Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 4

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Over 200 footnotes...
That has to be some kind of near-record. Are there any tools to count &lt;ref&gt; tags?--76.203.48.177 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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


 * "Media Coverage" and "Response" could probably both be moved out to their own articles. I'd really like to see that material stay on Wikipedia, because it is an excellent collection of information that I have not found anywhere else, and I feel that it is reasonably encyclopedic (though both sections could use some copy-edit, reorganization, and a little bit of rebalancing).  But it probably is a logical place to split the article.
 * Great suggestion! Done.--76.203.126.39 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the copious footnotes, I think to a certain extent that is necessary with such a controversial topic, especially one that involves living persons. Trimming the article should help somewhat with that though. --Jaysweet 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * It was on CNN for about half a day (so you'd have to look through the cached versions, but I can't find it anymore). It was just a word for word transcript of the AG's conference when he declared them innocent and a reporter used Mangum's name in a question.  I saw it and added that particular reference.  However, CNN changed the wording within 8 hours so the link doesn't show it anymore. Don't really know if this should even be mentioned; it's probably not significant enough. -Bluedog423Talk 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greyfox-csa


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

"Falsely accused" vs. "Now-discredited"
I've thought for a while that the intro wasn't clear; we would be better off with the following: "...Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American stripper and escort, falsely accused three white members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping, beating, and sodomizing her at a party". It is all that is really needed, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment into its own section for organizational purposes. First, I'm not sure, but I believe that "Black" is the current politically correct term, since "African-American" implies that a person is either an African immigrant or directly descended from African immigrants, while "black" simply refers to skin color. As far as "Falsely accused" vs. "Now-discredited", in my opinion, "now-discredited" is a better term, since it makes clear that her accusation was credited for a period of time. It isn't about whether the term is too harsh, it's about what gives the reader the most accurate view of events. To say "falsely" doesn't show that her claims were believed for a period of time, which is the reason that the scandal occurred. Perhaps "raping, beating, and sodomizing" should say raping and assaulting, as the specifics are explained later in the article. "Sexual assualt" might also be used. --Jude. 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Crystal Gail Mangum lied about the events of that evening ... her accusations are, and were, false. Whether they were believed, by anyone, is beside the point. The statement that the accusations were false is factual, and easily proven. Duke53  | Talk 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement that the accusations were believed is factual, and easily proven, as well. I'm not attempting to argue the point that she lied or that her accusations were false; I agree with you. But the fact that her accusations were believed is very important. It's where the scandal stemmed from. If no one believed her, then there would be no scandal. The fact that her accusations were believed is exactly the point. If you're concerned about whether the fact that the accusations were untrue is clear, the use of "now-discredited" makes it perfectly clear that the accusations were untrue. --Jude. 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


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

And Duke53 and Wehwalt "know" she "lied" - as opposed to was just crazy - HOW? Because they can read minds? Because they know more than the N.C. DA? You made the entire case against yourselves - not to mention by sounding like Rush, you discredit this entire article, more than WP is a joke in general. Not that I care about a bad article online, but OUTING people and taking justice into your own hands is not a laughing matter. You are HELPING rapists by discouraging others from reporting "alleged" crimes. 64.26.72.143 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. Please read up on assuming good faith.  As for her mental health, I have heard nothing that indicates her children have been removed or that she's been recently committed.  And her name is in the public domain, used by many news services.  As for the justice into own hands comment, I'm somewhat puzzled by that.--Wehwalt 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


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

You guys are mostly arguing on semantics, in my opinion. But, in any event, we could look to mainstream media for what phrase to use. Here are some examples:
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education in June 2007 - "three lacrosse players [...] were falsely accused of rape last year"
 * Associated Press's Aaron Beard on July 26, 2007 - "three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape"
 * WRAL on July 20, 2007 - "An attorney who represented one of three Duke lacrosse players prosecuted on false rape allegations"
 * Another AP article on July 12, 2007 - "the now-discredited Duke lacrosse rape case."
 * Another AP article on July 26, 2007- "Attorneys for the three falsely accused players"
 * CBS News on June 15, 2007 - "the now-discredited rape scandal."
 * Baltimore Sun on June 30, 2007 - "after now-discredited rape allegations were lodged against three players."

