Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 3

Dates
I've noticed that the dates on this page are linked to what seems to be irrelevant information, while, at the same time are incomplete (they lack the year). As this entry will remain in the encyclopedia, future readers may be confused to this lack of information in the date. Is there a reason for leaving out the year for each date? Trigari 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

McFayden e-mail?
Should this still be included? He's not been legally tied in to any of the criminal procedings, so is having the entry about the e-mail still relevent or not? Cwswb 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included, because it goes to context: 1. Duke used it as a pretext to suspend McFayden; 2. The campaign against the entire lacrosse team gave it great emphasis; and 3. The book in question was used in a Duke literature class.
 * This case cannot be understood by limiting entries to persons "legally tied in to any of the criminal procedings," and in fact the current article does not try to do that. For instance, although we do not know the name of the player or players who allegedly made racist remarks in response to Kim Roberts/Pittman's racial epithet, we do know that he or they was not one of the three players who were later indicted. And yet, the charge that a player or players shouted racist epithets at the dancers has been central to the continuing campaign against the players.
 * 70.23.199.239 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the pages for David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty?
It seems hardly defensible to have a page on the accuser and not those for the accused. Huangdi 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe there wouldn't be enough content to fill a page. They haven't changed their stories 100 times like the accuser has. Wahkeenah 11:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you can add pages on each of the gentlemen, yourself. Be prepared to see them removed, if the Wikipedia community does not feel they are necessary.  Valtam  05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mangum's prostitution career
I've noticed people sometimes add the fact that Magnum was a sex worker, and then its deleted later. Isn't it relevant that she was, in fact, a prostitute? This isn't really up for debate -- she's admitted as much, and the escort company she works for regularly sent her out to have sex with men for money. That's prostitution, obviously. The fact she was only hired as a stripper for this particular event shouldn't mean we ignore her chosen profession, which is certainly relevant since she's saying that's why she had the DNA of several other men inside her (though no lacrosse players). Omitting her profession seems to be done out of sympathy to her, but wouldn't true NPOV not downplay her job just because it sounds bad? JK 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we have a citable source that says she has worked as a prostitute, then that is relevant information - especially if she has used it to explain the DNA. Please provide a citable source.  Thanks. Johntex\talk 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly every source in media and in court uses the term "escort", and confirms she worked at an "escort service". I suppose she could have been one of the 0.000000000001% of escorts employed at escort services that did not engage in prostitution, but this seems a little unlikely.  :)
 * I predict there will be an edit war over this, unless it is written carefully. If you read the News & Observer article I put in as a reference to the "Before Arrival" section (it's the first reference), you'll find these quotes "The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week. ... This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said."  Someone may make the argument that we don't know for sure what she did on her one-on-one dates, so we can't assume.  The Biographies of living persons Wikipedia standard has become much more strict, and may apply here, as well.  Valtam  15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Valtam 's take on WP:BLP.  Any passage linking Mangum to illegal pursuits must be written with attention to the relevant policies WP:BLP and WP:RS.  Abe Froman 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am about to revert an edit as per this discussion. I think it's a fine line... While the evidence that has come out has made it abundantly clear that Mangum did in fact perform sex acts for money, it still stands that I have not seen a single RS that refers to her as a "prostitute" -- therefore, Wikipedia better err on the safe side and keep it as "escort."  Reverting now... --Jaysweet 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"the accuser" vs Mangum
While the media has adopted the term "the accuser" as a title for Mangum in this case for some reason, I don't think an encyclopedic entry on this event should follow that example. I recommend all unnatural references to "the accuser" be changed to 'Mangum'. 69.121.109.152 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but with a slightly different reasoning. An encyclopedic entry should follow that example if it follows the same ethical guidelines as the media. Wikipedia, however, is not censored and personal morals are not supposed to be imposed on the articles.  Her name is already revealed in the first sentence, so I see no problem with putting her name throughout to make it more readable.  See #25 in Archive #2 for more about this. -68.60.255.55 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should use the name Mangum. Johntex\talk 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an uber-editor on Wikipedia like many of you, but I agree that her name should be included for readability. Frankly, she has been protected as a victim in the media until now. The Attorney General's decision to drop charges and to effectively call her a hoaxter no longer affords her the right to be given the protection of a rape victim. --Redheaded dude 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More than that, by lying to the police and slandering three innocent young men, with the very real possibility that her lies would have landed them in jail, she is by any definition a criminal and serves no protection from exposure.MarcMontoni 05:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

DNA lab chief hides evidence
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16259881.htm

The head of a private DNA laboratory said under oath that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.

Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security, said Friday his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear, pubic hair and rectum of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected the samples a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case. --Wussycat 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Rape charges has been dropped!!!
 * yay for that, all I know is what I gained from briefly skimming through this page and I'm shocked how one woman can cause such damage to other people from making such unsubstantiated claims. Mathmo Talk 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Equally to the point, as Rabbi Aryeh Spero asks, Where's the ACLU to Defend the Duke Lacrosse Players? Asteriks 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That article about the ACLU is incorrect. It considers the Central Park rape case to be open-and-shut, but the convictions were all vacated in 2002.  See Trisha_Meili 69.132.53.190 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Central Park rape case was open-and-shut; the convictions were all vacated for purely political reasons. There was no new exculpatory evidence -- police had acknowledged back in 1989, following the attack, that they had DNA evidence from an additional attacker or attackers. 70.23.199.239 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following paragraph, doing my best to make it appear balanced:

The conclusion of all this, according to Thomas Sowell, is that "this case was the salvation of [Mike Nifong's] career, by enabling" what Sowell calls a "demagogue" to go into an election "his opponent was favored to win" and "to win the black vote with inflammatory charges against white students accused of raping a black woman." Asteriks 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The real issue at Duke, Part I and Part II by Thomas Sowell

Removing comments from talk page
I noticed this discussion in the archive but sadly, no one appears to have addressed it properly. While removing the comments of others from the talk page is generally frowned upon, it is acceptable or even proper behaviour in some instances. As far as I can tell, people were removing the name of the accuser, from the talk page as well, as there was no reliable source. This is generally advised, per Biographies of living persons. We now have a reliable source, but this doesn't change the fact the original actions were IMHO the correct actions at the time Nil Einne 12:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub Suggestion : "Prejudicial Statements Made In The Case"
Such a page or addition to the main page will be of interest if/when a suit if files by the players against Nifong and/or other parties that made slanderous statements regarding the players. However, the content would not be limited to the players but would include comments made regarding the Duke Administration, Duke University, the crime lab which processed the DNA and other groups and organizations. The emotions surrounding this "incident", this case and this issue caused whether or not they regret them now people to make comments which were completely unsupported at the time they were made and/or ultimately proven to be false and/or never supported.

e.g. A Durham resident named Victoria Peterson stated, in regards to the DNA testing of the swabs taken from the accuser, "I believe the information Duke Medical Center received has been tampered with."(http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/04/12/News/Da.Still.Pursuing.Lax.Rape.Case-1845753.shtml?norewrite200701070507&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com ) She sited no supporting evidence.

Many such comments were made by ordinary citizens, media members, faculty and administrators as several universities as well as other prominent figures. While many kept their heads and measured their words throughout this ordeal, many did not. Those people should not have the luxury of having their pernicious and reckless comments fade from the public consciousness. They should be held to account.

I am accumulating a database of such unsupported/prejudicial/slanderous statements. If someone would be willing to set up a new page and link to it from the main article, I would be willing to provide them with sourced statements from relevant figures as I uncover them. Thank you.


 * I would recommend that, if you want to create an article with these statements, you include statements in support of the team as well in order to be a more NPOV. Also, a title like "prejudicial statements made in the case" is too controversial, as people have different opinions on what they think is "prejudicial." I'd suggest making an article with a title of something like "Quotations about the Duke lacrosse case" or something like that.  I'd then divide it by the author of the quotes.  This should include comments both supporting the players and condemning them.  The sections, divided by key figures in the case, ought to include quotes from people like Mike Nifong, President Richard H. Brodhead, Duke law professor James Coleman, People from the Group of 88, Houston Baker, Brian Meeham, Defense Attorneys, Judge Stephens and other judges in the case, other Duke faculty members, committee reports, media figures such as CNN's Nancy Grace and 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley, students from Duke, New Black Panthers,  North Carolina Central University students, Durham residents (btw, Victoria Peterson is not an "average" Durham resident, she was the co-chair of the Nifong citizens’ committee in order to get him reelected), key witnesses including Moezeldin Elmostafa and Jason Bissey, and more.  I wouldn't provide much of an analysis after each quote, maybe just setting it up with some context and then perhaps a sentence after from a reliable source if this was intentionally misleading at the time.  This is quite a large project!  It would also be necessary to include the date the quote was said and where it was published.

hypothetical: If parties made a deal for sex for money and the receptive party(s) reneged agreed payment is it rape? If payment was made and forceably taken from at a later point would that be robbery?

hypothetical
hypothetical: If parties made a deal for sex for money and the receptive party(s) reneged agreed payment is it rape? If payment was made and forceably taken from at a later point would that be robbery? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.228.248 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Generally, any non-consensual sex would be rape. It doesn't matter if there are any surrounding 'transactions'.  If there was an exchange of money, and the underlying transaction was illegal, the aggrieved party would have no recourse to the law.  For example, if you were trying to buy illegal drugs, and handed over the money to someone, you couldn't call the police on them if they didn't give you the drugs (well, you could call the police, and they'd arrest you).   Valtam  16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs prosecution's and accuser's side of the story
I realize that almost all publicly available information tells the defense's side of the case, so there may not be an easy solution, but almost the entire article is dedicated to telling the defense's side of the story. We should also present the prosecution's (and accuser's) story as best we can. At least, maybe add a section on the effects of the alleged assault and the following coverage on her.

It is admittedly difficult to get the prosecution's and accuser's sides: They are local people not skilled in PR, in getting their story out nationally, or in competing for national public opinion. The defense has professionals. Guanxi 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But the prosecutor played the media for fools for weeks. Or weren't you following?

70.23.199.239 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but there is a major problem. What story do we tell? The most recent version? Or her first account of the event? Or somewhere in the middle? All of these are quite different if you read the transcripts of them. The timelines are different, the accused persons are different, and the accused acts are different. Furthermore, the reason the defense attorneys "side of the case" has been publicized so much more is because the public (and media) obtain information from submitted motions in court.  And who has submitted all of the motions? The defense.  The prosecution has yet to submit one.  Keep in mind that I would say these motions are more reliable than interviews with media since these are legal documents that require evidence with significant consequences if intentionally false information is included.  With the judge saying that both sides need to stop talking to the media a long time ago, the public generally has acquired information through the defense motions.  I don't really see any way to remedy this as the vast majority of information available supports the defense's case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.81.219 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * That the accuser's stories are inconsistent is the defense's argument. We should have a NPOV and not use one side's criticisms as a basis for editing the article. Anyway, parts of her story may have changed, but it's not like she is now accusing the North Carolina basketball team for a different crime on a different day.  I'm not sure most people would, after that kind of trauma and under that kind of national pressure, keep their stories straight, honest or not.  Still, I agree, it's a tough to find hers or the prosecution's sides. Guanxi 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Guanxi: "I'm not sure most people would, after that kind of trauma and under that kind of national pressure, keep their stories straight, honest or not."

Of course they would, if they were telling the truth. The players never changed their story. Mangum did because she is a compulsive liar. When you speak of "after that kind of trauma and under that kind of national pressure," you are presuming that she was raped; we know that she wasn't. "National pressure" is also irrelevant, because 1. Like Tawana Brawley, she brought the national pressure on herself through her hoax; and 2. She began contradicting hereslf already on March 14, long before there was any "national pressure." When you speak of "NPOV," you are simply trying to protect her, at the expense of her victims. You can't stonewall the truth, by claiming it is non-NPOV. 70.23.199.239 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is I doubt many wikipedians will be wanting to write a new summary each time a new story comes out. As for the consistancy, I have read comments from other SANE nurses other than the one in the case who say that while some details change, they do not, for instance, forget how many men raped them, if they were penetrated with a penus, etc. BMWman 05:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider Wikipedia's page on Rape, which says victims may suffer from Acute Stress Disorder. Symptoms of this are: ... difficulty remembering important parts of the assault, and related symptoms. Guanxi 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does the accuser have a page dedicated to her, but the pages for the accused redirect, with no individual information on each? Do the guidelines for bio of living persons not apply when it is a woman who claims she was raped? Really horrible. One way or the other, but not different standards.
 * If this bothers you, then create the appropriate pages for the defendants. And, yes, BLP does apply.  If the information on the page is verified and otherwise complies with BLP, then it should be there.   Valtam  16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree, but I think the reason is because there has been a lot more information available about Mangum than the accused. A section is dedicated to the background of the defendants in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal.  The accused don't really have anything unique about them (if they had a continued history of violence, it would be in the article), and the defense and media has obviously tried to seek out the accuser's credibility as is done in many rape cases.  They could merit their own article, but they'd be pretty short.  Mangum's article, however, is a lot of repeat information as well. -152.3.81.219 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The accuser's father, a retired truck driver, recently said that his family continued to believe her accusations. "I think if it had gone to court, it would be a different story altogether," he said in an interview at his home on Wednesday night. "The jury would hear both sides of it." OK, I can go along with this, they want their day in court. Have the accuser put on trial for making false police statements. - Bernie Goetz

Political Censorship
User: AuburnPilot's wikisophistry strategem of censoring any source whose facts or politics he or she dislikes, and calling it "spam," is pathetic. Have you no shame? 70.23.199.239 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Blogs and personal websites are unacceptable as sources. You have been warned previously, and will not receive any further warnings. Auburn Pilot talk 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that AuburnPilot is not, however much he may wish otherwise, an admin. Thus, he is in no position to be issuing "warnings" with the implication that he can mete out some sort of punishment if not heeded. 71.203.209.0 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He would have to take his case to an admin if he wants someone blocked. He's right about blogs, though. Blogs are just opinions and personal rants, nothing more, and they are not regarded as reliable sources. Wahkeenah 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Blogs are citable with respect to the blog. For instance, if a blog states "We urge you to boycott Duke because of this scandal" then we can report that "Blog X urged a boycott of Duke because of this scandal". Johntex\talk 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

External link to Wall Street Journal via a blog?
I would like to add the link From The Wall Street Journal: A Dirty Game The Duke "rape" case unravels to the "External Sources" section of the article. Although it is a link to a blog, the blog gives the full text of a widely quoted article from the Wall Street Journal that is only available from the WSJ itsefl by subscription.

