Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 2

She's not an "exotic dancer"
Unless you report escort service ad copy as news, as the mass media seems to be doing. She's an escort, if you want to be polite, or a prostitute if you want to be objective. That's the nature of the gig, folks.


 * In the reduction above, factual content is lost. The victim was not swapping sex for money.  Therefore, equating her with a prostitute is not correct.  Abe Froman 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the most accurate way to describe what happened: she's a stripper who was sent to the party by an escort service. This is the truth, and doesn't imply that she's a prostitute... Valtam 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it has been documented that she had worked for the escort company for a few months, and that this is the first time she stripped for a group. Before this, she had been doing "one on one" escorting about 3 times a week.--ReverendDave 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And this is documented where? Abe Froman 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was in a News Observer article, but the article has expired (or something) so that it is no longer on the web. You can still see it in the Google cache, however. This brings up a question I had (though perhaps this would be more appropriate in a more general forum): how does one deal with references that, while from mainstream media, are temporary? For example, the "one on one" thing may be appropriate for this article, but is obviously controversial enough that an external link is (rightly) demanded. Obviously my say-so that it was in an article that is now gone would not be enough; should one link to the Google cache in that case? On a related note, what about real news articles that one needs to pay to see? I would like to write an article on a particular lady that stole a taxi and tried to run over a cop back in 2002, and I have a link to use as a reference, but one would have to shell out 3 bucks to read it. --ReverendDave 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is documented here: (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/421799.html) in a March 25th article in the News & Observer, which interviewed the woman.
 * The relevant information:


 * The accuser spoke Friday, struggling not to cry as she recounted the events of the early hours of March 14 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., next to Duke's East Campus.


 * It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the victims of sex crimes.


 *  The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week. 
 * "It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule.


 *  This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said. There was no security to protect her, and as the men became aggressive, the two women started to leave. After some of the men apologized for the behavior, the women went back inside, according to police. That's when the woman was pulled into a bathroom and raped and sodomized, police said.


 * How should the article be corrected to reflect this information? Valtam 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In light of the evidence that has been released since the March 25, News & Observer article, you're relying upon extremely dated material. If you read the affidavit of Jarriel Johnson, her "driver," you'll see that most of the time she was a freelance stripper/escort/prostitute who picked up gigs by working Raleigh hotels and Restaurants. Sometimes, as with the Lacrosse team, she got gigs to strip through a Angel Escort Services, but clearly, she was doing more "work" than that. 32 Page PDF

Nature of accusations
In order for NPOV, there should be some mention about the nature of the accusations the escort is making:


 * "There is no current trend of white men raping black women, in other words. In fact, though sample sizes are considered too small to draw any solid conclusions, the most recent figures show that among white rape victims, 15.5 percent of those rapes were perpetrated by blacks, while 0.0 percent of black victims were raped by white males. (Zero in this case is a rounded figure meaning that the total number of black women raped by white men is between 0 and half of 1 percent of the total.)"

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2006/04/19/194220.html


 * "“The NCVS tells us that interracial multiple-offender offenses are even more lopsidedly black than interracial crime as a whole. In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single “white” [including Hispanic]-on-black gang rape.”

http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2006/04/duke_race_and_r.php

If we were writing an article about someone's claims that a large asteroid was going to impact Earth, we'd discuss probabilities and statistics. I see no reason why this case is relevantly different.


 * Safe to say, this is a POV argument being made, and is not suitable for the article. The sources given are opinion pages written with an admitted POV slant.  Abe Froman 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The statements are essentially just regurgitations of FBI crime statistics. That you don't like the facts doesn't make them POV.


 * Furthermore, the sources provided above are not being truthful. From NCVU 2002 , 8,448 blacks were estimated to have been raped by whites.  This is more than "zero," as proffered above.  As Homer Simpson says, "Anyone can find a statistic to prove anything.  14% of all people know that." Abe Froman 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What's your point, that you can't read?:


 * "(Zero in this case is a rounded figure meaning that the total number of black women raped by white men is between 0 and half of 1 percent of the total.)"


 * If we're talking credibility and bias, what makes a race-realist Website run by an anonymous Frenchman more trustworthy than a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel or the New Century Foundation? The latter have made their statements in the public eye and are subject to review by many hostile eyeballs, the former is not.  In any event, I don't see how your quotation contradicts the data I presented; perhaps you should have presented an apple (a percentage) rather than an orange (the raw number 8,448). Edit: it seems determining the percentages from that page isn't even possible, since white on white rapes aren't listed.


 * People love to blurt out that Jared Taylor is a racist and somehow therefore a liar. If he is I wish someone would go ahead and prove it already.  He's a very famous racist and you'd think someone would've debunked his "Color of Crime" by now if it was possible.  Maybe the FBI should step up like men and provide easy public access to the granular data in the NCVS.


 * I have a new quote for you: "anyone who has to quote Homer Simpson has already lost".


 * Here, I dug up the file:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0342.pdf


 * Parker cited it exactly as it is in the report. Now I've done your homework for you.


 * The statistics can be twisted tendentiously either way. It is POV.  Not suitable for the article.  See W:NPOV.  Abe Froman 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "twist" any thing in any direction. I'm presenting the facts.  AS I WROTE ABOVE, an assessment of probability is part of the coverage.  See my asteroid analogy above.


 * What do these percentages prove, exactly? That because some numbers state that white males rarely rape black women, that this could not have happened? Make sense, Mr. Anonymous. PennyGWoods 10:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The numbers speak for themselves. "Rarely" doesn't quite cut it.  Look at the numbers for white-on-black GANG rapes, they're the ones that are truly germane; whites very, very rarely gang-rape black women*.  This is part of the conversation when considering the likelihood that the accuser is telling the truth.


 * It's kind of extraordinary that I have to explain this to you two.


 * * In fact, I'm aware of no news stories covering such an event. I AM aware of a news story covering a hoax version though (Tawana Brawley).  Funny, that coincidence, is it not?  Funny that in that case, too, accusations of white-on-black gang rape became instant national news.


 * If it helps, think in the terms of the Vegas bookie; do you think he's betting on guilt or hoax in this case?


 * A:s I mentioned, your facts mean nothing in THIS case. But yeah, keep holding on to your beliefs that black men are rapists who just have to rape white women because they can't help themselves (loud snickering) and that white men are the gods of this earth, and that black women are nothing but liars. Whatever makes you feel better. PennyGWoods 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The facts are germane.  Her credibility is in question.  If I made a claim that a man shot me, the bullet went through me, did a 180 degree turn and went back through me again, it would make sense to determine the probability.  These facts go to probability.  The odds are astronomical against her story.  Deal with it.  As for your nasty little problem in admitting that blacks are far more prone to rape, both intra and interracial, I'll leave that for you and your therapist.  Maybe you can dream up an economic motive for rape, that way you can pretend poverty causes the black rape epidemic.


 * Don't worry, I won't add these germane facts to the article. God knows I have better things to do than fight the leftist WP cabal.  Anyone with sense knows to check the discussion page anyways.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.246.6 (talk • contribs).