Conclusion: there is no clear answer really. But none of the articles used Mangum as the main subject. In any event, they pretty much mean the same thing! Personally, I like "made false accusations against" if you choose to use Mangum as the main subject performing the action. I could see how somebody might argue that she was crazy and actually believed what she said, so saying "she falsely accused" is misleading (somebody could argue) because that suggests she maliciously made false statements. Obviously, it is certainly possible that she did, but we don't know. We do know, however, that the accusations ended up being false. Either "players were falsely accused" or "she made false accusations" would clear up this uncertainty because they don't make any judgment on if Mangum maliciously and knowingly made false statements - they merely point to the fact that they were false. Take from this what you want. -Bluedog423Talk 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well put. For your first proposal, I generally oppose using the passive voice simply because it gives such an opportunity to fudge.  If you feel "when Crystal Gail Magnum made false accusations against . . . " does the trick better, I guess it is OK.

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

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

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

Passive voice English lesson for the average teenager Wikipedian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the accusations were provable as false accusations, why was Crystal never held accountable for filing a false report with the police? Is there actually proof that the rape never took place? If so it should be included, and it should be included why Crystal was never held accountable. Otherwise, all we know is the facts can not prove what happened either way. Nhall0608 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the attorney general of North Carolina to start with . . . but WP is not bound by the definition of a crime. Mangum made an accusation, it was false, not true.  The men were declared innocent.  It is not an unknown it ws known that her accusation was false.  Q.E.D.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The page on Group of 88 member Alex Rosenberg is currently under attack by those who wish whitewash his role in prejudging the players help. Please help to make sure that the facts are not surpressed. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

SANE and Medical Center Involvement
Now with the lawsuits having been filed against Duke and Durham, I believe that we need to add the complicity provided by the medical center and nurse that "treated" Mangum after she was at the party. Considering that the nurse had minimal background in health services (her degree was in Women's studies), and she is named in the lawsuit, it would be wise to have more germaine information concerning that part of the scandal.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Be bold--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegally hired Escort
Isn't it illegal to hire an escort?--195.226.227.100 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you hire her to do. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although she was a prostitute, she also worked as a stripper for the company the Duke players contacted. PokeHomsar (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A Modest proposal
Would a linkage to the Tawana Brawley case be in order?Naaman Brown (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't advise it. False accusations are not terribly unusual.  I would not want people to think we are including her because she is black.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * False accusations which rise to this level of public furor, however, are not so common. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Escort
Now that it is not politically correct to call Crystal Gail Mangum a prostitute, there is an editor who doesn't want to even call her an escort, which by her own admission, she was. She had sex with people for money, so what exactly was she? Duke53 | Talk 05:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a source that says it. An "escort service dancer" is a dancer, not an escort. Have a look at WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the name of the dance where the 'dancer' has a vibrator stuck in her snatch? Duke53  | Talk 06:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's called "dancing for white boys at Duke". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (<I>sigh</i>) I really should know better than to ask <I>some people</I> such difficult questions; what you provided was a <I>description</i> .... what I asked for was a <I>name</i> (e.g. rhumba, waltz, samba. etc.). What Crystal Gail Mangum was performing was actually a form of prostitution. <I>Thanks for playing though</I>. Duke53  | Talk 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

She had a pimp. It's in Until Proven Innocent. She had sex with people for money. By the way, Malik, you're leaving out the part where the players told them to leave the second they tried stuff like that. PokeHomsar (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Article needs updates for the status of the lawsuits?
Would anyone who is knowledgeable care to update this article to reflect recent developments in the lawsuits and in the overall incident itself? This entire topic is just crying out for an update. WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may also apply to the top of the article. Unfortunately, I haven't followed this case. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that there are several defendants and seperate lawsuits, it may be prudent to make a new page exclusively for the lawsuits. Cheerio HoundofBaskersville (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not much going on. A lot of pretrial manoevering by the defendants.  K.C. Johnson's blog, while we can't use it as a source, is well worth keeping an eye on to try to figure out what's up in the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no page on Crystal Gail Mangum?
The article on her was deleted and the page salted so that it could never be resurrected. This is particularly curious. Not only was she prominently figured in this case, but she is now, also, an author with her own book out. Surely she rises to the level of notable. Here is her book on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Dance-Grace-Crystal-Mangum/dp/0981783708 and here is the homepage for her book: http://www.danceforgrace.com/