Is it permissible to do this?

If so, how would one format the reference?

TIA

Nat 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to Tawana Brawley and Miranda Prather
This evening I added a "See also" section and, in it, links to Tawana Brawley and Miranda Prather. A few minutes later, these were removed by Abe.Froman with the comment "rv See Also. Suffice to say, neither person listed is even tangentially related to this matter".

I believe:


 * there are clear parallels between the two earlier cases and the currently unfolding one,
 * comparisons between the three cases are of interest, regardless of the outcome of this one, and
 * inclusion of such links, and contradicting links, falls under NPOV and removal of them violates NPOV.

Where to from here?

No one seems to mention the Scottsborough Boys: Young black men accused by white women of rape (wrongly).;

TIA

Nat 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The matter at Duke is not even over with. Including cases that are completed is prejudicial, and introduces bias to the article.  That, and the two women mentioned in "See Also" are not related to the matter in any way.  It's fluff, better to leave it out.  Abe Froman 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the Miranda Prather case and racial tension at Duke are linked in |"Hoax crimes - contrived racist and anti-gay incidents" (September 14, 1998 National Review article by Jon Sanders). Nat 10:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Abe Froman on this one. Including them is clearly POV, but even if it was a neutral point of view, these links contribute nothing to people's knowledge of this incident. -152.3.81.219 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarifying: what I meant was that comparable links of the opposing POV could be added just as easily. I apologise for not being more clear about this. Nat 10:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Listing them in "See Also" without context can be interpreted as violating WP:NPOV, but to Nat's points above, Google shows about 18,600 results for "Tawana Brawley Duke lacrosse," including in the first few pages comparisons of the two cases by US News, Newsweek, ESPN, the Raleigh News & Observer, and FoxSports, among others. Many apparently do find these cases related, and worth comparing.  This fact belongs in the article, along with a mention of the many media reports about the media's role in the scandal, but neither of those fits in the current outline. Any suggestions for incorporating them?  —- Xsmith (talk•contribs) 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems helpful and positive. Thank you. Plus, NPOV_tutorial says "Stick to the facts", so how about:

Comparisons with other cases
The high level of media interest that has been a feature of this case has included comparisons between this case and the Tawana Brawley    and Miranda Prather cases.

Reconsidering

 * Wow, I didn't realized there were so many sources. I wouldn't object to a sentence like that. It seems NPOV to say that some media outlets have made comparisons since that is an indusputable fact. -152.3.81.219 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tense used in timeline
It seems to me that the timepline needs to be re-worked so that it is consistently in one tense. But which: present or past? Nat 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

VDARE link as reference
There appears to be a low intensity revert war brewing on this page and several related pages, Crystal Gail Mangum and Mike Nifong, over the use of a page from the VDARE site as a reference. Most of the additions and removals have been done without edit summaries, the edit summaries that do exist tend to be accusations of bad faith. I have taken an admin action and am thus honor bound not to take sides, but something needs to be done to allow for a consensus to be built over this disputed link. Does anyone have any reason to support the inclusion or removal of this reference? --Allen3 talk 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the beginning parts of it, and it seems to me to be very non-NPOV. The author cites a lot of references, but at its heart, it is an opinion piece, in my opinion.  Valtam  19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The POV rule does not ban the citing of POV material; the rule bans the writing of POV Wikipedia articles. If no one could cite any POV articles, no major exposes could be cited here. (And I dare you, no pun intended, to find a more thorough expose on the Duke lacrosse case.) And exposes notwithstanding, throughout Wikipedia, POV articles are cited, and linked to in footnotes and in external links. And that is permitted by the NPOV rule. What is not permitted is the deletion of all POV links/footnotes from one side of a dispute.

The constants in this revert war go beyond the VDARE article; the "editor" in question has used four different IPs so far at Bloomfield College in NJ, while following me around from article to article (not just Duke-related), and as User:Valtam noted, never writing an edit summary. 70.23.199.239 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a strong opinion for or against the inclusion of the Vdare reference, and I think this whole argument is somewhat odd since the article doesn't provide any new information. However, I think its current placement in the article is inappropriate.  Its after the first phrase, "The 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal."  We need a reference for that? No we don't.  It could be used later on in the article if others find the source appropriate, but I really don't think it's that significant of an article and if it omission makes people spend more time on productive edits, then I think it should be left out.  If it does contain some information not found via other sources, then it should be placed after the sentence it is supporting. -Bluedog423Talk 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it belongs, if anywhere, in the list of external links at the bottom. But, as pointed out, it doesn't seem to add anything new, so I'm not convinced that there's any point in adding it. Nat 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny how really only two people care. It is the same person adding the reference and a different person that keeps deleting it. It doesn't matter, sheesh.  But definitely the reference shouldn't be placed after the first phrase of the article.  See Special:Contributions/70.23.199.239 if you want to see the constant battle between these two. -Bluedog423Talk 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is a mini-consensus that the link doesn't add anything new to the article, and that its placement at the head of the article is inappropriate. I'm going to delete it, and add myself to the two people who care. :) -- Andyparkerson 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about bad faith editing, Andy! You neglected to mention to the other unwitting readers that you are part of a cadre that has, based on race politics, for months been stalking me, and immediately deleting every single edit I make, such that I am under a de facto permanent block from editing any Antipedia entries. But then, you never did consider WP rules to apply to you or your comrades.
 * 70.23.167.160 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Revert in Five Hours by Suspected Sockpuppet User: 130.156.30.57
Note that User: 130.156.30.57 just made his fourth revert in less than five hours, in violation of the three-revert rule. Note too that User: 130.156.30.57 is a suspected sockpuppet from Bloomfield College, whose recent m.o. and history are identical to:

User: 130.156.29.61 User: 130.156.29.134 User: 130.156.31.143<BR>

See whois summaries below:

20 January 2007

“:According to the WHOIS reports for 130.156.29.61 and 130.156.29.134, your friend is a student or employee of Bloomfield College. Not sure if that helps, but obviously it's the same person. <font face="comic sans ms" color="mediumblue">Auburn <font face="comic sans ms" color="darkorange">Pilot talk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)” -- http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl 4:39 23 January 2007 Search results for: 130.156.31.143

New Jersey Higher Education Network NJEDGE (NET-130-156-0-0-1) 130.156.0.0 - 130.156.255.255

--- 23 January 2007 Search results for: 130.156.30.57

New Jersey Higher Education Network NJEDGE (NET-130-156-0-0-1) 130.156.0.0 - 130.156.255.255 Bloomfield College NJEDGE-BLOOMFIELD-COLLEGE (NET-130-156-24-0-1) 130.156.24.0 - 130.156.31.255


 * 1) ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-01-22 19:10
 * 2) Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

On 6 September 2006, User: 130.156.31.143 also violated <I>Wikipedia</I> rules by secretly deleting an entire passage by another editor (not me) on the Talk:Jim_McGreevey page.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_McGreevey&diff=prev&oldid=74166450 70.23.199.239 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, you two. Take your dispute to the appropriate place.  This is not it.  It's becoming to be tedious for those of us who want to contribute to this article.  Valtam  16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews link
"Wikinews has news related to this article: Duke lacrosse season ends, coach resigns"

This seems to me tired and stale. What are the criteria for keeping current news current in an article on an event in progress? Nat 08:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter?
Why do we have two articles by Ann Coulter in the external links section? She is not an authority on anything relating to the case, nor have her opinions on it, as far as I know, been especially influential. What do these links add to the reader's understanding? --Allen 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. They should probably be deleted.  The last 6 external sources are all iffy in my opinion.  It seems like external links is the place people who have a strong opinion of the case link articles to support their position.  At least, I think people generally don't click on these links, fortunately....-Bluedog423Talk 05:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. While I do not believe the victim's allegations, Ann Coulter writes an entertainment column, not a factual one.  I'd axe her for being little more than agitprop.  On the other hand, KC Johnson's site, while highly opinionated, is backed by sources at every turn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.251.0.102 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

March 16, 2006, Police Photograph of Victim
Question... Since the rape charge has been dropped, is there any reason that rape shield laws (or related concerns) should prevent the inclusion of relevant photographs? I ask because a critically important photo for the defense has been posted elsewhere. The photo is important because it was taken three days after the reported rape by a Durham police officer and conclusively refutes any suggestion that her face was bruised and swollen at that time.
 * Wikipedia doesn't follow "rape shield laws" or normal media ethical standards so that is irrelevant. From the wikipedia official policy, Wikipedia is not censored and "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive [...] if they are relevant to the content [...] and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies."  However, having said that, it is important the the photograph have the proper tag and is labeled correctly.  That is, federal documents are public domain, but state documents (as is this case since it was taken by a local police officer) are usually copyrighted by those who took them.  Please tag and source the photograph correctly, and then, if fair use can be properly argued, it can be added to the article since it would seem to be relevant. -Bluedog423Talk 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Wikipedia has rules against it, we should still act responsibly. Rape can be a deeply humiliating experience, and many victims do not report it out of shame and to prevent further embarrassment, leaving the victims without justice and the rapists to strike again with impunity. Most rapes are not reported (see this link). A defense tactic in rape cases is to 'leak' the accusers name and photo, to make the experience so humiliating and stressful that the accuser backs down.
 * My impression is that many here wish to do justice for the defendants (which does violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule) but there are other consequences of posting the photo: Real victims of rape will see how our society responds -- the defense will leak her name and personal info (regardless of guild or innocence) and they will be plastered across the Internet -- and they will not come forward, suffering in silence and humiliation, and allowing the rapist to get away with it and strike again. The next victim could be your mother, sister, or daughter. Would you want their photo posted here? It will have nothing to do with the truth of their accusations. Guanxi 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that a person who <I>falsely accuses someone of rape</I> should be treated the same as an actual rape victim? Since Crystal Gail Mangum's interview with the Durham PD in December, 2006 the <I>'rape'</I> charges have been dropped. Since she is no longer considered a <I>'rape victim'</I> by the courts, does she still have the same right to anonymity? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 06:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Duke53 - To address two issues you raise:
 * False accusation: From an NPOV (and your or my opinion may not match this, but for Wikipedia purposes ...), we don't know that she made a false accusation -- she has not been indicted, much less convicted of that offense (except by the media). All we know is that the prosecutor believed he would not be able to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which does not mean they are innocent: Even if the prosecutor can prove them to be likely guilty (e.g., a 67% chance), but not beyond a reasonable doubt, a court would find them not guilty (the verdict isn't innocent).
 * Do you feel that a person who falsely accuses someone of rape should be treated the same as an actual rape victim? I think I addressed this above, but to be explicit: Certainly someone who makes a false accusation has earned no such protection. But posting the photo will intimidate real victims also, and that's who I think we should protect: They will see what happens to accusers. The defense will use the same tactic, and maybe Wikipedia's editors, or enough of them, will believe the defense. Real victims will not want to depend on the wisdom of Wikipedia's masses to decide their fate.
 * Guanxi 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, just to make it perfectly clear: <B> <I>nobody</i> is being charged with rape in this case</b> (<I>Crystal Gail Mangum changed her mind about being 'raped'</i>). Rape shield law only comes into play when someone is charged with rape. The rape shield law doesn't take into consideration any future possible rapes, just the one under consideration now ... which is non-existent at this time. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's illegal to post it, I'm saying we shouldn't intimidate rape victims (see my second point, above). There are many things that are legal but that we shouldn't do -- I could post embarrassing information about people I know, or photos of proven rape victims, but I shouldn't. Guanxi 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's clear up one more thing here: <I>are ACTUAL rape victims and false ACCUSERS of rape to be treated in the same manner</I>? I don't believe so, and since <B>nobody</B> is being charged with rape in this case, there is NO rape victim, therefore she shouldn't be afforded the same considerations as a person who was <I>actually</I> raped. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the news report, she's not sure what penetrated her, a penis or some object, because it was from behind. North Carolina law calls penetration with an object "sexual assault" and not "rape", thus "rape" charges were dropped. Still, the allegation is that a woman was held down and forcibly penetrated. I'm sure we all agree that any victim of such a assault deserves the protection of a rape victim, thus North Carolina's legal distinction between "rape" and "sexual assault" is not relevant to our decision about posting the photo. I understand that you dispute the truth of her claims, but that's another issue. Guanxi 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"she's not sure what penetrated her, a penis or some object ...</i>". An experienced sex worker (whch Crystal Gail Mangum admittedly is) can certainly tell the difference between a penis and another object. "<I>I'm sure we all agree that any victim of such a assault deserves the protection of a rape victim</i>". Please don't assume anything ... North Carolina itself defines rape as someone being penetrated by a <B>penis</B>; now that she 'can't remember' if she was penetrated by a penis, she is not considered to be a rape victim. Rape Shield laws are used ONLY for people who are claiming that they were raped. Period. She no longer qualifies to be behind said shield.<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For more information on the subject, see Rape, Effects of rape and aftermath, and Rape reporting They are real eye-openers. I don't know why I didn't look there before. Guanxi 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion page is not supposed to be a forum for political arguments as to whether rape victims should be named or not. Furthermore, the tone in your comment makes it seem like you don't have a NPOV and instead have deemed the defendants guilty already.  You are saying that people are violating wikipedia's NPOV policy by trying to do "justice for the defendants."  I could argue that you are violating wikipedia's NPOV by trying to do "justice for the accuser." But, I wouldn't argue that, because it is a completely non-sensical argument. We shouldn't be striving to skew the article for a particular side - but rather, we ought to strive to present all the relevant facts as we now know them so readers can assess the situation as they deem fit, and perhaps in the end, justice will be served by the truth - whatever that may be - coming out.  I could also argue that the defendants have been grossly humiliated in the press and in the community (with death threats being hurled at them) for crimes that they say they didn't commit and where no physical evidence suggests they are guilty; thus, we shouldn't name them or talk about their background.  I won't argue that, however, because that statement clearly shows bias.  By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with pretty much everything you said.  Rapes are definitely underreported and many rape victims suffer considerable humiliation among many other awful consequences.  I am not arguing with the content of your statements, but rather the context of them on a wikipedia talk page and the bias you clearly show by trying to reach people's emotions by saying "The next victim could be your mother, sister, or daughter. Would you want their photo posted here?"  What does that have to do with anything about this page?  We are not supposed to instill our own personal ethics on wikipedia according to its policy; so leaving out the accuser's picture should be a function of the lack of properly sourced material (or if it doesn't qualify under free use). I personally kinda agree with you in this particular case (and don't really like this policy) because I think it sets a bad precedent - something not worth the risk.  However, this is somewhat analogous to a case where you are a juror in a court of law - you think some random law is wrong - and you are then asked to sentence the defendant who clearly broke that law that you think shouldn't exist.  As a juror, you are supposed to look at the evidence and decide if the person broke the law; you are not supposed to decide if the law is proper or not.  I think this argument might be a moot point as I don't even know if a picture taken by a local police officer would be PD or qualify as fair use.  Ok, that was a lot of ranting - I hope some of that was coherent. Also, sorry if you thought this was attacking you; that was definitely not my intention, and I was definitely trying to keep a level-headed tone.  Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (See Wikipedia Policy section below for discussion of that issue Guanxi 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC))