 * Besides, even without the credibility/probability issue, the facts are germane to providing a wider context to the story. It makes perfect sense to include information about interracial rape statistics in a STORY ABOUT INTERRACIAL RAPE, especially with liars like Jesse Jackson around, grabbing microphones and filling people's heads with propaganda about what may or may not have happened between masters and slaves 200 years ago.  Admit it, you just don't like reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.246.6 (talk • contribs).


 * The Powerline website may be a better venue for Anon's beliefs. Wikipedia adheres to policies WP:V and W:NPOV.  The value discussions above are W:POV, tangential to the Duke incident, and therefore not suitable for an encyclopedia.  Abe Froman 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, Abe, you'd have us believe that placing a story in context is "POV". That's a load of tripe.  The fact is, if these players are guilty, the context of the story is "man bites dog".  It isn't "tangential," it's directly relevant for the various reasons I've listed above.  This has nothing whatever to do with "value discussions" and everything to do with the facts of interracial rape.  You simply don't like the facts either, but you're smart enough not to tip your hand like Penny did.


 * At the very least this belongs in an article on interracial rape, which would then be linked into this article for context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.246.6 (talk • contribs).


 * *falling over wheezing with laughter* And why is her creditibility in question? Here's a hint. It's not because she's a black woman. And it's not because they're white men. And it's not because white men don't rape black women or because black men are just running around screaming WHERE DA WHITE WIMMEN AT!?!?!? It's because HER STORY HAS HOLES IN IT.


 * "Admit it, you just don't like reality.


 * Admit it, you just don't like black people. What's your point? Please keep posting! I haven't laughed this hard in days! PennyGWoods 05:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Penny, you do realize that by laughing at gang-rape, you've assassinated your own character, in front of the world...don't you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.121.166 (talk • contribs).


 * Actually, I was laughing at YOU, Mr. Big Bad Anonymous Dude. PennyGWoods 06:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. So, you don't laugh at gang-rape, you just dismiss and ignore it.  I suppose that's an improvement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.121.166 (talk • contribs).


 * Abe, I have a few quotes from the story that seem to fit your working definition of "POV". Could you explain why they don't?


 * "The event has drawn national attention and highlighted racial tensions in the local North Carolina community."


 * "Shortly after the sexual assault allegedly occurred, a woman made a tearful 911 call" [what is a "tearful" call and the evidence for same?]


 * "Finnerty has been arrested before. In Washington, D.C. he was charged with assault after a man told police in November 2005 Finnerty and two friends punched him and called him "gay and other derogatory names." The victim told police that the three men attacked him "for no apparent reason" and left him with a bruised lip and chin. Finnerty agreed to community service as an alternative to harsher sanctions. [9] [10] Seligmann, on the other hand, has no prior criminal record.


 * The house where the alleged assault took place is known for its "Animal House" atmosphere. The police have been called to the house four times since the 2005-2006 school year began. Duke University purchased the property in February and plans to resell it to a homeowner who will not rent the premises to Duke students looking for off-campus housing."


 * Background and criticisms of the accuser [the whole section]


 * Why is any of this relevant? Seems like you have a lot off places to apply your criteria that aren't getting any attention Abe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.150.145.161 (talk • contribs).


 * It seems to me, if these 4 statements can be cited to news articles (google news is the best way I know) they all would appropriate and NPOV for this article. The Background and criticisms of the accuser section, may be an exception. Am I offbase here?
 * Mytwocents 05:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. The 4 passages mentioned above are indeed cited inline with the article, and meet WP:V and W:NPOV.  Anon user did not bother to include the cites with the statements here on the talk page.  The discussion points raised by anon seem to be getting more ideological and less encyclopedic.  I think a political discussion site like Powerline would be a better venue for Anon's beliefs. Abe Froman 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone please explain the repeated references to Powerline? I don't understand them... Thanks...  Valtam 16:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The references are to a political discussion site unconstrained by WP:V and W:NPOV, where Anon's contributions could find a home. Abe Froman 16:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Abe, the facts of interracial rape are not "ideological," they're facts. The fact is that a white-on-black gang rape is alleged to have occurred, and that such a crime is extraordinarily rare.  That is the context of this allegation.  Please cite me the portions of the NPOV page that you think relevant.  As for verifiability, the facts are eminently verifiable - they come via the FBI's NCVS via the New Century Foundation's "The Color of Crime".  There is even a tacit admission of sorts from the SPLC that the facts in TCoC are unimpeachable (at least, a previous version of TCoC), since the SPLC argues only context, not the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.121.166 (talk • contribs).

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams081899.asp

Walter Williams attests to the veracity of the 1998 TCoC:

"Some of the study's findings about interracial crime were surprising, so much so that I did an independent verification of the numbers."

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to TCoC, and in a way suggesting its authority (alongside publications from law enforcement agencies, the ADL, etc.):

http://ncjrs.gov/spotlight/Hate_Crimes/publications.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.145.121.166 (talk • contribs).

Naming Problem
The omission of the accused names makes this article hard to read at points. All names should be included, including that of the accuser. Her name is already readily available in the media as it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.125.205 (talk • contribs).

>>>A related point, what is the most appropriate way to refer to ++++++ in the article? I can see from the debate that here name is not to be used until her name is reported in the media by someone other than Tom Leykis. Although I admit that it comes as a suprise that he is not considered a 'reputable' source. Google him. His primary claim to fame is 'outing' high-profile rape accusers to make a policical point. Most of his wider press coverage is related to this controversial (yet legal) use of his radio show. Perhaps the name shouldn't be used in the article because of WP:OFFICE fiat, fine, I can live with that. However I am not convinced that the WP:V argument holds water. But I digress.....what is an appropriate NPOV word for her? My personal favorite is 'accuser'. Neutral, only possible problem is it looks a lot like 'accused'. 'Alleged victim' seems accurate, but a bit clunky and it gets repetative. 'Victim' is also popular (perhaps as shorthand for 'alleged victim') but it seems a bit too pro-++++++ POV, as it implies the specific guilt of the accused, and an assumption that a rape had actually occurred. Yes, there is some evidence that a rape may have occurred, but it is not an established fact. Thus, I will generally edit away 'victim' labels on sight. Anonymous User May 3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.71.254.2 (talk • contribs).


 * This has been discussed already, on this very page. Not sure why a new section was created for the same topic.  Abe Froman 17:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>Not sure either, but that discussion was very long and complicated. My editing skills are brutal. Didn't want to put my text in there and accidentally mangle the thread. Until we can use her name (and it may be soon, it seems that someone recently posted an actual radio citation for ++++++'s name)...what is the most clear, NPOV title for her? 'accuser'? 'alleged victim'? something else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.71.254.2 (talk • contribs).