Thoughts? Ikilled007 (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

She does rise to the level of notability, but as we all should know by now, Mangum would break the line of acceptability of reliability and original research. Seriously, however, perhaps would we should add a section to the entry about how the case compares Katie Rousse's? Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing would be added by having a separate article on her.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. It's a minority opinion. Ikilled007 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, count me in as agreeing with Wehwalt. If Mangum does something notable unrelated to the case, it would be worth considering. But unless and until, we don't need a separate article -- thing would have WP:COATRACK written all over it. IronDuke  16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP Violations
I've restored my edits that were recently reverted by Duke53. Many of the edits were due to material that is in violation of WP:BLP. I made this clear in my edit summaries when this was the case. Such material cannot be restored pending discussion on the talk page. I take no position regarding the accuracy of the statements. In fact, I believe the statements I removed to be fully accurate. That doesn't change the fact that we must follow the BLP policy when making accusations of misdeeds against living people. All such accusations must be properly sourced. I understand that the BLP material was, for the most part, properly sourced when it was added to the article. The fact remains that the links are now dead and the statements are no longer properly sourced. If proper sources are found, the statements can be reinserted. I also understand that some of my edits were for reasons other than BLP violations. Those edits can be reverted and discussed here. I don't have time right now to separate the one group from the other, but Duke53 can feel free to do so. If not, I will separate them when I've got some free time. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are incorrect, they are not BLP violations, and they have the net effect of slanting the article. You are misstating the BLP policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Link death does not change the reliability of the sources, even if verifying them becomes more cumbersome. I will agree that two paragraphs can be removed because they cite no sources; however, the sourced paragraphs should remain, unless a more compelling argument than link death can be given. If anything, the correct step at this point is to search an archive for the stories and find a more permanent link. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, one of the several books on the scandal can be used as a source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start by pulling the paragraphs that aren't sourced at all. I'll leave the other contentious BLP material in place pending sourcing.  In some cases, it is unclear if the cite is provided for an entire section of information or to the specific lines that the cite appears in.  The Chief Investigator section, for example, has a bunch of weasel worded statements in the first paragraph without any citation, but there are 2 citations in the second paragraph which may or may not also include statements relevent to the first.  If they were relevent, they should have been ref'd there.  I'll remove it but if we find an archive that shows it we can put it back in.Sperril (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) (NOTE I did not remove the paragraph.  It is impossible to remove it because the material may have been properly cited at some point.  I did remove the weasel worded statements.) Sperril (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps better to comment out the material for a time, or else use the citation needed template?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Feel free to revert my changes and simply comment them out.  Would definitely make it easier to restore the info when cites are found.  I was under the impression that we shouldn't use the citation needed template on contentious BLP material.  I thought we were supposed to remove it unless/until a cite was found.  Obviously, I have a lot to learn about BLP policy still.Sperril (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I'm still confused about the BLP issues, I have asked a question on the BLP talk page here. Just wanted to let you know if you wanted to educate me on it outside of this talk page.  Thanks for the help!  Sperril (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Regarding invesigator Wilson, this article and this would probably be helpful in citing Wilson's history.  At present, it reads rather oddly thanks to your deletion, Sperril, you deleted the attacks on Wilson's integrity, but kept his defense.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading it again, you're right. I added a weasel statement back in to clarify what he was defending himself from. Sperril (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. First time I've seen a self applied who statement.  Why not say, "According to the News-Observer, the media ..."?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did this because the original statement that I removed didn't say "According to the News-Observer, the media...." The original statement I am somewhat replacing said "Media has questioned his ethics in his investigation of this case."  I have no way of verifiying whether the News-Observer made such a statement because the individual line was not referenced to the News-Observer, and the links to the News-Observer are currently dead anyway.  If you want to change it, feel free.  If I hadn't originally removed it I would have added a who tag too it so that's what I did. Sperril (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not going to touch the article until tomorrow. I've reverted twice in 24 hours, that's all I care to do in that department. I'll compare with the proposed sources, then. I'm tempted to buy one of the books on the scandal, NOT the one written by KC Johnson, a partisan, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mangum's 2010 assault arrest
Today the following paragraph was added to the article:


 * According to WRAL, on February 17, 2010, Crystal Gail Mangum was arrested after allegedly  assaulting her boyfriend, setting his clothes on fire in a bathtub, and  threatening to stab him. She was charged with  attempted first-degree murder,  five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three  counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity  theft, and resisting a public officer. Link to source

What does this have to do with the subject of the article, the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is customary to mention what happened to the principals in an article after the event. However, this is more detail than I think is needed.  I would change the second sentence to "She was arrested on multiple charges."  Since we do not have a Mangum article, we should mention her arrest briefly and dispassionately.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saying "multiple charges" is not enough - the most severe of the charges should be specifically mentioned. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the personality and behavior of the key person that the article is about. That's why it's relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say this about that: the time may be coming when we need to have a separate article about her. This incident shows why: it is not directly related to the 2006 case, yet still pretty notable. There should be some place on WP make note of it. If not here, where? IronDuke 00:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm tending to agree. She has a book out, too.  Let's have a brief and dispassionate account of what the charges are, I have no problem about mentioning the most serious charge.  I have the distinct impression the cops are way overcharging, five counts of arson for burning clothes in a bathtub?  Fodder for the plea bargain, no doubt.  And why don't we open a discussion on whether to split off the Mangum article?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that she is notable enough for her own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Her widely noted arrest is notable to this topic because she is highly notable to the topic and her arrest is already linked by the sources to this topic. There is more I could say about this, but the BLP worries having to do with everyone named in this article are so strong, I'd rather not. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's add. Her credibility and previous felony history was germaine to her testimony and the case (at least towards the end). In addition, Joe Cheshire has now linked the two events.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
To undo the redirect of Crystal Mangum and make it its own article.