 * The photo should be added. It would contribute to the article and its completeness. Johntex\talk 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy
(For the start of this discussion, see Bluedog423's post above at 06:42, 29 March 2007)
 * Bluedog423 - I think I'll skip responding to the rant, and address the substantive issue: I don't think any Wikipedia policies say we are obliged to include all facts or that we should ignore ethics. (Certainly, ethics play a part: For example, if someone was stalking the accuser, certainly we could remove her name and photo!) Can you link to such a policy? The only inviolate editing policy is NPOV, as far as I know. Regarding your jury analogy, Wikipedia's other rules are not meant to be as strict as laws; for example there's this rule. :) Guanxi 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See What_Wikipedia_is_not: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." The only requirements for information to be included is that it passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, passes other wikipedia policies (like WP:OR), and does not violate a law of Florida. So, if information is significant and adds to the value of the article (a photo that show a lack of bruises three days after the alleged attack would seem to add information), and is verifiable from a reputable source, and does not break any laws, it should be included. I'll admit that my analogy was nowhere near perfect.  I would argue that if the photo was just of the accuser on a random day it would not add anything to the article, and should not be included.  However, a photo that shows a lack of bruising despite the story that the crime was extremely violent with beating and choking involved would seem relevant, IMO. -Bluedog423Talk 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You say we must or should post it, but the link says only that we may post it; I agree that we may, but the question is, should we. Wikipedia policy does not address that question, and thus we return to the consequences and trade-offs of our choices: Is it worth harassing the accuser and intimidating rape victims in order to add this information to the article? Guanxi 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You offer a false choice. Putting in the photograph is not any form of harassment or intimidation.  It is helping to make for a more complete and factual article. Our goal is to be as complete a source of information as we can be.  Putting in the picture helps with that. Johntex\talk 05:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Johntex - for an explanation of why it's harassment or intimidation, please see the discussion above. Guanxi 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion above, thank you. You made no compelling arguments.  Johntex\talk 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How does knowing what the accuser looks like actually add any value to the article? The only reason for posting the picture is to invite further ridicule of the accuser. Thus, the push for posting the picture is POV-pushing. Wahkeenah 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. How does a photo fo someone invite ridicule?  And what do you mean by "further ridicule"?  No one is being ridiculed here.  I think you are pushing a POV by trying to exclude factual information.  You are trying to remove verifiable information just becuase you seem to feel sorry for someone.  That is POV.  The article is just reporting the verifiable facts about this person.
 * Humans are visual creatures. We naturally want to process visual information, especially of other people.  Most of our biographies have photos when we can find one.  This article should be no exception.  Johntex\talk 05:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What you're really saying is "I want to see what this n*gger b*tch looks like." That's the only reason for posting her picture. Her appearance adds no neutral information to the article. Wahkeenah 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wahkeenah, I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. You are being uncivil and offensive.  Do you want to take down all the photos of black women on Wikipedia because you think they are n*gger b*tches?  I certainly think nothing of the sort. Johntex\talk 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your push for the picture is offensive. You have yet to present any evidence that knowing what she looks like serves any useful purpose other than voyeurism. And do you see me engaging in a revert war on the actual page? No. The talk page is for discussing issues. If I got into a revert war, that would be uncivil. Wahkeenah 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing offensive about wanting to include photos in encyclopedia articles. You offend the very purpose of this project by wanting to make the article less informative. Johntex\talk 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is completely incorrect. As noted above, if nothing else, the lack of bruising in the photograph - taken within days of the reported crime - allows the viewer to make their own judgment regarding her veracity.  Given that she is not a rape victim by her own most recent account, I fail to see any reason to censor this article.  Not to mention that the photograph is widely available elsewhere... Unlearned hand 05:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's POV-pushing. Do you have a doctorate in forensic science? No? I didn't think so. Nor do you have any more clue than anyone else as to whether she was actually raped or not. If she lied about being raped, she could also be lying about not being raped. There is no reason to put her picture here beyond using wikipedia for tabloid journalism. Wahkeenah 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that there is certainly some "POV-pushing" going on here. Unlearned hand 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be original research if we argued in the article that the photo indicates anything about her veracity. Including the photo by itself is not such thing. Johntex\talk 05:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The close-up photo, emphasizing all her racial features in close detail, serves only one purpose, and that is to reinforce the stereotype that this evil black woman tried to hurt three innocent, childlike white boys who were just having a little harmless fun with booze and strippers at their little picket-fenced cottage. This kind of National Inquirer junk further undermines wikipedia's credibility (like that's possible). Wahkeenah 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you think black women look evil now? Johntex\talk 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "All her racial features"??? You certainly seem to be reading an awful lot into a simple photograph. Unlearned hand 06:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'all seem to be missing the point. By showing what she looks like, which is not relevant to the story, it allows readers to form prejudicial opinions about her. She looks like the average black woman; attractive to some, unattractive to others; to some, she might even look vaguely threatening. If she had a nice smile and looked like Halle Berry, the response could well be different. And that's where the POV-push is. It is not appropriate for wikipedia to aid and abet prejudicial opinions. Publishing her picture violates the neutrality rule. Then there's the copyright issue, but that's a different story. And if you want to argue that publishing the guys' pictures is also prejudicial, I wouldn't disagree. Wahkeenah 06:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So people might be prejudiced because she looks like an average black woman? With all due respect, that seems like a pretty specious argument. The photograph adds information (which may or may not be terribly relevant, but I would say given the fact that it was taken within days of the incident that it is of some relevance), embarrasses no one, and any POV-push is purely in the mind of the viewer. Some, like you, think it is POV, others, like me, don't see how a simple undoctored photograph does anything more than speak for itself. I don't know that it actually says much of anything, but I fail to see a reason for censoring it. (Mangum's photo is not a "mug shot", incidentally.) Unlearned hand 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What "information" does it add? Why does knowing what she looks like make any difference in the facts of the case? Wahkeenah 06:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The information added has already been addressed above. By your logic, Wikipedia should have *no* photographs unless they are absolutely necessary.  I would suggest that you take a few minutes to review other pages and see if you think that's the standard policy.Unlearned hand 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you've made her picture much larger than the guys' pictures. And hers is a mug shot, which is typically unattractive, whereas the guys' photos are just press photos taken when they were in court or something. How about getting their mugshots here instead, at equal size, for a fairer (i.e. more "neutral") comparison? Wahkeenah 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>Mug shot</I> ? Nope, a mug shot is another name for a booking photo; Crystal Gail Mangum was not arrested on the night in question. This is a picture used solely for cataloguing her appearance two days after the alleged incident (<I>she reported that she had also been a victim of a brutal beating that night</I>). 08:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Johntex - Please read the discussion above (in the section above Wikipedia Policy) about the consequences of posting photos of alleged rape victims. It will save us from having to repeat the same discussion here (though please add anything new, of course.) Thanks. Guanxi 13:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have already made clear, I have read the discussion above. There is no compelling argument there for removing the photo. Johntex\talk 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussion above, and I have not seen anything persuasive regarding alleged consequences of alleged rape victims. That distinction is somewhat irrelevant, as even Mangum herself no longer claims that she was raped.  Censorship is a decision not to be taken lightly, and I see nothing persuasive that indicates to me that it is justified or necessary here.Unlearned hand 14:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You say, Mangum herself no longer claims that she was raped. -- According to the | news report, she says she's not sure what penetrated her, a penis or some object. Because penetration with an object is not legally "rape" in that jurisdiction (though still a crime, of course), the "rape" charges were dropped. I believe this question remains relevant. Guanxi 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it should be censored because she claims that she might possibly be the victim of "rape" under your personal definition, not the legal definition. That's POV.  The defendants are not charged with rape, therefore Mangum cannot credibly claim to be a "rape victim". What about when the charges are dropped, is her picture fair game then? Unlearned hand 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that a woman who is held down and forcibly penetrated from behind, but can't tell if it's a broom handle or a penis, does not deserve the protection of a rape victim? I think you are getting carried away. You also say, What about when the charges are dropped, is her picture fair game then? -- the discussion above addresses that already (sorry, these debates are long enough!). Guanxi 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty big assumption that anything of the sort happened to her. Other than her very questionable say-so, is there any reason that we should engage in censorship in her behalf?  It would be one thing if there was an actual charge of rape here, but there is not, other than by your personal definition.  Again, POV.Unlearned hand 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not matter one bit to this question whether she was penetrated, kidnapped, beaten, robbed or murdered; or whether nothing happened to her at all. She is a participant in this case.  Likewise, it does not matter if the men in the case are evil villians, misguided youngsters, or hapless victims of a tragic lie.  If their photos are available under a suitable license then we should use the photos.  Ideally, all of the participants in the case should have their photo shown so that the reader knows what they look like. It is part of being informative.  Johntex\talk 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

“The close-up photo, emphasizing all her racial features in close detail, serves only one purpose, and that is to reinforce the stereotype that this evil black woman tried to hurt three innocent, childlike white boys who were just having a little harmless fun with booze and strippers at their little picket-fenced cottage. This kind of ‘National Inquirer’ junk further undermines wikipedia's credibility (like that's possible). Wahkeenah 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)”


 * Well, let’s see. On March 14, 2006, Sgt. J.C. Shelton, Durham PD, determined that Crystal Gail Mangum was not credible, when she faked being unconscious in Kim Roberts Pittman’s car. Sgt. Shelton later received additional confirmation of his initial judgment at the Durham Access Center, when Mangum kept changing her story, between claiming she had not been raped and that she had been raped, not to mention claiming that 20, then five, then three men had raped her. On April 10, 2006, the first DNA tests showed the rest of the world, i.e., those that had yet to read Sgt. Shelton’s report, that Mangum was a liar who had made false police statements and engineered a malicious prosecution. Three hundred and fifty-eight days later, after the whole world has seen the three victims’ faces, you are raging against people for posting the criminal’s face?
 * It is obviously very important to you, Wahkeenah, to support racist black female criminals in their endeavors to have innocent white men falsely imprisoned, so important that you will shamelessly race-bait people on this board. Just be aware that not everyone is intimidated by the racist black supporters of racist black criminals.
 * Meanwhile, User:guanxi is dedicated to protecting female rape hoaxers and making life as difficult as possible for their man victims, by eliminating the distinction between the hoaxers and real female rape victims.
 * To those who have had enough of those who would protect criminals and persecute the latter’s victims, I suggest a bracing shot of truth.
 * http://vdare.com/stix/070113_duke.htm