 * Removed Alleged Accuser Name. This was subject to Office action recently.  A search of Google News, representing 4,500+ third-party news sources, returns zero hits on the name Leykis' claims. WP:V is unmet for the following reasons:
 * From the official WP:V policy:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
 * Tom Leykis, by his own admission, is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy, as proven above. Please do not post the name based on Leykis' sourcing until the policy above is met. Abe Froman 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Tuesday May 16 on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC program, The Situation, he upset one viewer by giving the name of the accuser according to one viewer on the TVHeads Message Board but I am not sure if that would qualify putting her name in the article since Carlson is a pundit and not an objective journalist despite the fact his show airs on a cable newschannel. Zdunne 13:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

Personally, I see no reason why having a sentance along the lines of "Notable raido shock jock Tom Leykis, has gained notoriety for releasing the names of high profile rape victims in the past, has stated that the accusers name is xxx." A sentance like that says nothing about whether that actually is the name or not, just that Leykis reported it, and a link to the mp3 of the show recording is all you need to satisfy WP:V. Sure, it may be journalistic ethics not to release the name of a rape victim, but the fact is Wikipedia is not Censored for stuff that may be offensive to some users. And in my opinion, having this article, but trying to skirt around the fact that posting her name may not be eithical or may be offensive to some people is leaving out an important part of the news story in my opinion. It's not illegal to release the name, just contrary to most journalistic ethics. But IMO, trying to avoid it doesn't give all the facts in the case, which i feel wikipedia should try and do. demeteloaf (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom Leykis, by his own admission, is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy. Abe Froman 05:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise that he says that, and I agree with you that it would would clearly be unverifiable and incorrect to say "The accuser's name is..." and cite Tom Leykis as your source for that claim. However, I think it is very relavent and definitely verifiable to say that  "Tom Leykis has claimed that the accusers name is..." "He is known for uncovering promenent rape victims names, such as in the Kobe Bryant case."  Personally, I don't see how you can claim it's not verifiable to say that A) Leykis made the claim and B) Leykis was correct before.  I view both those statements as very verifiable, and relavent to the case.  And, if more info comes out on her name, the article can be edited as appropriate. demeteloaf (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Using points A and B above would allow a Wikipedia editor to say shock-jock Orson Welles 1933 broadcast of War of the Worlds was true, and martians did invade New Jersey. WP:V policy exists for to prevent similar self publicised, unreferenced nonsense from creeping into Wikipedia.  Self-publication by a non-journalist does not make the claim reputable.  I also recollect the prior Leykis outings occurred after those prosecutions had been settled or resolved, and verifiable information had become available.  This Duke situation is not resolved.  4,500 news sources on Google News fail to confirm Leykis' self publicised allegations.  This issue is a non-starter until a reputable source confirms his alleged name in all details.  Abe Froman 06:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But by your logic, we're not allowed to mention that Orson Wells did a radio drama of the War of the Worlds, because whether or not martians did invade or not isn't verifiable. However, because I think that example is a bit too much on the side of a straw man argument, I'll find a better one on wikipedia.  For instance, Specifically citing that tabloids are claiming that paris hilton and Leonardo DiCaprio have a relationship  If I were to say "Paris Hilton and Leonardo DiCaprio are much more intimate than just friends" and cite the National Enquirer as a source, people would laugh and edit it out for being not verifiable.  Yet it's completely fine to say that "In 2000, the National Enquirer reported a casual friendship with Leonardo DiCaprio as something far more intimate." Because that is clearly something verifiable and relavent to the article.  In the same way, the statement that "Tom Leykis has claimed that the accusers name is xxx" is completely verifiable and relevant to the article, IMO.  Secondly, Leykis' outing of Katelyn Kristine Faber occured much in the same way as this one, while the "repudiable news media" were upholding journalistic ethics, and not releasing the name, Leykis was among the first, if not the first, to publicly release the name, and it was well before the dispute was resolved.  demeteloaf (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * demeteloaf makes an incorrect comparison. Leykis does not even rise to a tabloid level, as suggested.  He is a self-publisher according to WP:V.  Not even so much as a tabloid has printed his allegations.  That renders this latest argument moot.  Until reputable sources meeting WP:V publish the rest of the alleged name, we cannot.  Abe Froman 11:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how that's an incorrect comparsion. Tabloid newspapers are sources of dubious repute, at best, yet whoever wrote the article felt the information was important enough to be placed in the article, so they specifically cited that a tabloid made the claim and left it up to the reader to decide about its truth.  The statement that "Tom Leykis claimed the accuser's name is xxx" is in the same category.  Sure Leykis may not be a respected journalist, but he has been right in the past, and there is nothing wrong with mentioning what he says, and specifically citing it to him. At no point is the article making any claim about whether the name is correct, it's just saying that Leykis said that.  The way it is now, with the blurb about Leykis, yet forcing readers to go to The page on Tom Leykis to actually get the name is confusing and needlessly hiding information from readers of this article.


 * I know it may seem crass and contrary to a lot of journalistic ethics to post the name on wikipedia, but as it clearly says in the guidelines, Wikipedia is not censored to be tasteful to everyone. There is nothing illegal about naming an alledged rape victim, and hiding behind WP:V as the reason why we shouldn't do so is IMO, rediculous.  There is nothing whatsoever not verifiable about it when you phrase it a statement as "Leykis has stated..." and leave it up to the reader to decide the veracity of the claim. demeteloaf (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And on and on. We both know WP:V is violated.  Until a reputable source says the full name, we cannot "help" by printing it ourselves.  Try Google News, 4,500 news sources easily searchable.  Look at the talk on this page and in the archive. This discussion has been had before, and the conclusions have not changed.  Abe Froman 18:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between claiming that the accuser's name definitively is something, and making a statement about what someone has said. I honestly fail to see How the statement that "Tom Leykis has claimed that the accusers name is xxx" is any less varifiable as the statement that " The name [Tucker Carlson] gave was 'Crystal.' No supporting documents were used to back up this claim..."  Which is a sentance currently in the article.  Both of these sentances are making no claim as to fact about the accusers identity, are verifiable, (a link to an mp3 of leykis' show, and a link to a transcript of Carson's show are all that's needed to verify it), and relavent to the article.  I just honestly fail to see how you can make a claim that the statement that "Leykis has claimed the name is..." isn't verifiable. demeteloaf (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tucker Carlson is a journalist and has a television news show on MSNBC. Leykis, on the other hand, is not a journalist.  He admits as much himself.  The reason the alleged first name is in the article is because Tucker Carlson used it, as a transcript cited in the article verifies.  It meets WP:V.  I hope this is making more sense, now.  Abe Froman 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's not. As it is right, now the article basically says "Both Carlson and Leykis have stated the accuser's alledged name on air, but we can only tell you what Carlson said, and not Leykis, because Carlson is a 'repudiable journalist,' and Leykis is not."  That seems rediculous if you ask me.  What Leykis said on air is just as verifyable as what Carlson said on air.  And to me, it seems inane to basically have the article say, "Leykis has claimed the accuser's name is something on air, but we can't tell you what, go look it up on your own!!"  If people feel Leykis' comments have relevance in this case (which they plainly do, as it was edited in long before i got here, and the name he gave is listed on Tom Leykis's page) his actual comments shouldn't be censored because he may not be "a repudiable journalist," they should be stated with the caveat that his comments are unconfirmed and possibly incorrect, and leave it up to the reader to decide.


