for such (which I claim don't exist), but much like the mentioned parallel such views don't merit a change to the the main article or a "neutral" stance on whether historical facts are real. Belovedeagle (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But to be extremely clear at the expense of repeating myself, my above position is predicated on the overwhelming weight of credible sources - those postdating the discrediting of Nifong and Magnum - giving no credence whatsoever to the claims. If sufficient reliable sources could be shown (with enough credibility weight to be more than a tiny fringe theory) which seriously question whether the claims might have been true after all, then NPOV would of course demand that the article not take a position on the claims. But such sources are not yet quoted by the article, and we should be judging articles based on the sources we have not the sources some editors would like to have in the name of "parallels" to other cases. Belovedeagle (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Considering the North Carolina States Attorney, Roy Cooper, in his official capacity declared the accused students as "Innocent," there doesn't seem to much room for a debate about the whether the accusations are false. An official, legal determination was made, as a matter of legal record. Nifong was disbarred for (among many other things) false statements. Again, a matter of official legal record. The wording should remain as it, and the tag should be removed.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the editors maintaining the fringe position have now been absent for two weeks, I am removing the tag. I am also concerned that the section heading in this talk page is attracting politically motivated editors unfamiliar with the source material quoted in the article like flies to... excrement, so I will reword it in a subsequent edit. Belovedeagle (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Excessively long article, should be reduced by 50%.

Far too long article. Get to the point, 86.156.211.130 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

False title

“Duke lacrosse case” is simply false. Not only were the Duke Three declared innocent by the then-North Carolina Attorney General, and there was never any trial (“case” implies that a trial took place), but it was determined the very night of what career criminal Crystal Gail Mangum put, with the help of corrupt media, a corrupt sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE), corrupt Duke University officials, and a corrupt DA into motion, that this was a hoax.

Just read the report by Durham PD police Sgt. J.R. Shelton on the night of the non-incident. Sgt. Shelton exposed Crystal Gail Mangum as a fraud at the time, and the sergeant paid dearly for it. His police superiors destroyed his life, in retaliation for his telling the truth. Clearly, there are “editors” here, who wish to keep hoax alive.

The proper title would be, The Duke Rape Hoax. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:44B4:87F9:2DA4:14F4 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)