70.23.167.160 03:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Source of photo
Do we have a citation that indicates when the photo was taken? Guanxi 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The photo currently lacks a reliable source. The Wikipedia page for the photo cites, ... taken by Durham Police Department on March 16, 2006 and posted online on March 23, 2007 by KC Johnson at http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/. I do not believe this source is reliable:
 * Per the Reliable sources guideline, Anyone can create a website... For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources.
 * If we want to claim that it shows the accuser soon after the alleged incident, a reliable source must support that claim.
 * Guanxi 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're not familiar with the impeccably sourced work of KC Johnson, then I would suggest you're not familiar enough with this case to be making edits to this article. Unlearned hand 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to do better than just say you don't believe the source given by the uploader. We Assume good faith.  The photo has a valid source unless you can prove it is invalid.  Johntex\talk 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing two things: AGF applies to other editors (e.g., our attitudes toward each other), not content (e.g., text, photos). I'm certain Wikipedia does not Assume Good Faith about content -- imagine what would happen to our credibility! Ask somewhere else (e.g. the village pump, admins, etc) if you don't believe me (what happened to AGF!). Content needs to be properly cited. Reliable Sources guideline says, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources ... Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. As I posted above, blogs are not reliable sources; review the guideline for more info on that. BTW, if Unlearned hand is correct, it should be possible to find a reliable source. Guanxi 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree a source must be specified. The source is given.  So, I don't understand the problem.  Are you saying that the uploader is incorrect about the source? Johntex\talk 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree a source must be specified. -- There's more to it than that; please see above. Guanxi 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep acting like I'm not reading what you wrote? I read everything you wrote.  In this case, I don't understand what you are getting at.  So, I ask again:  Are you saying that the uploader is incorrect about the source?  Johntex\talk 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Johntex. I think I understand what Guanxi is trying to get it. It's not that the source is incorrect, but rather the source (a blog) is not reliable enough according to wikipedia policy to verify that it was taken by a Durham police officer at a particular time.  I believe, however, that whatever the precedent that has been set for previous booking photos is what should be done here.  For example, several celebrities have booking photos on their wikipedia pages.  Are the sources of the images from so-called reputable sources (e.g. newspaper or mainstream online media such as CNN) or from blog-like sites like smoking gun?  I don't know the answer to the question, honestly, but I'd guess the latter. If it has been deemed acceptable and reliable to take photos from blog-like sites in the past, then I think it would also be acceptable in this case.  However, if a precedent has not been set to take booking photos from a blog, and to not trust its reliability, then I think we have a problem with the reliability factor. -Bluedog423Talk 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blogs are forbidden as sources, for a number of good reasons. Bsically, there would be nothing to stop anybody from writing any fool thing they want to in a blog, then getting on here and using it as their own "source". As for this photo, it might well be Butterfly McQueen, for all anyone here knows. If it came from a blog, it could be Eddie Murphy in drag. Wahkeenah 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Blogs are not forbidden as sources.  There is no Wikipedia policy against citing blogs.  What we do have is a guideline (very different) called WP:RS.  Please go read WP:RS.  It states that blogs may be cited in certain cases.  It depends on the circumstances.
 * If a musician's blog says "George W. Bush killed Richard Nixon" then that statement could not be used because a musician's blog is not a reliable source of information of that type.  If the same blog states that her band is performing next month at a certain stadium the blog would be a reliable source to add that information into the article on the musician.  It would also be considered a reliable source for the article about the stadium.
 * Our inclusion of the photograph does not assert any controversial fact. It does not assert that her face shows brusises, or does not show bruises.  Therefore, there is no claim being made by the blog that has to be called into question.
 * Because of this the photo is usable and should be used. Johntex\talk 16:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people appear to be operating under a mistaken impression about sourcing. The source listed in the article is the police department, who (allegedly) created it, not the blog who hosted that image. To look at it another way, if I posted a blog entry containing an image of  by Edvard Munch, and someone took a copy of that image from my site and used it themselves for some other purpose, I would not be the source of the image. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing "source" with "copyright ownership". For the source we litterally put in the place where it was found, or the person who gave it to us.  If you will look at Image_use_policy you will see that "Source" and "Author" are two different things.
 * In your example above, your blog would in fact be the source of the image. The coyright holder would be Edward Munch or his estate.  The author in that case would be a little tricky.  You are the author of the photo, but Munch is the author of the underlying work.
 * In our case here, the source is the blog - not the sherrif's department. Johntex\talk 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should've spoken more precisely, but I think you can tell where I'm trying to go here: I was trying to phrase it in that way because the copyright issue was the one raised about this particular photo. Since the article includes information about the image's origin that addresses its copyright status, the fact that the acutal copy of the image we're using here was derived from a blog isn't relevant. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image location
While taking no position on whether or not including the image of the accuser is appropriate, I believe it is incorrect to feature it as the lead photograph. In it's current location, it is apropos of none of the surrounding text. I propose moving it to the first section that deals specifically with the accuser. Ronnotel 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the new location is more logical - thanks! Johntex\talk 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image size
Per the Manual of Style, the best practice is to not specify a size when including an image. This allows the user's individual preferences to determine the image size. Therefore, neither photo has a size specified. Johntex\talk 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, in the interest of fairness and neutrality, I have shrunk the photo to only a little larger than the men's photos. Wahkeenah 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Whoever challenged my calling it a "mug shot", that's what the original uploader said it was. Wahkeenah 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Whoever challenged my calling it a "mug shot", <I>that's what the original uploader said it was</i>". Well, the original uploader mischaracterized it then; did you notice any booking information (name, date, etc.) on the image? K.C. Johnson explains exactly what the image is on his site. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The uploader claimed fair use under the mug shot template, thereby asserting that that's what the photo is. Wahkeenah 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I never heard of K.C. Johnson, but I don't find a page for him here, so I must not be the only one. Wahkeenah 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is is not your job (or right) to alter anybody else's work (<I>uploads, e.g.</i>) to suit your preferences; please stop. The uploader decided which size photo he wished to upload.<I>"Also, I never heard of K.C. Johnson ..."</I>. Do a Google search, I bet you can find him; there's a great big world outside the pages of Wikipedia. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If he were actually a notable photographer, he would not be giving away his work for free. Wahkeenah 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't make that claim to any of the fine photographers who have freely contributed content here under the GFDL or CC license. Johntex\talk 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also not your job (or right) to push a viewpoint by making her picture huge and leaving a little grainy photo of the men. And I say again, no one has yet to demonstrate that posting her picture here adds any useful information to the article. Posting it here is strictly for voyeuristic purposes, i.e for "decoration", which is against wikipedia policy. And I could make the same claim about the photos of the men, FYI. Wahkeenah 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as I expected, you reverted to the larger photo, to continue to push the "Butterfly McQueen look" that the pushers of the photo want to achieve, in order to further ridicule the accuser. Wahkeenah 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All I did was revert the image to the size <I>intended by the original uploader</i>. I would suggest that you pursue this through the accepted Wikipedia channels rather than to continue to make decisions arbitrarily. Your personal opinion or 'sensitivity' cannot be used to determine what goes into Wikipedia. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why bother? The voyeurs hold the numbers advantage on this page. They just want to see her picture and laugh at it, wikipedia policy be damned. Wahkeenah 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the WP:MOS requests that we allow the user's preferences to determine the image size. Specifying a hard-coded image size defeats the purpose of the image preferences.  We should leave the size unspecified.  That way, if you are visually impaired, you can make images big; if you have a small monitor, you can make images small.  Also, please watch your tone. Johntex\talk 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need to find a bigger photo of the men, for the sake of fairness and neutrality. And don't be lecturing me about my tone, young man. I'm having to resort to a verbal club to try to get you all to think outside of your voyeuristic boxes, although it seems to be a vain effort so far. Wahkeenah 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Then you need to find a bigger photo of the men ... " <B>WHA ?</B> Nobody <B>has</b> to find <I>anything</I> to satisfy <I>your</I> wishes; if you are so interested in this issue then <I><B>you</b></i> can find a different image. You certainly have one of the strangest ideas of how Wikipedia works that I have ever seen. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been told time and time again, on the subject of the rules about pictures, by folks who make wikipedia pictures their specialty, so I'm not making this up. And one major point is that pictures, especially fair use pics, are not to be used as "decorations". They have to add information to the article, and no one has put forth any evidence of that, beyond "wanting to know what she looks like", and the dubious POV-push about wanting to see if she's got bruises or not. I see the pic is already marked for delete due to the lack of a verifiable source, so this may become a moot point in a week or so. Wahkeenah 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People need to chill out. Wahkeenah, please Assume good faith, be civil, and avoid personal attacks.  Saying things like "Posting it here is strictly for voyeuristic purposes" to "invite further ridicule of the accuser" and that others "want to see what this n*gger b*tch looks like." Asking sardonic questions like "Do you have a doctorate in forensic science?" and saying that people's motives are "to reinforce the stereotype that this evil black woman tried to hurt three innocent, childlike white boys who were just having a little harmless fun with booze and strippers at their little picket-fenced cottage" only hinder this conversation.  Obviously, this case has a racial aspect to it, but there's no need to escalate the levels of tension on a relatively meaningless wikipedia talk page by accusing people of being bigots.  There is plenty of actual proven racism, antisemitism, and hatred in the world that you shouldn't be potentially inventing more.  Neither you nor I know others' actual motives so there's no point to guess, but you should Assume good faith once again.  You continue on and on saying "She looks like the average black woman; attractive to some, unattractive to others; to some, she might even look vaguely threatening" and that you are "having to resort to a verbal club to try to get you all to think outside of your voyeuristic boxes." Also, Johntex is not a forensic scientist, but Kathleen Eckelt has 30 years of forensic nursing experience and finds the photo odd.  However, again, this is a blog so it cannot be used as information.  Btw, KC Johnson has a wikipedia page and is NOT the photographer; it was taken by a police officer. However, having said all of that, I agree with Wahkeenah and believe that the photo should be deleted since it does not add any information to the article.  It would add information to the article if the date of when it was taken and the apparently strange lack of bruises could be mentioned from a reliable source (i.e. not a blog), but since it is not, it serves no purpose whatsoever.  Even if the source data is valid and reliable, the photograph adds nothing so fair use can't be claimed.  Analyzing the photo would either be original research or violate WP:V, in my opinion.  Everybody relax!  Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a good recap of the issues. I'm going to stop watching this page for a couple of weeks, then I'll check back and see if things have gotten any better. Wahkeenah 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article."
 * Returning to the issue at hand: Manual_of_Style states:
 * Therefore, the image should be included with no hard-coded pixel size. Johntex\talk 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's strange to say that an image of a person doesn't enhance an article dealing with that person, given that this view is completely at odds with pages like What is a good article?, which states that a GA "contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic." I think it's even stranger that some participants in this talk page seem to think that the image of Mangum is sufficiently unattractive as to constitute harassment of some sort. By appearance, it seems to be a normal headshot of a normal person, and the entire point is ludicrous anyway when you remember that we have photographs of people who are by any objective standard significantly more unattractive than Mangum (Joseph Merrick, Karl Rove, Yasser Arafat, etc.) in articles related to them. Of course, if anyone here is completely unwilling to accept the current public-domain image, they're also free to contact Mangum and request that she release an alternative under the GFDL that portrays her in a better light. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How does the picture of an accuser in a rape / assault case "illustrate the topic"? The topic is assault. Wahkeenah 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the topic is the 2006 Duke university lacrosse team scandal. If the pictures of the people that the accuser picked out of the no-wrong-answers photo lineup are fair game, so is the picture of the person who picked them out.Unlearned hand 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an article on assault. For that, please see assault.  This is an article on an incident and people involved in that incident.  Please see Dick Cheney hunting incident,  2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner for examples of articles on Wikipedia that benefit from pictures of the people involved.  The same is true here. Johntex\talk 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

how do we know the picture is what is claimed?
I'm forming a new section because I'd like to isolate an issue that has been interwoven with other issues above. How do we know that the picture As far as I can tell, the only source we have for this information is a blog that does not provide its sources for its information. Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources, but there are exceptions. Johntex, above you mentioned the example that a musician's blog can be used to source the date of an upcoming concert by that musician, but I don't think this is an analogous example. I think a more reliable source is needed before we can repeat these claims about the photo. --Allen 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) is of Crystal Gail Mangum
 * 2) was taken on March 16, 2006
 * 3) was taken by the Durham Police Department?


 * The answer is:
 * We know it is of Crystal Gail Mangum because we can tell that by comparing this picture to other instances of her.
 * The exact date does not matter. We are not stating in the article what date the photo was taken.
 * Who took the picture is irrelevant. We are not stating in the article who took the picture.  We don't need to know who took the picture to justify our fair use inclusion of the image. Johntex\talk 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Johntex. As for your first answer, can you provide a link to another photo that is both reliably identified as CGM, and clear enough to say it is the same person as this photo? As for the other two questions, you're right that the article does not claim these things, but the photo page does. I'll raise the issue over there. --Allen 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And assuming you can provide such a link, why isn't it original research for us to say, "Yes, this looks like the same person as this other photo; therefore we'll say on Wikipedia that it is the same person?" --Allen 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image pages are not in the Main article space. They are not subject to the same interpretations.
 * The only other pictures I have seen were video - I do not have a link. As for original research - comparing two photos and saying they are the same person does not fall under original research.  If it did, we would never have a picture of anyone.  How do we know that the person in Jenny McCarthy or Monique Alexander is really that person and not an impersonator?  How do we know who is pictured in Jevan Snead given that the person is wearing a helmet that hides their face? Johntex\talk 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do take your point that this case is somewhat harder than most cases because there are not lots of photos to compare. For an examples where few pictures of the person are known please see Sollog (only one known photo) or Harry Whittington (has given only one or two news conferences - not a public figure) or David Dellinger.  We have lots of other cases on Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one who immediately jumps to my mind is Robert Johnson (musician), of whom there are only two known photographs in existence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could probably print out a copy of the image and contact DPD. Their website lists a phone number and postal address at the bottom of the FAQ (reached with the "Information" tag on the left margin of the front page). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Johntex\talk 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You could also contact Johnson to see whether he remembers how and where the police released the photo that he used. The specific entry on his blog which used the photo is here, and an e-mail account for him is listed in his Blogger profile here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer a reliable source, but if the photo is widespread, I think we should not omit it on these grounds. I tried to contact one blogger here to see if she had a source for her copy of it, but she didn't respond. I think Allen's question is reasonable, though -- it wouldn't be the first bit of false information that spread through the Internet. I just think the error is unlikely and relatively inconsequential in this case. Guanxi 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on complainant's photo
I think one question remains. To try to keep it cool, let's try to build a consensus on it. If you have suggestions for improving this attempt at consensus, please post in the Improving Consensus section below and I'll update my post here as we go (but let's not get bogged down before we get started). Guanxi 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So far I think the following in generally agreed on, based on comments above:
 * The complainant's photo should not be used as evidence of what happened that night, because, at least, we lack a reliable source saying when it was taken. Removed until some consensus is reached someplace else on the page. The main Question below still applies. Guanxi 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We should assume the photo is really her unless something indicates otherwise, even though we lack a reliable source.

So the question remains, given the above, do we want to include it as simply a photo of someone involved in the case? I suggest we do the following, in order:
 * 1) Find out Wikipedia policy/guideline/precedent for these situations
 * 2) Once informed, and only then, see what people think. Maybe a poll would be an appropriate starting point.

Wikipedia Policy/Guidelines/Precedent
Do not post opinions here -- We are only gathering information. Only post citations and NPOV summaries of relevant Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and precedents. Discussion will come later.