 * I'm really wondering what part of the statement "Tom Leykis has revealed the accuser's alledged name on air as Crystal Gail Mangum, although because of journalistic ethics, repudiable news sources have not published the accuser's name" you think is not verifyable by giving a link to the mp3 recording of the show. Because to me, nothing whatsoever is "Not Verifyable" about that sentance at all.  He clearly did reveal the name, and Personally, i feel that revalation has relavence on this article. demeteloaf (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Although I like how there are now more sections and such, several pieces of important information have been deleted (namely the mentioning of the lack of DNA evidence) and the timeline seems not as informative. Likewise, there are numerous more NPOV problems with the wording (i.e. She was then dragged instead of she was the allegedly dragged). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluedog423 (talk • contribs).

>>>Perhaps the article needed a cleanup, but the current incarnation needs quite a bit of work in the POV (and proofreading!)department. The current wording has an unmistakable pro-[accuser]] feel. A) "Reputational attacks on the victim" as a heading describing the defense strategy. (edited) B) The removal of all information (timestamped party photographs, ATM receipts/photos, flawed lineup procedure) which have thrown [the accuser's]] accusations into question, while "The McFadyen Death-Email" remains. (no time to add this info) C) Now [the accuser] is 'a performer'? This may leave folks with the impression that she was there to merely peform magic tricks or something. Don't think it benefits anyone to intentionally obscure the seedy nature of her employment at the party. (will probably edit this later) Anonymous User, May 3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.71.254.2 (talk • contribs).


 * (response to Bluedog423:) I haven't closely compared the two versions, but I think I agree. Catstail, thanks for all the work you are putting into this article.  But you are making some substantive changes.  Could you outline for us what your main goals are in your cleanup?  Thanks.  --Allen 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the relevant - escort/stripper information. I feel this is clearly relevant, as  the accuser is implying that while she was accustomed to one-on-one meetings as an escort, this was the first time she was to perform in front of a large group of people, and may not have been prepared for the occasion, psychologically or otherwise.  As this information came from the accuser herself, it clearly is relevant, as it shows her state of mind on that evening to some degree Valtam 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Anonymous User's point B) above, is there a reason why information the party photos, ATM receipts and photos and non-procedure lineup is no longer in the article? Someone should add this relevant information back in... Valtam 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a standard of using British or American spelling? I don't what Wikipedia says about this. I noticed that Catstail has changed some of the American spelling to be British. I would think it would make more sense to use American spelling since this article is about something in the U.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluedog423 (talk • contribs).


 * Wikipedia is neutral on the issue of Commonwealth/American spelling of words. However, in articles that are specific to the USA, American spelling is used, and vice versa for English articles.  So feel free to change it to American spelling. --tomf688 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on deleting other users comments on the talk page
What is it? A number of users' comments (including my own) have been deleted from the talk page. What is the Wikipedia policy on this? Valtam 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User's comments should not be deleted unless there is a valid reason. --tomf688 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See top of talk for explanation. I leave it to the admins.  Abe Froman 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am new here, but I must interject that deleting the name on the talk page seems a bit odd. While you cling to WP:V like a life-raft, those objections do not justify censoring a talk page.  I recognize that your intentions are good, and I think that we should have a real discussion about whether a rape victims name should be mentioned anywhere (talk pages or articles), but, failing a consensus view to the contrary, the free and open exchange of information must be our objective.  I recognize that this is not an easy issue, but I cannot support censoring a talk page without community consensus supporting it, and that is something that clearly does not exist. Rjm656s 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Our policy is not to publish the unverified names of rape victims (or anything else unverified for that matter, with particular attention paid to situations where legal difficulties may result). It's no more correct to publish those names on the talk pages than it is to publish them in the articles. There's no reason to use her name here, as discussing whether to publish her name does not require that we use that name: in fact, the use of the name here on the talk page has been a quite transparent attempt to circumvent our verifiability rules. When her name is published by the reputable press, it will be published here.  - Nunh-huh 06:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming The Victim Based on Tom Leykis Sourcing

 * From the official WP:V policy:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
 * Tom Leykis, by his own admission, is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy, as proven above. Please do not post the name based on Leykis' sourcing until the policy above is met. Abe Froman 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

<<<Abe Froman, please refrain from editing my talk comments, especially if you do it in a way that mangles the English language. I have provided a Chicago Tribune citation that clearly states that the name of the Duke accuser was correctly disclosed. I reinserted under 'Publication of accuser' '''On April 21, outspoken radio host Tom Leykis disclosed the name of the rape accuser during his nationally syndicated program. Leykis was unapologetic, stating "Protecting the identity of a victim--I mean alleged victim--as the media continues to do is a dopey, antiquated rule the Internet has rendered meaningless."''' followed by a Chicago Tribune link. This disclosure is NPOV statement of fact, and is verifiable. Newpaper policy prevents them from printing the actual name, but this link does clearly establish the credibility of Leykis' April 21, on-air statements. You may dispute the printing of her actual name (which I have NOT done in this article, despite Abe's dishonest claims to the contrary), but the statement I have bolded clearly belongs. Further, your editorializing which implies that he did not correctly identify ++++++ ++++++ are without citation, and directly contradicts the verifiable source I have provided. Citationless editorialization by Abe Froman removed. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0604280203apr28,0,6615328.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.128.186.214 (talk • contribs).


 * So we are clear, I removed the unsupported victim name from the commentary. A violation of WP:V had been documented and discussed, beforehand.  The article has been edited to include Leykis' allegation.  In present form, the Leykis passage does not violate WP:V.  The passage also mentions that, so far, Leykis is alone in making this allegation.  Abe Froman 23:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

<<<Perhaps almost there, but your implication that Leykis is making an unsubstantiated allegation is incorrect and does not belong. The Chicago Tribune citation clearly states, "Days after revealing to a nationwide listening audience the name of the female accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case, radio shock jock Tom Leykis apologizes for nothing." Nowhere in the citation is any ambiguity on the part of Leykis indicated. Therefore I am, again, removing any phrases which imply an incorrect or uncertain disclosure of information. After all, the name is out there, and the name wouldn't be MP:OFFICE if it wasn't correct. It would just be deleted. However, your final statement regarding 'outing has not been confirmed by the news media', is factually correct and backed up within the citation, which states "It is the Tribune's policy to refrain from naming alleged rape victims." Therefore that qualifier should remain. Anonymous User, May 4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.128.186.214 (talk • contribs).

I'm restoring my comments which were vandalized by Abe Froman aka Brian@popflux. There is obviously no violation of WP:V, which clearly states: ''Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page.'' WP:V states that discussions of sourcing are to take place on the talk page - therefore, this is the appropriate place to discuss the sourcing.

Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, according to Talk page guidelines, is, and I quote, '''Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing or deleting your own words is up to you.'''