THE QUESTION: ''Including photos of important parties is normal Wikipedia practice. The question is, are exceptions made for alleged victims of rape or sexual assault?''
 * Please post improvements to the Question under Improving Consensus, below. Again, let's not get bogged down. Guanxi 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested sources:
 * Wikipedia policies
 * Wikipedia guidelines
 * Precedents: Other Wikipedia articles on rape or sexual assault cases. This search might help.
 * Precedents: Other Wikipedia articles with reason to omit photos (intelligence agents, embarrassing photos, whatever else you can think of).

Post what you find below, with a bullet (Do not post opinions here):


 * Policy Wikipedia is not censored says, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. On the other hand, it's written more like a warning for readers -- Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users -- than a rule for editors. Guanxi 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rape shield law may be helpful in general, and discusses Florida law in particular. All together now: "IANAL but ..." :-) Guanxi 17:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Sydney gang rapes omits all identifying information about the victims, though there's not discussion of the issue on the Talk page, and it's not clear the victims' names were known (is that possible nowadays?). The defendants were found guilty. Guanxi 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Jacob Zuma rape trial omits all identifying information about the alleged victim. This case was very big news in South Africa -- Zuma was expected to be a future President. Zuma was found not guilty, and the alleged victim's identity was likely known (I think: for example, she is known to be "a friend of Zuma's daughter" and her character was attacked in the media). Guanxi 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Mukhtaran Bibi has the victim's name and photo. You may remember this case as the one that made Pakistan's rape laws a public issue. It's not clear (to me) how her name became public - voluntarily on her part, or not (e.g., Are there rape shield laws in Pakistan? Who reported it?) She appears to participate in the publicity now (meeting politicians, Amnesty International, accepting awards, etc.). Guanxi 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Mahmudiyah incident includes the victims name and ID card. This case was also well-known, concerning U.S. soldiers attacking an Iraqi family in March 2006. The victim was also murdered. The defendants plead guilty. Guanxi 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedents: Category:Rape victims lists many, but may skew the results for obvious reasons. Guanxi 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Subic rape case publishes the victim's name. According to its Talk page, her name was shielded by the local media but well publicized elsewhere. This case involved at least one U.S. Marine raping a Filipina woman. One defendant was found guilty. Guanxi 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy: WP:BLP demands presumption in favor of privacy for all nonpublic figures in all articles, whether biographies or not. --Beaker342 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: The complainant's article Talk page has endless debates on this very issue, which include our very own Johntex. Wish I'd looked there before, and saved much repetition. Guanxi 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent: Tawana Brawley, another notorious rape hoaxer, has an article with her picture, despite the passage of about 20 years since the incident. Αργυριου (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving Consensus
Please post suggestions here for improving this procedure. Let's not get bogged down in minutia; our goal is to come to a resolution, not a perfect process. Apologies in advance for any misstatements or confusion on my part. Guanxi 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "<I>The complainant's photo should not be used as evidence of what happened that night, because, at least, we lack a reliable source saying when it was taken</i>". If you take a look at the information on the image's page you can see a reliable source of EXACTLY when this photo was taken. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving this post to the appropriate section, out of the middle of my post above. Guanxi 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see this helping to build consensus. I will change my original post to remove this premise for now (which isn't crucial to the 'Question', above). Duke53 - Would you mind moving this comment to another section of the Talk page (there's already a discussion above), so it doesn't bog down the question here? Guanxi 15:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what your actually goal here is;<I> if you are trying to discredit this image then you had better take a different tack</i>. We know when the photo was taken, we will take the uploader's word about who took it, and the rest of the world is accepting the fact that the woman in the picture is Crystal Gail Mangum; I have a picture of her from her HS yearbook ... it is the same person. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh*. This section does not address that issue. Guanxi 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>Double</i> Sigh. This section doesn't really address anything concerning the 2006 Duke lacrosse <S><I>scandal</i> hoax, which is what this page is intended for. Perhaps you should be trying to build a consensus on this issue on article talk pages concerning rape, false accusations of rape or some such. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn’t matter. Equal treatment of articles and facts are the only issues that need to be discussed.
 * I don't see what your are trying to accomplish with this section Guanxi. That makes it hard for me to participate.  Can you please explain your motivations.  Johntex\talk 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The section begins, I think one question remains. To try to keep it cool, let's try to build a consensus on it. The question is listed in italics, further down. Is that not clear? Guanxi 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks. It was not at all clear to me what you were trying to accomplish and the unusual formatting made the question hard to find.  Why would you put the question so many lines down, and below a sub-heading, even?  Why not state your question up front?  Now that you have clarified the question, the answer to your question is very clear, Wikipedia has no such exception.  Besides, the person is no longer alleging she was raped. Johntex\talk 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you conclude, and this whole question is probably irrelevant now, but for my reference in general (forgetting about this case) -- do you know of any policy or guideline (or previous discussion) that pertains to this question? I've looked around, I can't imagine it's never come up before in all of Wikipedia, but it's hard to find. Guanxi 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whose post was that? ! Guanxi 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What should be discussed on this page
I am not at all sure that much of the above is even in the right place; this page is supposedly for the discussion of the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team <S><I>scandal</I> hoax; what value is there in attempting to discuss <I>Florida's</i> rape shield law? BTW, a rape shield law has no bearing on the media ... they can publish anybody's name and / or photo that they choose. Rape shield laws simply prevent the defense from bringing up the accuser's past sexual history at trial. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Name Change For This Page
I suggest that in light of recent events in this case, the page be renamed to "2006 Duke University lacrosse team incident" since scandal has a specific connotation and it's no longer npov to describe the incident as a scandal. Ikilled007 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably better to wait until after 2:30 p.m. EDT today (04/11/07) to rename it; I am confident that this article will be getting quite a bit of play in the next couple days. :) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ikilled007 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also think some of the redirects should be changed and/or more should be added.  When I search for "Duke rape hoax" the only relevant result I get is the Mike Nifong page, but when I search for "Duke rape" I get redirected to the article.  It would seem some updating in light of recent (and not so recent) developments in the case is in order. 24.57.207.199 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the DA just nuked the case. Not only did he say what was expected -- that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, but he declared them to be innocent (virtually unheard of) and then went on to nuke Nifong with words like "bravado" and he even is suggesting a new law that would empower the Supreme Court of NC to take cases away from a DA who acts in a similar manner. Also he says they considered charges against the accuser, but that she might be delusional (actually believing she was raped) and that they thought it would be best not to charge her. Ikilled007 18:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the more accurate name would be <B>2006 Duke Lacrosse hoax</b>, or perhaps 2006 Duke lacrosse extortion attempt. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Any of those would do, but how about "2006 Duke University lacrosse false prosecution". The scandal is now in the prosecution, not in what supposedly happened in that house.--Wehwalt 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the pages should redirect to "2006 Durham County District Attorney Malicious Prosecution Scandal". Ikilled007 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While I do think that "2006 Durham County District Attorney Malicious Prosecution Scandal" would be an appropriate title, in the interest of brevity I was thinking something more like "2006 Duke University Rape Hoax" or "2006 Durham Rape Hoax". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.207.199 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I would vote for 2006 Duke Lacrosse Hoax or would suggest 2006 Duke Lacrosse Hoax Scandal. Valtam  21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Duke (and Lacrosse), not Durham should be in the title -- that's what almost everyone knows; look at the newspaper headlines. Sexual Assault or Rape should also be in the title -- that's what it was about. Hoax seems a bit judgmental (even if most agree with the judgment), but it's hard to think of an alternative. Allegation scandal seems too long. Guanxi 22:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Guanxi that "Duke" and "Lacrosse" should probably stay in the title. I also agree "Hoax" is probably too negative against the acuser.  We don't know why she made the allegations she made.  Maybe she was trying to extort money.  Maybe she was delusional. I favor 2006 Duke University lacross team allegations. That would cover all allegations backwards, forwards, and sideways that have been made by all the various participants.  Johntex\talk 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your last suggestion, Johntex, but then I start thinking the name should be 2006 Duke Lacrosse Stripper Allegations as the lacrosse team didn't make any allegations. Another proposal: 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team Allegations (Disproven).  Valtam  14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could say 2006 Duke lacrosse case or something like that, with a bunch of other obvious synonyms redirected to it. Since the case never went to trial, attempting to impose judgments in the title would be inappropriate and against policy. Those POV-laden titles could be used for redirects, though. Wahkeenah 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about <B>2006 Mangum / Nifong Lacrosse Team Hoax</B> ? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 06:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound very neutral to me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream news source releases her name
and picture. Wow...Fox News. Her name was also used at least twice during the press conferences from media and a defense attorney. I'm shocked. -Bluedog423Talk 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why be shocked? It has been pretty much determined that she was the only one who committed any crime that night. Hers days of being a 'victim' are long gone. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that she is a victim, far from it. I am shocked because I cannot recall another rape complainant having his or her name released - even after charges have been dropped.  It is unprecedented, in my understanding.  This just shows that this case is clearly not typical. -Bluedog423Talk 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tawana Brawley. Αργυριου (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"I cannot recall another rape complainant having his or her name released"</i> The Amsterdam News revealed the name (and other info) of the (true) victim of the Central Park Wilding Case. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I stand corrected and spoke too soon. NBC and CBS (at least their wral affiliate) have also used her name in news telecasts so now several media outlets have revealed her name. -Bluedog423Talk 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum as prostitute
I cited a Fox News item ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html ), which states that on at least one occasion she admittedly had sex with a "customer"; even if she only had sex with a 'customer' (aka a 'John') one time (which I DO NOT believe) that means that she was a prostitute. Period. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. She took a customer of the strip joint home and had sex with him. We don't know (adn it's not stated in the article) that he paid her for anything - we only know that he paid to see naked girls dancing. Therefore we can't say that she's a prostitute. (Unless there's a reliable source for a prostitution conviction somewhere else.) Αργυριου (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this. We know that she had sex with the customer, but not whether she was paid specifically for the sex. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"we only know that he paid to see naked girls dancing"</i>. And how, exactly, do we <B>know</b> that little fact? I don't think that the article said that, did it? Quite a leap of faith on your part, IMO. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it says in the article he was a customer of the strip club. So,Argyriou is correct in saying that "we only know that he paid to see naked girls dancing" because a) it's a strip club. b) naked girls dance in strip clubs. c) you have to pay a cover charge to get in. d) we only know that much about him. You really don't have to be snide to people you know? Mefanch 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Argyriou: she was working both as a stripper in a club and as an escort, doing one-on-one meetings with customers. The article doesn't specify whether she had sex with a stripper customer or an escort service customer; Occam's razor would cut toward the escort side - it would be much easier to have sex with a customer during an "escort" meeting than leaving the strip club and going somewhere with a strip club patron.  The article doesn't specify though...  Valtam  01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what source it was in, but didn't one source say during out-calls that she was paid to perform sexual acts with another stripper? I think being paid to perform sexual acts counts as prostitution even if the customer does not participate in the sex.  Is that right?  The law on that may vary from state to state. Johntex\talk 03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: NC Criminal Code, Chapter 19, (7b) "Prostitution" means offering in any manner or receiving of the body in return for a fee, for acts of vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, or physical contact with a person's genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or breasts, <B>or other acts of sexual conduct offered or received for pay and sexual gratification</b>. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the very definition of WP:NOR. If she's not named as a prostitute in a reliable source, she's not a prostitute. --Beaker342 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this is the most relevant quote regarding this question: 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." Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/421799.html To me, this would justify referring to her as an escort, but not a prostitute.  Valtam  19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * With BLP and all, I'd be VERY leery of calling someone a prostitute without ironclad sourcing of such. Even if we had a source stating that she'd performed sexual acts on another dancer, as Duke says, we'd still need confirmation that it was done within the state of North Carolina for that state's definition of prostitution to apply (since she could've taken a road trip, or done it during her time in the Navy, or whatever), and we'd need confirmation that it wasn't some sort of Mapplethorpe-style performance art piece, etc. I agree that both of those seem rather unlikely, but as a general rule it pays to measure twice and cut once when it comes to calling someone a whore. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pull defendants' and complainants photos?
Here's an idea maybe everyone can live with -- Considering that both parties now have no more to do with the court system or legal troubles than you or I (well, I shouldn't speak for anyone else ;)), we could minimize their personal info. How about removing photos of both the defendants and complainant (whatever people suspect, she's not charged with anything like a false accusation, only Nifong is; so to write otherwise is Original Research), so they can get back to being anonymous civilians? It's nice to have photos, but readers won't be missing anything crucial to understanding the events. Again, I'm hoping this suggestion is one everyone can live with ... hope springs eternal! Guanxi 20:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another way to say it, is they are arguably no longer public figures and have some claim to privacy, and as Beaker342 says above, WP:BLP demands presumption in favor of privacy for all nonpublic figures in all articles, whether biographies or not.. Guanxi 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aboslutely not. History does not end just because the case has been dismissed.  For one thing, there may be counter-charges or civil charges.  Even if nothing additional happens, readers of this article 100 years from now deserve the best article we can give them, and that includes the photos.  Johntex\talk 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johntex. We should definitely include the photos as we are supposed to provide as much information as possible. -Bluedog423Talk 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, all of the prominent individuals in this case are now public figures. That's a one-way street, as far as I know.  I don't know what a public figure would have to do to no longer be considered a public figure.  Valtam  21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I, like many other editors here, am extraordinarily uncomfortable with the article including the accusor's picture, given that no other reliable source that I know of has published her picture. I'd be uncomfortable with pictures of the accused too if it weren't for the 60 Minutes interviews. As far as I know no reliable third party source has even published her name, but please prove me wrong. I'm very confused by the "maximum amount of information" argument. WP:BLP demands presumption in favor of privacy. As the tag on the picture says, the subject of the photo does not want to be photographed. So why are we publishing her photo? I'm also confused by the claim that she is a public figure given that she is anonymous in all the news sources I have come across. --Beaker342 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Look above - Fox News has published her name and photo. In terms of notability, publicity, etc., she should be treated in the same way as Tawana Brawley, another false rape accuser. Αργυριου (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noticed it now. --Beaker342 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see how it could be inferred or is a possibility, but the complainant is not accused of making a false accusation, and is as innocent of that as the defendants are of the charges. Guanxi 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The allegations were indeed false; the question is whether the accuser lied intentionally or was delusional. Attorney General Cooper appears to believe she is delusional (mentally ill), therefore the accuser has to be considered innocent only with respect to any criminal intent to slander the accused. See the difference? The accusations are false.Ikilled007 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears the NC Atty General said (to paraphrase) 'we believe no attack occurred', which appears to support that the accusations were false. Guanxi 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What the NC Atty General also said: "<I>Based on the significant <U>inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are <B>innocent</B> of these charges</I>". Pretty much calls Crystal Gail Mangum a liar, doesn't it ?23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". The State Attorney said the men were innocent. As the state will not be pressing charges, Magnum is not guilty of making a false report and of slandering the men. One can be not guilty of an action one has committed, either because the evidence is inconclusive or because there wasn't a criminal intent behind the action. OJ is not guilty of killing Nicole Brown, but nobody reasonable thinks he's actually innocent. Αργυριου (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>" ... given that no other reliable source that I know of has published her picture"</i>. the floodgates have opened; by tomorrow she will have been identified (picture and all) by every mass media source available. p.s. go to any online news site and search for her by name, you might be surprised at what you find. :) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted by Argyriou, she is absolutely not anonymous in this Fox News article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html Valtam  21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As of this morning Google News returned no hits. Now it returns 43 hits. I'm still disappointed with the fervor to "expose" her on Wikipedia.--Beaker342 21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is your biggest disappointment in 2007, you will have had a pretty good year. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Beaker342. Guanxi 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above (down through Valtam, the rest was added while I was writing)
 * It's probably not worth editing it now, due to the flux in real life events anyway (including the possibility of further legal proceedings, as Johntex mentions).
 * Bluedog423 says (and I think Johntex implies?) that we are supposed to provide as much information as possible. I think we should provide the best article we can give them (to quote Johntex), with some limitations, but not as much information as possible. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is not meant to be comprehensive, but summaries (maybe the wrong word) of a certain functional length (see Article size). This article omits most information on the issue -- whole books will be written on these events, as does every other article (e.g., the Iraq War, NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, Carbon nanotubes, Andrew Jackson, or pick a random page).
 * Thus, we do (and often loudly) consider the value of different bits of information, and whether they should be included. I think the photos' value is marginal and not worth the costs, but the consensus so far says otherwise, so I'll leave them.
 * Valtam - I was thinking about that. In 2017, I think they will be 'private citizens', long forgotten. Are they private citizens at this moment? There's no hard definition, but I'd say probably not, de facto (I think they deserve to be, but that's not relevant to Wikipedia). Next year? Next decade?
 * Again, unless someone says otherwise, I'm fine leaving the photos for now.
 * Guanxi 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We leave the photos. For better or worse, they are in the public eye.  Even with the passage of time, I see no way back for them.--Wehwalt 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guanxi - I think this case will be remembered mostly for its prosecutorial misconduct - a cautionary tale of prosectuor gone wild - and the names of all formerly private citizens (accuser and accused) will more likely be forgotten. Except by the Internets, of course...  Valtam  01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos of the Duke students should be deleted. Note that I am not identifying them by name -- that's because it was they who were the victims. They didn't do anything wrong. They have had their names dragged through the mud for over a year; their families have had huge legal expenses forced upon them, and at the same time a government employee named Nifong has wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to build a case where there was nothing. A false accuser deserves no protection. It would be nice if folks like Mangum would remember the crime they perpetrate on their own sisters: false accusations taint the water for real victims. Mangum is a pathological liar and should be treated as such. If she is allowed to get away with it, as her record proves, she will do it all again. MarcMontoni 06:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Group of 88
In two locations the article claims that the ad in the Duke Chronicle by the Group of 88 was "supporting the accuser." The actual text of the ad can be seen here: http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm  I don't see support of the accuser in here, but more of a recognition of the problems on the Duke campus, and the signers have taken advantage of the incident to raise these concerns. As such, I'd suggest changing the wording (in at least two locations) to "that commentators have interpreted as support" or the like. The current wording is incorrrect, and can be viewed as biased against the signers. (Sorry, haven't signed up, this is my first comment on wiki... I don't want to just sign in and unilaterally change it.)  69.28.107.35 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you especially for being sensitive enough to bring your idea here for discussion.  This page can get heated at time.  I personally am neutral on your idea.  I agree that the advertisement does not specifically mention the accusser, but I also think that to say it is in support of the accusser is not a great over-simplification either.  I'll be interested to hear what others think. Johntex\talk 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just today I decided to read about this rape case and when I came across the name 'Group of 88' one thing came to my mind. Number 88 is a sign often used by so called white supremacists to indicate two 8th letters of alphabet which is H. It would make 88 stand as HH (Heil Hitler). Simple google search will bring that up. Do you think it is relevant to the case? Thank You ~SnowOnWeb
 * Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe. Please see WP:NOR. --Beaker342 04:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be strange to have faculty members from the "African & African-American Studies" department deliberately inserting references to white supremacy into a document like that. I agree that it's probably just an unfortunate coincidence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be particularly strange to have someone like Mark Anthony Neal rollin' with Adolf, to grab just one example. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Boycott and lawsuit
I just reverted Fsu23phd's addition of major original (and wrong, I might add) research in regards to the lawsuit and a "boycott." The user pretty much just took things from KC Johnson's blog (which we can't use as a source) and then changed some of the information to make it incorrect. Some of the mistakes include, but are not limited to. 1.) Both LAX players didn't fail the class as stated. Only Kyle Dowd did.  The other player received an "F" on the final paper, but did not receive an F for the course. 2.) lacrosse is not capitalized! why do people keep doing that? 3.) His third paper was better in quality than the previous one? There's no way we can no that from a reliable source. Even though KC says it, and I probably believe him, that is just stupid to include in an encyclopedia.  There were more so I just reverted.  Also, way too many details about an unrelated incident. It'd make more sense in my opinion to just say a lawsuit has been filed, and see linked article for more details.  Also, there's no "boycott" to Duke.  The only thing quoted is that Dowd's brother (the family filing the lawsuit) will not attend Duke.  Great, such a widespread boycott....Let's stick to the facts and focus on the topic of the article: the LAX case. I just wanted to include an explanation here since I said I would on the edit summary. -Bluedog423Talk 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim F. Curtis, Michael Munger, Jan. 2007 Lawsuit
My apologies to -Bluedog423.

I have added another section, outlining the lawsuit, which is better cited and very accurate.

In this section, I outline the facts of Mr. Dowd's struggle to have a grade changed at Duke. It is appropirate to include this section, because the facts imply that a lacrosse player was discriminated against as a result of the hysteria following the rape accusation. -fsu23phdTalk


 * I am confused. You apologized, but then completely ignored everything that I said.  You included the exact same section with the exact same errors and without substantial sourcing.  You provide no source material for quoting Munger, and provide unnecessary details about this.  This article is called the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, not everything that has happened wrong at Duke. I agree with you that it is appropriate to include this section because it evolved due to the lacrosse case.  However, we do not need to know the specific details of the case unless you want to create an article titled Kim F. Curtis, Michael Munger, Jan. 2007 Lawsuit, which would be stupid.  A brief summary should be included, and if the reader wants to know more information they can look at the references, which provide the article and the entire civil lawsuit filed by defense attorneys.  Please read and address the issues when people bring them up, instead of just apologizing, but then ignoring them. The summary can be found under "Wider Effects." -Bluedog423Talk 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow me to clear up your confusion. I posted two substantial edits, one about the lawsuit, one about the boycott.  Your original discussion post seemed to take issue with the boycott change that I made, which I agree was poorly written and badly sourced.  So I apologized.  Still confused?  As for Munger's quote, it is taken from the PDF that I posted at the bottom, (the copy of the lawsuit (Page 7, point # 27)).  You don't have to be a jerk about it.  -fsu23phdTalk
 * I didn't intend to be a jerk and apologize if I came off that way. I was just frustrated because I felt you clearly hadn't read when I had written before.  You included the exact same errors that I cited above (both players didn't fail, capitalized lacrosse, etc.) indicating to me you didn't read what I wrote.  Does that not make any sense?  How else am I supposed to take it if I explicitly state the errors and then you ignore them? In regards to the sourcing of Munger's quote, ok; I didn't see it in the PDF when I did a search for "Munger" but perhaps I just missed it.  I still stand by by position that all the intricate details of this particular lawsuit are not important enough to be in this article, though, and as such should not be included. As of now there are 6 sentences about it, which I feel is sufficient.  The three large paragraphs before were majorly overkill. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for apologizing, and I agree with your assessment. -fsu23phdTalk

Crystal Gail Mangum's picture needs to be taken down
the previous posting is still a good question........there were no entries on the accused now "innocent".......there wasnt before the verdict.......blatenly a smear campaign by mostly likely the duke durahm wiki project...the ones who most likely started the entire entry in the first place.............still even after the verdict.......it is a blatent violence to have mangum's picture on her page.....and no pictures/info of the lacross team whatsoever.........regardless of the court of law's determination of the facts of the rape......members of the lacross team are still guilty of being over sexed out of control demonic bigots.....and therefore are not innocent by any means......"thank your grandpa for your cotton shirt" anyone.....?..........and yes this is the new milleneum.

at least attempt to be somewhat fair.....if you are not going put info up on the members of the lacross team....then you need to take her picture down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.220.129 (talk • contribs) 17:26, April 13, 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.220.129 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Her picture needs to stay up. The picture of the men involved should also be up. The facts are the facts and the pictoral record should exist. The men are innocent of rape, of course, and being horny is not a crime under American jurisprudence (that I know of). If you can't leave your biases at the door then maybe wikipedia is not for you. This is an encyclopedia and should reflect facts. Someone should put images of the three men back on the page. Ikilled007 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Her picture definitely needs to stay up. I have no objection to also including the picture of the accussed, but unfortunately it looks like some over-zealous image deletionist deleted that picture. Someone can re-load it if they like. Johntex\talk 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It should stay up.  As for the three, as victims of crime, they need not have photographs here.  However given their repeated press conferences I see no harm in having them.--Wehwalt 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not an admin, I can't see which picture of the three defendants was deleted. Anybody with The Button care to summarize it? Was it a RFU picture of some sort, or maybe a composite of mug shots? I'd think the latter would clearly be OK, since mugshots are public domain and the article talks about the arrests (to satisfy any BLP concerns about relevance). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Made for TV!
Is there (or will there be) a Law & Order:SVU episode based on this debacle?09:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

KC Johnson's effect on the case
Perhaps this merits inclusion in the article somewhere: According to the National Post, at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=41cf8ef1-d41a-45e9-83e4-aae85d0fd52c&k=52797
 * A History Professor KC Johnson, did investigative work on his blog "Durham-in-Wonderland". Here is a quote from the story (with emphasis added): "For a July, 2006, post that questioned the photo identification method that Mr. Nifong used, for example, Prof. Johnson says he contacted every district attorney in North Carolina, as well as 10 police departments. He questioned them about lineup policies and procedures, and concluded the process used in the Duke case was wildly atypical. The blog became an invaluable tool for the students' lawyers involved, said James Cooney, the lead lawyer for one of the three accused. He would read Prof. Johnson's blog every morning and follow the links to his original source material, all of which was meticulously documented, to help build his defence. He recalled one post in January, 2007, quoting a Duke Police report that said a woman working on Mr. Nifong's re-election campaign had advocated the house where the alleged gang rape occurred should be burned down. 'He really worked as a historian,' Mr. Cooney said. 'He did what historians do: He'd go in and he'd look at source material and try to put together facts and understand what was going on. He was just doing it more in real time.' ...One of the accused lacrosse players publicly thanked Prof. Johnson for his 'diligent work exposing the truth' after the North Carolina Attorney-General dropped the charges".

Wowaconia 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is completely legit, it probably should be included. I wonder why we heard nothing of this guy while the case was going on?--Wehwalt 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks legit. Suggest we add a new section "Efforts in support of the students" with this, the support of the men's and women's lacrosse teams, anything else we can think of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * If you were one of the people obsessively following this case over the last year or so (guilty as charged here), Johnson's blog was unquestionably the most reliable source for the most up-to-date information on the case. Everything was meticulously sourced, and I can't recall that he was ever wrong on any substantive issue - and he was quick to correct on the rare occasions that his information was wrong.  I think the new section is an excellent idea, as the efforts of bloggers and regular people to help the students clear their names both on- and off-line was one of the real significant aspects of this case.Unlearned hand 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Importance of being Ignorant
“If it is completely legit, it probably should be included. I wonder why we heard nothing of this guy while the case was going on?--Wehwalt 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)”

Who is “we,” Kimosabe? Everyone who has followed this case knows exactly who K.C. Johnson is. Even my seven-year-old knows who he is. How could a Web site claiming to be an encyclopedia permit people to edit articles that know nothing of the articles’ subject matter? Does my child’s knowledge base thus disqualify him from editing this article? And why would someone who knows nothing about a subject delude himself that he has the right to edit an encyclopedia article on it? 70.23.167.160 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Media coverage of case
This article is desperately short of info on the media coverage with drove this case. I have started a new section, with three arbitrary divisions. There is a lot out there and I have started things off. I would appreciate the help of editors on this one. There were a lot of inflammatory things said at first by the media, later things changed. We need to have the info in this article.--Wehwalt 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gomez3000adams
This user is making massive, radical changes to the page without first visiting the talk page to review what discussions led to the article's current structure. Many of his edits completely ignore consensus already discussed and reached. Ikilled007 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "radical" changes involve removing several ad-hominem statements and  including  a  photo of the defendants. Is it really necessary to use the phrase "falsely alleged" or to refer to the accused's boyfriend as "her latest boyfriend". It seems to me the writer is vindictive and intends to cast as much aspersion on the accused's character without any real justification. The article also mentions the players account of events in a way that suggests that this is fact without giving much credence to other accounts. I have no interest in the story other than that I looked it up on Wikipedia and found it so one-sided I thought I'd edit out the worst bits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gomez3000adams (talk • contribs)


 * The allegations were false -- that issue has already been covered extensively on this talk page. "Latest boyfriend" -- I agree with your assessment. Latest is loaded language and should be removed. As for the accounts, it turns out the players' accounts are the ones substantiated by the Attorney General's investigation. My suggestion is that you make smaller edits, one at a time. When you make one gigantic edit changing elements all over the article, it's radical. If you make just one edit at a time, then your edits can be more thoroughly examined, and a total undo won't be required if some of your edits are in conflict with the consensus. For instance, you should make the "latest boyfriend" edit. Ikilled007 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A few of your changes have merit, but most seem to be removals of content that, while possibly unflattering to one party or another, is germane and well-sourced. I think it would be best to bring up changes one at a time here, to establish consensus, rather than getting into an edit war. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * gomez didn't sign his reply. Just want to clarify that you're in agreement with me, Hit. Ikilled007 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

“X is false” and “Tom falsely alleged X” are not the same. If I falsely claim the square root of 16 is 3, it’s true that the statement of false, but the adverb falsely implies that I did it intentionally.