As per WP:TPG, I am restoring my vandalized, deleted comments:

Quick question: is it spelled ++++++ or ++++++? Valtam 18:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>++++++ ++++++ ++++++. The word does play with your eyes though...seen it misspelled that way in a few places. Anonymous User, May 3

Please let us stop the vandalism of this talk page! Valtam 23:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of baying, today. The passage in question currently conforms to WP:V.  Enjoy.  Abe Froman 00:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Baying or no, we have to decide whether we are going to follow Wikipedia guidelines, or not. WP:V says, "Take it to the talk page" if there are issues on sourcing.  WP:TPG prohibits editing or deleting other users' comments.  If these guidelines are offensive to you, Brian/Abe, then you should consider advocating for their amendment.  Valtam 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that banned user User:Amorrow should not be editing Wikipedia from any IP address. - Nunh-huh 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way I understand it is that since Leykis was the one who mentioned the name, that the name can still continue to appear in his article and talk pages. -EmiOfBrie 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this page, Nunh-huh!
As per WP:TPG, editing or deleting another user's comments on a talk page is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Please cease and please refrain from doing so in the future! Valtam 15:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Naming the victim was subject to office action last week. Since Valtam is new to Wikipedia, he/she/it should review what this means.  Removing the victim's name from this discussion is advisable, because a clear case of WP:V is documented on this page.  At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name bandied about.  If it cannot be verified, it should not be irresponsibly placed on the page.  Anon and new Wikipedians, see WP:V.  Abe Froman 16:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please demonstrate the clear case of WP:V. If you review the three points to the WP:V policy, unless you are being obtuse, you can see they refer to ARTICLES, not TALK PAGES.  Brian/Abe : I have already quoted WP:V regarding this matter, but in case you missed it, the relevant language is: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence..."  I put the important bits in bold, for your convenience.  I am trying to assume good faith, but I am getting the impression you are trying to highjack the WP:V to create a brand new policy, Brian/Abe.
 * In any case, WP:TPG forbids the editing (and removal) of other editors' comments on talk pages, with no exceptions. Therefore, please refrain from further violations of WP:TPG.  Thank you.  Valtam 17:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The violation of WP:V has been documented in multiple places in this Talk Page. Try reading it.

From WP:V "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
 * Tom Leykis, by his own admission, is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy, as proven above. Please do not post the name based on Leykis' sourcing until the policy above is met. Abe Froman 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read it. Have you?  If you are referring to a violation of WP:V in the ARTICLE, then we are in agreement that the standards of WP:V has not yet been met as per the article.  However, by defintion, there is no standard of verifiability on TALK PAGES - WP:V on its face does not apply to them.  This should be clear, but in case it is not, discussions of matters relating to WP:V] in an article on an article's TALK PAGE are NOT subject to WP:V.  As always, WP:TPG governs contents of talk pages.  Is that clear enough?  I hope so... Valtam 18:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unsure what Valtam is ranting about. Take a deep breath, and continue to contribute to Wikipedia.  Remember, agf.  Abe Froman 18:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not intended as a rant and I apologize if it comes across this way. This is what happened:
 * 1. My comments on a talk page were at times deleted and/or edited by other editors.
 * 2. This behavior is a clear violation of Talk page guidelines.
 * 3. References were made to Verifiability to justify these edits and deletions, but WP:V does not allow edits of other users' comments on talk pages - it allows editing and deleting only on article pages.
 * 4. Therefore, WP:TPG governs - editing or deleting other users' comments on a talk page is unacceptable on Wikipedia.
 * 5. Not everyone understand WP:TPG and I'm trying to educate them.
 * Again, apologies if this seems like a rant.
 * Valtam 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (not that it matters, but I'm a 'he')

Rape shield laws
I started rape shield law to see if we can sort the issues out there. -- Qwertypro3 06:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I see that FloNight has already chimed in on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence -- Qwertypro3 07:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

taxi driver, and more info
I looked at that news report that Bluedog just cited. It also has this quote from the taxi driver: "The detective asked if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case," Elmostafa said. "When I said no, they took me to the magistrate." This quote seems more central to this article than the details of the crime Elmostafa is charged with, so I'm replacing that info with this quote. Feel free to revert me. The info about the purses isn't completely irrelevant, I'm just trying to keep things brief in the interest of encyclopedic-ness. (encyclopedicality? encyclopedicism?)

The Herald-Sun is also reporting that the private-lab DNA results have come back with an incomplete match between DNA under the accuser's false fingernails and the third (unnamed) suspect, the one she IDed from the photo lineup with 90% accuracy. I'm not adding this info to the article, because I'm undecided as to whether we should wait for more complete info.

--Allen 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also removing the last paragraph of this same section, about Kim Roberts. According to the News-Observer source, these are just things that the defense lawyer said, not necessarily uncontested facts.  If the defense lawyer had been clearer about his accusation here (or if the News-Observer had been clearer in reporting it), then it might be notable as the defense lawyer's claim.  But the source paragraph is so vague I think we should leave this part out pending a clearer citation.  (The source quote is, "[Seligmann's defense lawyer] contrasted the treatment of the taxi driver with that of Kim Roberts, the other dancer at the party. Conner said Roberts initially told police no rape occurred at the party but changed her story after she was arrested on a probation violation. District Attorney Mike Nifong later reduced Roberts' bail.")  --Allen 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind, and included the info about the possible partial DNA match. --Allen 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not semi-protected
Surprisingly, although the protection log shows no sign of it, the article is not semi-protected. I removed sprotect. If this is not supposed to happen, please reprotect the article. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Media variance
I find it particularly interesting that with the release of the second round of DNA tests, media headlines vary greatly. From something like "DNA shows no link to any player" to "DNA may link lax players." ESPN who uses the AP report uses the headline "Defense: DNA tests show no link to Duke lacrosse." On the other hand, the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, who writes their own three paragraphs, headlines it with "Report: DNA link possible for third Duke player." Yahoo! Sports, which uses the AP article, says "Defense attorney: Second set of DNA tests show no link to Duke lacrosse players." The Seattle-Post Intelligence says "2nd DNA test shows no conclusive match," which seems more of a middle ground. The Durham Herald Sun says "2nd DNA Test Shows No Conclusive Match." ABC NEWS says "New DNA Results Don't Link Duke Players to Rape Accuser, Lawyer Says." In any event, I just it was important to repeat to everybody that news organizations, try as they might, cannot be completely unbiased, as seen by the fact that with the same information the headlines vary greatly. Take the news with a critical eye. Bluedog423

After looking through a myriad of articles including the ones talked about by the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review (Charlotte Observer, Durham Herald-Sun, ABC News and WRAL-TV), I cannot find another source besides the Pittsburgh-Tribune that says the DNA shows some similar characteristics to the third player and that he might be indicted on Monday. Someone please show me. If nobody can find it, this piece of information should be deleted, but I am probably just missing it. Bluedog423

Ok, continuing the conversation with myself I found one example where they say it may link to one of the players. But it doesn't say the "third" player (whom she id'ed with 90% certainty). "The Herald-Sun reported Thursday that, according to well placed sources, a preliminary report from a private laboratory concluded the tissue came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of the players who attended a March 13 off-campus party" Bluedog423


 * Hi Bluedog. I was the one who added the thing about the DNA linking to the 90% guy... it was from here.  Down toward the bottom, it says,

"Nifong said earlier he was pursuing the possibility of another indictment, although reports indicated the dancer was able to identify a third person with only 90 percent certainty. WRAL-TV, citing a transcript of the photo identification session the dancer had with police, reported Wednesday that she indicated a fourth player also may have been involved in assaulting her. Tissue found under the dancer's fingernails was consistent with the third man's DNA pattern, sources told The Herald-Sun on Wednesday."