“Cooper offered no explanation for why the woman told such a story and would not discuss her mental health. However, he said no charges will be brought against her, saying she "may actually believe" the many different stories she told.” – unsigned


 * No problem with making sure the language is technically sound. I inserted the other crucial facts in the same paragraph and left the passive voice edit in place. Ikilled007 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think "falsely" is POV. WP is written from the point of view of the world as a whole, not from the POV of what goes on inside that woman's head.  It is a false allegation. --Wehwalt 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with "she simply did not tell the truth. That's GOT to be conveyed in the first sentence of the article." as does the state AG, Gomez and other. It is a subject of much debate if she lied or was so impaired and delusional that "she simply did not KNOW the truth" - since she did not know her address, how to walk, or how to get home at the time - and it's the reason for not prosecuting her. Perhaps, clarifying the difference between using a word as an adjective and adverb will help. I honestly and in good faith allege (without much confidence and jokingly) that X is not a lawyer because most lawyers can use adjectives and adverbs accurately. While I honestly (maybe negligently) allege this, it may be a false allegation or it may be a true allegation.

It’s also possible to “falsely accuse” a guilty man such as the unethical police practice of “framing the guilty man” or “tightening a case.” There must be wording that fits. I could rewrite in passive tense to avoid falsely applying to a subject. "X was falsely accused" -- unsigned (for obvious reasons) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.98.90 (talk • contribs).
 * Saying that "she did not tell the truth" doesn't necessarily imply an intent to deceive on her part; it's just an assessment of the accuracy of her statements, and it seems pretty clear at this point that her version(s) of events don't correspond particularly closely to those of anybody else, or to the physical evidence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"it's just an assessment of the accuracy of her statements" previous person jumped all over my using "inaccuratly" because it did not convey her intent.

Disprove before using “falsely”: She may have truthfully reported that she thought she was raped, but these were delusions caused by mental health and substance abuse problems. – paraphrasing state AG

Also, chronologically, inserting the outcome, the last element, into the first “began” sentence throws the chronological order off. If the charges were false, why was she prosecuted. unsigned —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.98.90 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice there's a full scale revert war on since I last checked this article. I think I agree with Hit bull, win steak (Although I've reverted the article to Gomez3000adams before reading the talk pages). Some of that does make sense. Certainly the "loaded" words should go as well as a couple of statements clearly in favor of the accused (such as the one explaining the McFadyen email). I don't think characterizing the accuser as an African American single mother is necessarily racist (which I guess is why some people keep re-reverting). I think its also fair to include the photo of the defendants in the interests of completeness. At the risk of repeating much that has already been said here I'm opening a new discussion on the photos 24.1.157.50 02:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "gomez didn't sign his reply". Apologies. A simple error. I do agree. I think a lot of changes need to be made to the article to be NPOV but I agree that the changes should be made incrementally. Gomez3000adams 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "untrue statements", generally reworking the first sentence. I note that someone already took out the word "untrue", though someone put it back. I think we need to put in the first sentence that the statements were untrue (actually, ha ha, they were double plus untrue). Just because information is unfavorable to the accuser, that doesn't render its inclusion POV. The statements weren't true. It doesn't imply she lied, it allows those who are jumping on the AG's suggestion that she may actually believe it an out, and I don't see the problem. As for those who argue it should go in chronological order, you put important things first.--Wehwalt 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Include Mugshot of defendants or exclude
I know this has been discussed before. I agree with Johntex that the stripper's photo needs to stay up. But the accuseds's photos should also probably be included. 24.1.157.50 02:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now there is only a picture of 2 of the 3 people accused. There should be pictures of all three of them.  Perhaps one could be located from their press conference after the charges were dropped, which is the only time I can recall seeing all three together at the same time.Unlearned hand 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mugshots? Of people who are innocent, and very likely victims of crime?  How ridiculous.  However, as they have continued to make appearances (one of them was on the Today show) even after their exoneration, I guess it is OK to have an appropriate picture of them someplace in the article.  However, I do not think we should say that we MUST have one or we can't use the false accuser's photo.--Wehwalt 10:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think pretty much everyone is OK with a photo/composite of the three defendants. The only reason it was removed from the article before is that someone tagged the existing image as replacable fair use (which, in fairness, it probably was). Since the article is in large part ABOUT the arrests, I don't think that using the mug shots for the three would be unfair in any way, particularly since the article makes it clear that the charges were not only dropped but repudiated. Those images would also have the advantage of being public domain, and thus be unlikely to be removed again in the future. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What about support for players?
Mostly in the "Duke University response" and "Wider effects" sections it talks about the negative effects of the case, however the players recieved a very large amount of support from many people in Durham and throughout the country. An example of this is the wristbands that were sold to raise money for the legal expenses of the players saying, "Innocent! #6, #13, #45 - Duke Lacrosse 2006" (the players numbers). A section of the community and country's support for the players needs to be added. -- Y ar na lg o talk to me 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard response
I posted this on the Crystal article talk page, same advice applies here. This shouldn't be difficult to work out.

I saw this posted on the BLP noticeboard. Here is my learned take on this dispute. I have followed the news reporting on this story, and the state atty. did use the word "innocent" at the press conference, and that is not insignificant. I think it should be presented (and surely can be sourced) that he declared them "innocent". However, in order to comply with WP:BLP, she cannot be said to have made false statements unless she has been convicted of it. As far as I am aware, she hasn't even been charged. So it's simply a matter of a proper rewording. Something like "she made these statements, which the state atty later declared them to be innocent of." Those are the straight facts as reported by reliable sources, and the reader can draw the conclusion that the statements were false all on their own. - Crockspot 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A little further thought: What WOULD be acceptable is if there was a reliable source that accuses her of making false statements, but it would have to be clearly characterized as that person's opinion (and obviously well sourced), not written as editorial fact in the article. For example: Jack Muckraker of the Gotham City News has accused her of making false statements - Crockspot 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I would prefer "untrue statements" which is not a crime. I will go looking for an adjective to put in quotes and footnote.  I think some of you are overprocessing this.--Wehwalt 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure I understand this argument... Mangum made statements which were "untrue" but not "false"? What is the difference between an "untrue" statement and a "false" statement? Can someone present examples of each so that everyone can be clear on the issue and proper language can be included in the article? What is the difference between "false" and "untrue" with respect to statements? Ikilled007 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Making false statements" sounds like the formal name of a crime, which is, near as I can tell, Crockspot's quibble. "Untrue statements", while meaning the same thing, in my view, doesn't carry the same connotation.--Wehwalt 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that "making false statements" is a crime. "Filing a false police report" is a crime in most if not all jurisdictions, but that's not what the article says.  Unless someone can point to a NC statute making it a crime to "make false statements", I don't believe this argument holds water.  I confess that I do not understand the aversion to the term "false statements", which virtually everyone acknowledges is factually accurate (untrue=false).Unlearned hand 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is my thinking too, Unlearned hand: the opposite of true is what, "untrue" or "false"? I thought it was "false". Something is either "true" or "false". To call her statements "false" seems like an accurate description of those statements to me, even if she is not being prosecuted for some formal charge of making such statements. Maybe we can add a statement like "Attorney General Cooper explained that Mangum will not be prosecuted for making false statements because in his opinion, it's possible she believed them to be true" with a citation to his press conference where he said exactly that. Would something along those lines be helpful? To me, the point is that this article should be clear on two counts: Firstly, that for purposes of the law, no attack took place; Secondly, for purposes of the metaphysical reality of the situation, no attack took place. These are important distinctions and need to be clear in this article, less the article leave the impression that it's possible Mangum was raped by these men, but that there's just not enough evidence to prosecute them. I get the impression that some of the users here want to have that slant in this article, but this article should reflect the metaphysical reality that no attack took place (for lack of a better term). What do you people think? Ikilled007 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We can say the statements are "false" withoug accusing her of any crime. Lying is not necesarily a crime if not done under oath.  Being wrong is not necesarily a crime either.  There is no problem with saying the accusations were "false". Johntex\talk 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How about unfounded. 90 % plus of white college girls claiming "date rape drug" have no sign of any date rape drug in them. It's wrong to suggest that they engaged in a criminal act of making a false statement to police - when they just drank way, way too much. - unsigned (comment originally by 64.26.98.90, moved to this section)


 * Quite frankly, if they told someone a couple of days later that "I'm going to get paid by the white boys" (as Mangum reportedly did according to the manager of the club where she "danced"), I'd be less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt than most of the people who keep removing the "falsely" terminology from the article. "Falsely" is accurate and NPOV, and is still the best description, IMHO.  However, I have not reverted it in the article to allow other opinions to be expressed. Unlearned hand 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>"How about unfounded".</i> Crystal Gail Mangum's allegations were found to be false by North Carolina's Attorney General Cooper's in-depth investigation, so using the term 'unfounded' would be a lie here. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has the proper connotation. I think "false" is adequate.  While this is not a democracy, there does seem to be majority support and proper arguments for it.--Wehwalt 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

proposal to move this article
I propose to move this article to 2006 Duke University false rape accusations scandal. The scandal surrounding the false accussations seems to me to be the focus of the story. The lacrosse team isn't. LaszloWalrus 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that title is a bit too controversial considering there is an edit war about the word "false" in the lead right now. But I'd suggest a change as well - I also think the title it too long now. Perhaps 2006 Duke lacrosse case or something.  There's no other Duke lacrosse case I am aware of, why not just Duke lacrosse case? Maybe it's standard wikipedia practice to include the year. -Bluedog423Talk 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia policy agaist using the word “scandal” in a title, the exception being if it’s commonly know in press as a scandal as in the teapot dome scandal. There is also a policy against saying “She lied” and there is also a policy aginst using technically accurate words that are true but which imply – can’t even call the KKK “racist” which implies they are scum, have to call them white supremists.

accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial terms that are technically accurate but imply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid

also I did not see the words false or false statement or falsely accues in the AG's statement or report (below) http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/cooper.transcript/ likely because he was cleverly avoiding the term

Also I took out "to police" since as in report below and some previous report, she first made the untrue claims to a mental health worker(s). She even said she was a cop. She would have said she was from Mars, IMHO, if you asked her that night.

Good luck trying to improve this article, since it seems like a small group with a high interest in this case does not seem to care about including any other views. A group that can read the AV and Nifog's mind, and knows a cop had it out for them.

unsigned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.98.90 (talk • contribs).


 * How about "2006 Duke lacrosse controversy". Short and sweet.  Given that the "scandal" did not involve the team, there is no good reason to keep the title the way it is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I still propose having Hoax in the title, as the entire event has been shown to be a hoax. Valtam 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In common usage, "Hoax" usually carries a sort of practical joke connotation as opposed to something more serious. How about "Incident" instead? Duke Alleged Rape Incident or something like that? Ikilled007 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I could go with "Incident" but mind-readers know that it's a "scandal" rather than just an accidental train-wreck. Didn't some black (note questionable use of race) man just get of some NC prison after 24 years? Here is a prediction that may be off topic. Wikipedia may survive being wrong once in a while, and many of the potitcal pages have off the cuff quoted remarks, reported in the press that “He/She is the dumbest” person alive – but what will do Wikipedia, Digg, and has done the blogs in has been groups of extremeists promiting one point of view. Once Wikipedia acquires the reputation of having sections being dominated by racists, sexists, it’s over. Not to mention what is going to happen when it’s known that men who don’t believe date rape should be a crime can influnce Wikipedia just as they dominate the blogs – by speaking up because they are the only people who care. - unsigned(64.26.98.90)

Attorney General's report released
Attorney General's report released. 21 pages, lots to add. -Bluedog423Talk 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Accuser's Image
Someone delted and removed Mangum's image. It should be restored. Ikilled007 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The photo was taken by the Durham Police Department, so as I understand it there is no copyright issue that prevents its use.  The person who incorrectly deleted the image should restore it. Unlearned hand 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johntex\talk 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it this was a long time ago, cuz it ain't there now. In fact, there are no images in the article now!  There must be some public domain images of Seligmann, Reed, Finnerty, and Nifong somewhere, and the article should at least include those four plus Mangum.  --Jaysweet 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy and Grammar
Lying on her side would mean making an untrue statement while on her side. Laying on her side means her body was in a horizontal position.

The article cites nearly 190 sources, that is part of the reason why the factual accuracy is in doubt. Much of the information produced by the sources cited is in doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davemarshall04 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Baldwin Letters
I added the two Baldwin letters to the "Other Faculty" part for two reasons. One is they represent the only faculty statement published in the student newspaper disapproving of the firing/resignation of Coach Pressler, and two is the clear importance that actions involving Pressler will have on the story of this case. <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article
As the proposal above seems to be gotten lost, I propose the article be called "Duke lacrosse controvery". The existing title should go because it didn't involve the team except in a small part, and scandal seems a bit pov.--Wehwalt 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the article should be named "Duke lacrosse rape case." This is the name used by all three books currently in press about it, including the one co-written by the former coach.  These books are It's Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered by Don Yaeger and Mike Pressler, A Rush to Injustice: How Power, Prejudice, Racism, and Political Correctness Overshadowed Truth and Justice in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Nader Baydoun and R. Stephanie Good, and Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson. -Bluedog423Talk 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about "2006 Duke University lacrosse case"? There were more than rape charges, then there were not rape charges at all.  I get the feeling that the typical search terms will be Duke and lacrosse anyway.  <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "2006 Duke University lacrosse case" is, if nothing else, much more neutral than the existing title. Currently it contains the term "scandal", which would seem to indicate some form of major wrongdoing on the part of the lacrosse team.  "Case" is much more neutral, though there are numerous other acceptable words that could be used as well.  (Incident, perhaps)  At the very least the title should be changed to avoid the term "scandal". --  Y&#124; yukichigai (<b style="color:blue;">ramble</b> <b style="color:red; font-size:smaller;">argue</b> <b style="color:green;">check</b>) 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can certainly live with that. "2006 Duke University lacrosse case".  Very neutral.--Wehwalt 13:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it to "2006 Duke University lacrosse case" since it seemed like that was the general consensus. -Bluedog423Talk 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite two sections
Ordinarily, I'd be bold and do it myself, but considering the explosiveness of this whole subject, I'm going to look for a consensus first. Two subsections in "Response", "Administration" and "President Brodhead", should be rewritten into a single chronological paragraph. The administration section contains nothing about administration personnel other than Brodhead, and both paragraphs show obvious signs of piecemeal editing. Three paragraphs in a row use the phrase "President Richard H Brodhead", with a link attached to each cite. The entire "President Brodhead" section would fit in nicely right after the first paragraph of the "Administration" section, preserving a chronological consistency. After that is accomplished, the whole section can be rewritten to produce better-written copy. Horologium talk - contrib 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and rewrote the two sections, since nobody objected. I also found a more accurate cite for the Brodhead interview with Lesley Stahl, and used the whole quote, which made a lot more sense in context than the partial quote that was in the article before.


 * Horologium talk - contrib 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Removal
Since it appears that we may be on the way to an edit war on this article as well (until it gets protected by an admin), we need to note that if Mangum's mugshot is removed, it is absolutely imperative that the photos of Seligman and Finnerty are removed. In fact, I'd suggest removing the photos of those two in any case, because they are the victims, not Mangum. Horologium talk - contrib 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This was not a mugshot ... it is a picture of her taken two days after she claims to have been 'brutally' beaten about the head and face, which supposedly caused massive bruising. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear on why the Mangum photo was removed. Wasn't it taken by the Durham PD and thus in the public domain?  In any event, I have never been a fan of the player mugshots so I am OK with removing them on any terms.--Wehwalt 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the images in the article, Its not about fairnes or about who was the victim and who wasn't. Its about encyclopedic (in the sense of including everything that is known) completeness. I'd like to think of Wikipedia as single definitive source aggregating all verifiable info available on the web and elsewhere, so that if I'm searching for info on say the Duke Lacrosse case, I know where to get complete, exhaustive but verifiable info. The mugshots are not in the article just to titillate interest or victimize but because a fact of the case is that arrests were made and mugshots where taken. Anyone who reads the article will know that mugshots or no, the duke guys were found completely innocent. I'm not going to bring back the photos cause I can't find a usable one for the accuser and I know the controversy that including one but not the other will generate but I thought i should leave this commment anyway. Gomez3000adams 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, whatever you may like to think of wikipedia as, it's not that. I suggest you start your own website for that purpose. Per many policies including BLP, the fact that something is verifiable isn't sufficient for it to be included Nil Einne 11:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The great 'purge' of 05/22/07
Apparantly two previously disinterested editors are allowed to completely disrupt these articles with no discussion ... including deleting (and deleting again, with no record of it) images that are relevant to this article. Can an admin please step in here to straighten out this absurd situation? My own thoughts are that since the main instigators in this matter are not from the U.S.A. they do not realize what a major NATIONAL story this had become. When did dictatorship and censorship become kings at WP? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

bad links
There are several bad links in references. Not sure the best way to clean them up. --gunnerclark 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In an article this controversial, search for alternative links to the same references and then if not found immediately remove broken links without comment, and remove any resulting unsourced potentially derogatory statements. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial Considerations
I just reverted an edit which removed all references to the race of the accuser and the three players. The racial component of this case is highly relevant, because it exacerbated racial tensions in the city, and race baiters on both sides of the divide issued a good deal of rather shrill rhetoric over the issue. I believe it needs to remain, but if a consensus is reached to scrub the racial elements of the case, I'll not object. I'd like to see if anyone else has a view on this, one way or another. Horologium t-c 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This hoax was entirely about race right from the beginning (<I>remember Kim Roberts' lie filled 911 calls</i>?); mentions of the perp's (<I>Crystal Gail Mangum</i>) and victims' (<I>the three players</i>) respective races should be left in this article. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, to clarify: Mangum wasn't the perp initially.  Also, it wasn't a hoax, she lied to investigators--its been done before.  If youre calling her the perpetrator of the hoax, and if by hoax you mean crime, then thats fine.  Just making sure.Samwithans 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>Erm</I> ... if Crystal Gail Mangum "wasn't the perp initially", then <I>who</I> was? She started this whole hoax with her lies. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to strike a chord, but she wasn't the perp that night, Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty were. In Durham especially, she couldn't have possibly done anything by herself to cause a 'hoax' on the scale to which this elevated.  Nifong did more to pursue this case than she did.  She couldn't even keep her stories straight.Samwithans 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure exactly what chord you think you've struck, but let's make one thing perfectly clear: <I>Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty were <B>victims</B> that night and were <B>victims</B> until the NC Attorney General declared them <B>innocent</b></i>. They were victims of a fraud started by Crystal Gail Mangum and perpetuated by Mike Nifong. BTW, Do you know what a 'perp' is ... it's not the same as being a 'suspect'. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Victim and perpetrator are antonyms. Perp redirects to suspect, I didn't link it to suspect.  After being charged, the players were, legally speaking, suspects until they were declared innocent, at which time they became victims of the fraud.  I don't want to pollute this talk page, so Im going to take a break from this discussion.  Samwithans 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is less of a dictionary than it is an encyclopdia (<I>which isn't saying all <B>that</b> much</i>). The three lacrosse players <I>perpetrated</i> no wrongdoing on the night in question. They were, and are, simply victims of a hoax, which was <I>perpetrated</I> by Crystal Gail Mangum. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove all references to race, only references that were not directly related to the subjects' use of race to implicate others. I agree that it was about race from the beginning (remember how white escorts were requested?), but the subjects races are unimportant in some places, such as the introduction. If race comes into the discussion as an inherent fact of the case, then it is clearly necessary to specify it. Racial tension results from the understanding that race is a defining characteristic of individuals, so by omitting unnecessary references to the subjects' race, I'm not trying to ignore important facts, just making the account more objective. If the racial aspect of the case is underrepresented, I wouldn't object to reorganizing the article to include a section that outlines those effects; but the article does not need to be hyper-aware of the subjects' race to convey the existence of racial tension. Pending further discussion, I will leave the article unchanged.Samwithans 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the references to race need to stay. Mangum said she was raped by three whites, therefore the one black player on the team was excluded from suspicion when the 46 others were called in for DNA swabs. The reference to Mangum's race is needed to explain the tension between Duke and mostly black NCCU.  If there are excessive numbers of references to peoples' race, it can be toned down, but frankly, I didn't see that there were.  I think it is OK as is.--Wehwalt 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one can deny the racial component of this case, especially if you're from Durham as I am. But the first thing I noticed about the page is how Mangum is described in the intro as "an African-American exotic dancer," and how the victims were described as "white members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team." This seems like a subtle implication of a relationship between exotic dancing and being African American, as well as being white and being a Duke student. As I said it's not overt, but I do think it needs to be more carefully rewritten.--74.243.165.106 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs a rewrite. Using racial descriptions in the introduction, in this context, is tantamount to racial profiling.Erp0033 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC

Race in the Intro

I removed race from the intro because it's written as though it is a FACT that Mangum's motive was race related. It is Duke53's opinion, not a fact. And does Duke53, or anyone else, have the right to change African American to "black?" I dispute his changes on the basis of NPOV. Further, I reason that racial descriptions in the introduction of this article are not only inflammatory and unnecessary but also suggestive of racial profiling. Including all the parties' races would be appropriate in a section devoted solely to the racial implications of the case.--Erp0033 03:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that Crystal Gail Mangum is black; it is a fact that the three boys that she falsely accused of these crimes are white. It is a fact that the second 'stripper' made the first contact with law enforcement that evening with false allegations of racist comments. It is a fact that Crystal Gail Mangum boasted to other employees at a strip joint she worked at about "...<I>going to be paid by the <B>WHITE</b> boys</I>". You may not like it but the race card was played at every stage of this incident and is a large part of the story. It belongs in the lead. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All that information would fit very nicely into a section on the racial aspect of the case. Putting it up front is a mistake because you're basically saying "the stripper accused the white boys of raping her because she was black." And even though it sounds like there might be some evidence to support that claim, it still hasn't been proved. I'm not going to revert it again if you decide to change it, but I'd appreciate it if we could get someone else's opinion on it.--Erp0033 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All the opinions in the world are not going to change the fact that the one of the two escorts lead with a race card and the other kept playing it at every step of this farce. There is ample evidence of this fact ... (<I>sadly, if you go to the North Carolina NAACP website you can see the allegations that were made by the false accuser ( and have since been proven to be lies ) STILL being stated as 'truth'</i>). As I have said before, this is, and always has been, a case about race, not rape, and the lead should reflect that. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave all that aside. Race needs to be in the intro so that the reader can understand what is going on with only whites being DNA tested.  It is simpler to characterize Mangum as black.  I'm OK with African-American, a rose by any other name is probably the same color.--Wehwalt 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to stress that though I agree with Duke53's object of retaining the references to race in the lead, I do not agree with his rationale. Mangum described the attackers as white male members of the lacrosse team, therefore that info needs to be in the lead. It explains why the authorities sought DNA testing of only those people who were white male lacrosse players (they did not DNA test the black member of the men's lacrosse team). The reference to her as black is relevant, as that is what inflamed the whole situation. If we bowlderize the lead, it might be PC, but the uninformed reader will not be informed, and may well be misled. I do not agree that the lead, as it stands, says 'Mangum accused the players of rape because they were white and she was black.' I see no such implication.--Wehwalt 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean Wehwalt. The fact that the then-suspects were white lacrosse players was really the only means of identification that CGM could provide Durham PD, initially. I hadn't thought of it that way, but that certainly does belong in the introduction.
 * Any further discussion of her race within the context of the "facts of the case" is a stretch, though, because no where in the Durham County Superior Court's Summary will you find any claims of racism in any way, from either side.
 * But race relations was the fire under the kettle for this case, no doubt. My personal opinion is that she accused them of it because she saw dollar signs. And I think Nifong was complicit in that he needed the black vote to win the election.
 * Either way, I highly encourage someone to do a section on how this case highlighted race relations in Durham and around the country. That is what Duke53 has been getting at, I think.--Erp0033 10:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides the single sentence that the case highlighted racial tensions in Durham, at the end of the intro, I don't think there is anything. I think that is pretty harmless and should remain.  I agree with you, we need a section on the discussions on race, Nifong pandering to the black community at the fora he held, Jesse Jackson's promise of a scholarship to Mangum, etc.--Wehwalt 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship Alert
On May 23, 2007, David Gerard deleted the entire Crystal Gail Mangum page, which fortunately has been reproduced at Wikitruth. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Crystal_Gail_Mangum

Gerard’s rationalization for his indefensible action was, <I>“delete for salting against mission posters”</I>. I have no idea what that means in English, and due to Gerard’s meta-censorship, you can’t even read it at WP – he even deleted the rationalization for his censorship! Perhaps the phrase is a reference to the ancient practice whereby an invading army, after committing genocide (think the Romans in Carthage), would salt the earth throughout the area so that, were any survivors to return and seek to till the land, it would prove barren, and they would starve.

Some of the material from Mangum’s page seems to have been incorporated into the Duke Rape Hoax page – against the standard WP recommendation that was for so long visible at the page to abbreviate it. Since this material now lacks the hoaxer’s photograph, which graced her own page, it appears that at least one of Gerard’s motives was to prevent readers from knowing what the racist who ruined so many lives looks like.

[personal attack removed]

...to the sober-minded, something is certainly amiss with an “encyclopedia” article that can be edited by people who know nothing of its subject matter, while one of that “reference work’s” princes (who also gives no evidence of being familiar with the subject) does his best to keep readers in a permanent state of ignorance about said subject, and too cowed by his wikipower to call him out on his egregious misconduct.

70.23.167.160 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP. There's a very good reason why this article here is sufficient and a page for Magnum is unnecessary. hateless 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that WP has been effectivly neutered by WP:BLP. It's the equivalent of McCarthyism:  One just needs to make the accusation that certain talking points are out of order, and entire articles such as Crystal Gail Mangum are apt to disappear like a fart in the wind; even when such articles are unimpeachably sourced.  SuMadre 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the separate entry for Crystal Gail Mangum?
What happened to the separate entry for Crystal Gail Mangum? Was its removal a case of wiki vandalism? I don't see any justification for that page's deletion nor any reason why she is not deserving of a separate stand alone entry, including a photo. People want to know more about her and how she is carrying on her life today. Deleting the separate entry is a disservice to people who want to learn more about this case.
 * Maybe it'll be helpful if you read the discussion one above this rather then making a new post? Nil Einne 11:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt make any sense. There is still a Tawana Brawley page. Should the "Norman Schwarzkopf" page redirect to "Gulf War"?

If the same information from her bio is still available on "Duke University LAX Case" then how was any BLP issue "fixed"? If information was censored out, was there ever a consensus formed?

Wikipedia becomes less and less valuable because of all this agenda motivated editing.