 * But this article was one of the very first reports on the subject, based on unnamed sources. So if the link between the DNA and the 90% player isn't being repeated by other sources since then, I think it makes sense to take it out.  --Allen 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

name stuff
Since the article already mentions that Tom Leykis gave out a name, and says that no other reputable news source has confirmed it, shouldn't it at least give out what he alleged the name was? As it's currently written, it's more vague than it could be, and it'd be easy to add in what he alleged without violating WP:V. Vore  tus   the Benevolent  16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been exhaustively covered above. The answer remains the same.  Abe Froman 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything about this matter above. All I see is discussion on whether it is proper to publish her name in the article as fact, which I agree with, as no other journal has confirmed the name due to media standards. It would add information to the article if we added in the information as alleged by Leykis, however, since that blurb is in there already. Vore  tus   the Benevolent  16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal#Is_it_right_to_name_the_alleged_victim.3F on this page. Abe Froman 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem conclusive. Most of what I see there is you objecting to people adding in the name! The discussion there has pretty much a consensus that the name should not be written in as a fact, but I am not talking about that! I am talking about adding in what Leykis SAID the name was, while mentioning, as the article already does, that it has not been verified. Vore  tus   the Benevolent  17:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding in what Leykis says. I believe that the way it is worded is sufficient to show that the information is not verified. Vore  tus   the Benevolent  19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted; the way it was worded is not supported by the source given. The source neither provides the name Leykis gave, nor questions whether the name was correct.  --Allen 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good call.  Voretus  should know better.  The problems with WP:V cited at length in this Talk page have yet to be resolved.  Leykis, by his own admission, is not a journalist.  His self-published allegations do not meet WP:V
 * From WP:V
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
 * Abe Froman 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem with verifiability. It's stating that Tom Leykis, who is mentioned in the article, said that it was miss ++++++! Leykis gave that name during his April 21st show, and the article should say so, without saying whether or not Leykis was correct! I don't see the problem. Vore  tus   the Benevolent  23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://podcast.1069freefm.com/kifr1/8882.mp3 Here is the source of the show where he named who he believes to be the accuser. It is verifiable that he named the accuser on his show. Once again, I do not see the problem. Vore  tus   the Benevolent  23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned above that a poster on TVHeads message board had stated she heard MSNBC host Tucker Carlson mention the accuser's name on his program but I am not sure if that warrants inserting the accuser's name in the article despite the fact he is not Tom Leykis though he is a commentator and not an objective journalist. Here is the link to the transcript in which I think Carlson mentions the name of the accuser but it only appears to be the first name and not the last one, if I have the wrong transcript tell me. . Zdunne  13:47 19 May 2006 (UTC).

Voretus, I see where you are coming from, but just give up. Your revisions have been reverted like 10 times. If somebody really wants to know the alleged victim's name, he or she can easily find it. They just have to look on this talk page! Or google search it and tons of blogs have disseminated the name. Personally, I think the name shouldn't be mentioned on this page for the mere fact that it sets a bad precedent for future rape victims whom may not report the rape for fear of being named. That's pretty much the logic of most news organizations. But, in any event, the name isn't all the important. It doesn't contribute anything to the article. In my opinion, neither does naming the indicted individuals - do I really care what their names are? No. I do, however, care about the background, evidence supporting their innocence/guilt, etc. But their names are inconsequential. Although the alleged victim's name is not revealed, other information about her that seems more pertinent to the case is included in this article. Having the name doesn't really give more of a full picture of this incident, and anybody with an ounce of brains can find the name. Ok, that is all. User:Bluedog423


 * I still feel that this is an instance of users trying to instill their own ethics/morals onto wikipedia. According to official policy, Wikipedia is not censored to conform to social or ethical norms.  There is no law against stating her name anywhere, it's just considered unethical to report it in the mainstream press. As it is right now, the article basically says "Tom Leykis gave a name out, but you need to look it up yourself if you want to find it."  To me, that seems needlessly complex and witholding information for no reason.  If it's relevant to the article that Leykis gave out a name (and i feel it is), what name he gave out should be included in the article as well.  The only actual policy reason that people are citing as for why it shouldn't be in there is WP:V, which frankly seems rediculous to me.  The fact that he gave out a name, and what name he gave out are completely verifiable.  It would be unverifiable to make a claim along the lines of "The accusers name is..." but a statment "Tom Leykis, a noted radio shock jock, publicly stated that the accuser's name was..." is completely verifiable, and personally i believe relevant to the article.  demeteloaf (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the same vein, Orson Welles was also a noted radio shock jock. Can we begin reporting that martians have landed in new jersey and use shock jock Orson Welles as the citation?  Review WP:V and WP:CITE.  These two policies exist for very good reasons.  Namely, keeping nonsense out of Wikipedia.  Abe Froman 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but it would be perfectly correct to say "Orson Wells has reported that martians landed in new Jersey, although whether or not they have landed is still unconfirmed," and add link to a broadcast of him reporting it as a citation for that completely verifiable fact, if you felt that fact was relevant to whatever article you were writing. According to you, you wouldn't be allowed to mention that Wells reported the martians landing, because we don't know whether or not they actually did land.  In this article, we're not making any claims about whether the name given actually is or is not her real name, we're just saying what Leykis has reported, which is completely verifiable and relevant to the article. demeteloaf (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not a bibligraphy of every Tom, Dick, and Jane's pet allegations. Following WP:V and WP:CITE keeps crank, unverified allegations out of Wikipedia.  That is why they are official policy.  Abe Froman 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However, if people feel that the allegations are relevant to the article and notable (which, in this case, they are, as evidenced by the fact that nobody wants to remove the whole Tom Leykis section), there is nothing wrong with including them, and specifically saying that they are only allegations. As it is right now, the article says "Tom Leykis has made allegations regarding the victim's name." When i read that section, i naturally think... "okay, what were the allegations."  The fact is, if it's notable, verifiable, and relevant that Tom Leykis made allegations regarding the victim's name, there is no reason why the actual allegations he made shouldn't be included.  Not including the name he gave is witholding relevant information to the article, and trying to instill your own ethics onto wikipedia. demeteloaf (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Time reference & citations
The section "Defense questions the district attorney's actions" contains the sentence, "In the last several weeks, however, Nifong has refused to talk to the media." There is no citation, and it not at all clear what "In the last several weeks" means. Does anyone have a citation on this? JPMcGrath 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometime between March 31 and April 10 is the answer according to http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/427243.html That's as specific as I could find.

What about the $400,000 bail? Shouldn't that be included along with other comparable cases since it was so unusually high. What about Nifong going to UNC Law? What about a link to Evans speech video?

(first time-er here just bringing up stuff I didn't see, hope it helps not hinders)

Bail was recently reduced to $100,000, and neither number is unusually high for a first degree rape case. Remember that Rape 1 is the second most serious offense under NC law, ahead of Murder 2 and behind Murder 1. In theory, the only determinants on how high bail is set is based on two factors: the severity of the crime and the flight risk by a defendant. It doesn't consider the likelihood of guilt or innocence, since all bail money is returned to a defendant at the end of the trial (assuming the defendant shows at every hearing) - regardless of a conviction. There are no official limits and the exact amount is determined by the discretion of the presiding judge, since there are no laws and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of bail amounts. In most rape and murder cases, bail is set extraordinarily high in order to keep a suspect in jail through the course of trial - while the morality of this may indeed be debateable, it is standard practice. Nifong went to UNC Law, and that should probably be mentioned on his page as part of a biography, but I don't know if it's relevant to the case. There's no documented evidence that his choice of law school has influenced the case, or that UNC's education has made him unfit for his job. If you're referring to the Duke-UNC rivalry, you should probably understand that graduate and professional students tend to live in a different realm from undergrads. Undergrads are college kids - they mostly live on campus, are full time students, and are still supported by their parents. Graduate students are adult professionals, often with families of their own, taking classes in order to advance their careers. -- Josh

>>>Thanks for the detailed reponse to my questions Josh. I had no idea the bail was reduced, that makes more sense to me now but also makes me even more suspicious of original intentions with the original 400,000 bail. Either way I guess we will never know. I was refering to the UNC Law thing as yet another interesting tidbit in this whole mess. Seems as though there are a million things going on in this case between the accuser and the DA that are just 'weird' for lack of a better word and the fact that DA went to UNC Law is just another. Also it is interesting to note that during the gang related violence threats towards the students all cars travelling in front of the lacrosse house were stopped and searched for weapons by police officers. It was "gang initiation night" in durham and the Police recieved many tips that the house and/or duke students would be the target of the initiation rituals. At some time there was also a bomb threat to the duke police department. dukechronicle.com has good day to day information on the topic. Again...hope this helps


 * Snopes has relevent material on the aformentioned gang initiation content Abe Froman 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that Snopes article doesn't mention the Duke case at all. Can you be more specific as to how an urban legend about flashing headlights relates to this?


 * The talk above insinuates targeting white students is a black gang initiation rite. As Snopes reports, this is an urban legend being refashioned for the Duke circumstances.  Abe Froman 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd call that speculative at best. It's purely original research on your part.  Again, the Snopes article you're citing doesn't mention the Duke case at all.

References / MOS
Hi there, I've altered the size of the references to use the class "references-small". I didn't see any debate about the apperance, so I went ahead and made the change. If there is a reason for keeping them biger, feel free to revert me. Just trying to help out without stepping on toes :-) -- light darkness (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected?
I don't see a "sprotected" tag, but this talk page should be open to anons. Someone figure it out please.

Reversions
I have had to revert this article twice in the last 24 hours because of people removing huge chunks of information. I will continue to do so! ---Julien Deveraux

Why would the accuser be lying?
What motive has the accuser to invent these charges? Why lie some women about being raped? Strange world.
 * http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson131.html
 * http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,199358,00.html

--Der Eberswalder 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what those previous two passages contribute to the discourse, other than highlighting innovative new ways to be a thoughtful racist. Abe Froman 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Brian, I fail to see why your only defense is to start a personal attack and accuse a fellow editor of being a racist. Be nice to others, yeah?

Right, I should have provided a better link http://cornell.elliottback.com/archives/2006/04/19/duke-rape-scandal/ There is no evidence that a rape occured, and the accuser has a history of false accusation. What has this to do with racism? Ok, the DA Nifong plays the racism card to get "the black vote" for reelection, but beside of that, no trace of racism. --Der Eberswalder 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They are op-ed's. Save them for the blogs.  Abe Froman 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, should be counter-sued for defamation of character. I hope that happens.  RFerreira 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * victim advocates say that victim's account of the story may change a couple times due to trauma from the attack, although in my opinion, it seems as though she have changed her story too many times. I just hope everyone gets a fair and speedy trial. mirageinred 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

TAWANA BRAWLEY

I removed the Current sport event Current sport event "This article documents a current sports-related event" templete
I think if you have the templete you don't need the  templete.I don't think this really anthing to do with sports.--Scott3

== The lead should make some mention of the heavy criticism of the case's prosecution.

Sex crimes?
I have removed the "sex crimes" category because, so far, no one has been convicted. Shouldn't we wait until someone has been convicted before we include the category? Many people believe that Mangum is lying abou the whole thing. For neutrality's sake, therefore, we should include the category "hoaxes" along with "sex crimes"; the best option, in my view, is to leave all such categories out until the trial has ended. LaszloWalrus 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. -Bluedog423Talk 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag still needed?
The article has been pretty stable for months. Is the 'neutrality disputed' tag still necessary? Valtam 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As there no objections, I'm going to remove the tag. Valtam  18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

timeline shortened
the judge denied a motion for bill of particulars asking Nifong to fix which version of events defendants would face at trial but he did offer that rape took from 5 to 10 minutes but had just seemed longer. Best Wishes Will314159 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Background of the Accuser
I think that this page should be updated to also include a section named 'Background of the Accuser', including having a picture of her. The details revealed so far of this 'scandal' have now progressed far enough to where her actions that night are highly questionable. To maintain NPOV I think that all info concerning the accuser should be consolidated in its own section. Duke53 | Talk 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No it should not. We should NOT be publicly naming sexual assault victims before the cases go to trial, nor should we be digging into their background. Better yet, the page naming the accuser needs to be DELETED post-haste. Wikipedia also needs to have a stated policy about naming alleged victims of sexual violence, if it doesn't already.--Pinko1977 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * After her defense team made her name public, her name was public information. Wikipedia does not hide the truth.  Valtam  16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the 60 Minutes episode has been aired I think it is even more important to explore this woman's background. There is film of her performing at a strip club less than two weeks after supposedly being 'traumatized' at the party. To hear her people tell it she is / was one step away from a total breakdown; photographic evidence shows that she is lucid enough to work at least one aspect of her trade. Even money says that she is also performing the other acts included in her career choice.  Duke53  | Talk 02:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pinko1977 - presumably you mean alleged victims before the cases go to trial. For Valtam - she does not have a defense team as she is a witness, not a defendant.  It is still a matter of some controversy how her name was made public as well.  DukeEGR93 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The section should be expanded with the newly available information. Johntex\talk 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Even money says that she is also performing the other acts included in her career choice. I'd be careful about making such reckless (not to mention tasteless) accusations here or elsewhere until more facts come in. Refer to WP:BLP. Dubc0724 16:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay then, thanks for your concern. I am pleased that you will be careful. (It's funny to see what is viewed as 'reckless' or '<i>tasteless</I>' by different people</I> :)) I'd certainly hate to offend a prostitute. Duke53  | Talk 07:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it's not so much hurting her feelings that we should be worried about. I was thinking more along the lines of libel. Dubc0724 12:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TRUTH = libel? Not in the good old U S of A. I am not worried a bit; you can do that for both of us. Duke53  | Talk 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speculation <> Truth. There is no reason to assume she is a prostitute based upon any source I've seen.  If you think she has worked as a prostitute, cite your source. Johntex\talk 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Her admission to police about her 'date' (with a couple in a hotel room) <I>for hire</I> previous to her dancing 'engagement' for the team. <B>Sex acts for money = prostitution</B> . Duke53  | Talk 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a long article - could you quote the exact text you think supports your assertion, please? I see one sentence that says "The woman herself told the police that she had performed with a vibrator for one couple."  Is that it?  If so, I would disagree with the prostitute label - there is nothing in that sentence that she had sex with anyone.  Johntex\talk 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the News & Observer article I linked to above, on May 1st, you'll find this quote: "The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week." Whether she actually had sexual relations with her clients is unclear - it's possible she was just doing strip shows for individuals.  Whether that is considered prostitution is a matter of personal interpretation, I think.  Valtam  15:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not here to do all <I>your research</I>; do yourself a favor and look up the statute which defines prostitution. It eliminates the personal interpretation. Disagree all you wish, it is 'sex acts'  for hire that define prostitution not the act of intercourse. I am also not going to start searching for <I>'short'</I> sources, if you're interested enough you will wade through the <I>'long'</I> ones.  Duke53  | Talk 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the rest of us are here to listen to your incivility either, and you don't help your cause by being belligerent. I think I was very polite to you when I asked you to "...quote the exact text you think supports your assertion, please?"  I did not ask you for a shorter reference, I simply asked you what you think supports your claim.  Do yourself a favor and start being civil or you may find yourself banned for incivility.  If you are interested enough in pushing your view of what the article should include, you will make it easy for other editors, not hard on them. Johntex\talk 04:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never asked another editor to <I>"...quote the exact text you think supports your assertion, please?"</I> and I never will; I did my part (<I>according to Wiki policy</I>) by citing a source. It is then up to other editors to read that source, not ask for a detailed explanation of the article cited. I thought that you were showing incivility by asking me for details since it was right there in the article. You seemed to have been confused about there having to be actual sexual intercourse to occur to establish the act of prostitution ... it doesn't have to occur. I think that your presumption about <I>that</i> precipitated <I>this</I>. You think I was not being civil; I think you were not being civil. Now, if you wish to discuss the article, I will do that.  Duke53  | Talk 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you I did not mean to be incivil, and I don't see how you can view a request for more infomrmation as incivility. I even took a guess as to what you may have been referring to.  You could have just answered my polite question as to whether or not that was the passage you wished to be referencing.  Insteasd, you replied with a very hostile remark "I am not here to do all <I>your research</I>; do yourself a favor and look up the statute which defines prostitution."  Then you followed up by saying "I am also not going to start searching for <I>'short'</I> sources,..." even though no one asked you to provide a shorter source.  Then you said "...if you're interested enough you will wade through the <I>'long'</I> ones."  Clearly, I did read the link you provided, or I wouldn't have been able to ask you if I had the right passage.  As to your claim that "sex acts for hire" constitutes prostitution - that is not a given.  The definition of a prostitution varies by jurisdiction.  Do you have a source that says performing with a vibrator for a couple would constitute prostitution in Raleigh? Johntex\talk 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Duke53  | Talk 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. If you provide it then we can consider whether it is sufficient to back up your claim. Johntex\talk 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also look forward to seeing the source. Thanks in advance. Dubc0724 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Kim Roberts will be interviewed on 60 Minutes on Sunday, October 15th
Along with the 3 defendants, the "2nd Stripper", Kim Roberts will be interviewed on 60 Minutes on CBS at 7 p.m. ET/PT on Sunday, October 15th. CBS News reports Kim refutes key parts of Crystal's story. This should be worth watching... Valtam 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Crystal Gail Mangum's father was interviewed by a local (NC) newspaper yesterday and says:"That girl that was with her, she keeps changing her story," the father said of Kim Roberts Pittman, the dance partner of the accuser. "She's not a credible person to me." . Hmm ... his prostitute daughter has changed her story of the version of events of that night <B>numerous</b> times yet he still believes<I> her</I>? Can you say big bonanza payday ? Duke53  | Talk 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of subscription articles as a source
The source for: "Others have suggested the possibility that news coverage favorable to the defendants is a defense strategy" is a NY Times select article, which requires a paid subscription. I personally don't pay for it - and I'm sure the majority of people don't either, so I added a fact needed tag because I (as well as most people) cannot verify its contents. It should be replaced by a free source, in my opinion, which should not be at all difficult to find. -Bluedog423Talk 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so long as the information is not removed prior to finding a new source. Free sources are fine, but commercial sources are also OK.  There is no requirement that every editor must have free access to a source in order for it to be used.  This is especially true for major journals like the NY times that might be available at your local library. Johntex\talk 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that the free source be added in addition to the New York Times. (1) For better or worse, the NYT is generally viewed as a particularly reliable source, and replacing it with an AP wire story or a local paper is probably a step down from citing both the NYT and a free source; and (2) in any event, even free sources tend to become dead links in the months or years after they're added - keeping both the NYT and the free source will increase the chance that a reader can verify the statement, even after the link to the free source dies.  TheronJ 13:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree completely. If one or both goes dead, there would still be no reason to remove the reference. It would still serve to show that the publication did come out and people can go looking for it if they want. Johntex\talk 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for what it's worth! Valtam  15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Replacing "alleged victim" with "Mangum"?
I was wondering what other people thought about replacing the numerous "alleged victim"s with her actual name throughout the article (since her name is already revealed in the article) to increase readibility. I did not, however, want to cover the page with her name if others thought it was inappropriate. Especially in phrases like "the alleged victim was then allegedly" are very tedious and it would become more readable to state "Mangum was then allegedely." I think it would be appropriate to convert most of those to "Mangum," but still keep some of the "alleged victim"s intact in places where readibility doesn't suffer. Thoughts? -Bluedog423Talk 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor, but I predict there will be a fight over this. Increased vandalism as well.  My first inclination would be to wait until there is a trial, or charges are dropped, but that might be many months away.  Valtam  21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think replacing "alleged victim" with "accuser" would make it more readable, and there should be no debate. I'll make those changes, although it seems as if "accuser" is actually used a lot already. -Bluedog423Talk 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Source
There is a new source published in the New York Times today, Duke Rape Case Shadows an Unusual Campaign. It is primarily about the effect of the case on the race for district attorney election. GRBerry 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! I'm going to read it; it should be noted that the NYT has been very pro-Nifong, since the beginning. So I'm going to read the article with that in mind...  Valtam  18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)  Just read it - didn't see too much new information relevant to the Wikipedia page.   Valtam  18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)