Support

 * 1) as nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) but the article should be called Crystal Gail Mangum, and Crystal Mangum should redirect to that. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) <B><I>Strong</I></B> Support Duke53  | Talk 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support. It's time to end the suppression of content about the Duke Lacrosse case and to allow for individual pages to be created for the principal parties involved.  This entire incident needs to be brought out into the sunshine so that the evil villains who sought to put innocent people in jail for the purpose of furthering their political and racial agendas and perhaps career aspirations will always be associated with it, especially the Gang of 88.  WhipperSnapper (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) The BLP topic Crystal Gail Mangum has become notable in itself, beyond the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I think it's time; there's too much info on her now that isn't related to the subject of this article.  IronDuke  01:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Concur. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) No indication that Mangum is notable for anything beside the Duke case. Even the news article about the assault arrest identifies her as "Duke lacrosse accuser" in the headline and "the woman who four years ago falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her" in the first paragraph, not mentioning her name until the second paragraph. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
As of right now the vote stands at 7 to 1, which seems like a resounding call for the creation of separate pages for some of the characters involved with this case. So when will they be going up? Or is some sort of special permission from a high-level Wikipedia editor needed to create them? What now? WhipperSnapper (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ightnow, but
 * I haven't the time right now, but Crystal G. Mangum is available for a starting spot. Good luck. Duke53  | Talk 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any editor can start the article, BLP has sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Mangum also write a book about her alleged experiences? If she is a published author, wouldn't that alone justify her having her own Wikipedia page?WhipperSnapper (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know how much actual 'writing' she did, but she is listed as the author of | <B>The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story</B>. Duke53  | Talk 06:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Was there any legal action taken against that book, i.e. a suit for libel if she insists there was a rape? I'm guessing not, since it would only open the door to further brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WhipperSnapper: No, being a published author doesn't make a person notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That might fall under the "only one event" rule, since the only thing she's notable for (so far) is this case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right you are. Despite the discussion and "vote" in the preceding section, Mangum remains famous for only one event. WP:BIO1E anybody? Oh wait, I forgot. We're supposed to flay the harridan as an example to others. Or something neutral like that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of the "one event" rule is that everything notable about the given subject is already covered in another article. There's nothing notable to be added to a separate article. Redirects would be fine, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And the part about Mangum's book could be a single sentence in the "aftermath" portion of the case article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if an editor wanted to create a separate page entry for "Crystal Gail Mangum" or "Crystal Mangum", both of which redirect to the main article, what would they need to do to end the redirection? Was the earth "salted" so that it would always redirect and so that a Wikipedia admin would need to undo it, or can any editor change the redirection and create a separate page? We've had a vote with a 7-1 verdict, so how do we go about putting it into effect? WhipperSnapper (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Crystal Mangum already redirects here. The other possibilities could be entered and redirected too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So, who is the final arbiter that decides what the final word will be on this issue? Right not the editors' vote is 7 to 1. Is there some higher Wikipedia admin that we need to petition? WhipperSnapper (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No final arbiter, decision's been made. The article can be created at any time. I'd actually do it myself, but I am sorely pressed for time, and would like to make it a real article with extra info, not just a text dump of what we have in this article. And I'm not an expert on CGM, so I'd want to look and see what else is out there first. IronDuke  01:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Malik Shabazz's deletions
This editor first deleted an 'external source', then restored a name change that I made; my question is, why would he think that the article was named something if he can't see the article ? He has a history of trying to ' rehabilitate ' Crystal Gail Mangum's reputation in this article and erroneously include references to a rape, when it has been well established that no rape ever occurred at the party. How do we ensure that Shabazz cannot continue to add his POV to this article ? Duke53 | Talk 04:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the link currently doesn't go where it presumably once did, it might as well be deleted. It simply takes you to the CourtTV home page or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A WP guideline is to leave broken links in place ... other editors may have additional resources to repair these links. Duke53  | Talk 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have a history of enforcing WP:BLP, a policy you seem willing to overlook in the case of Mangum.
 * Second, a look at the Wayback Machine revealed that the page in question was titled "Duke Rape Scandal : on CourtTVnews.com".
 * Third, WP:EL specifically says: "Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we can't see it now, how old is the link, and what "scandal" was it covering - the alleged rape, or the subsequent prosecutorial misconduct? Or both? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Try this link. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It has one paragraph summarizing the very beginning of the incident, and the link to details on the scandal results in an error, "archive not found". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it clearly shows that the page was titled "Duke Rape Scandal", a title Duke53 would like to change to "Duke Lacrosse Hoax". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it a useful link otherwise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the link was ever useful because I never visited it. My suspicion is that a photo gallery didn't have much content of value.
 * I deleted it yesterday because it's dead, but Duke53 restored it based on a guideline that seems to exist only in his imagination.
 * I'd delete it again—in accordance with WP:EL—but I've had enough of Duke53 and his bullshit for today. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "<I><B>... I've had enough of Duke53 and his bullshit for today ...</B></I>. :)
 * "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference".


 * Hello? An external link is not a "source URL". And a "How To" page isn't a guideline.— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * • And a rape <I><U>allegation</U></I> by a drug addled '<I>escort</I>' is not a rape; you ever going to admit that the '<I>sistah survivor'</I> lied about being raped that night ? Duke53  | Talk 06:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you show me where I wrote that a rape occurred? Or is this just another one of your race-obsessed fantasies? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "<I>Can you show me where I wrote that a rape occurred?"</I> Huh ? Duke53  | Talk 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the matter? Is your mind a little too drug-addled tonight? You wrote that I have "a history of trying to ... erroneously include references to a rape" and asked if I was ever going to admit that Mangum lied about being raped. So I'd like you to show me a single edit in which I tried to add a reference to a rape to the article or suggested that Mangum hadn't lied. Or do "we" all look the same to you? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two sets of guidelines getting confused here. One is for links that exist alone in the External links section of an article, and the other is for links that are used in citations. It's the latter case where the link should be kept around as a breadcrumb for other editors verifying the information. —C.Fred (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Since we're dealing with an external link, not a citation link, we should follow WP:EL—which says the dead link should be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Nother question
Why would the term 'Duke Rape' re-direct to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case article; it was proven that no rape occurred. This should be corrected ASAP. Duke53 | Talk 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because we cannot control the minds of the users. If they type in "Duke rape", it is pretty clear what info they want, and we accomodate them.  this shows that a few do.  Seems NPOV to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pathetic response; this is an encyclopedia, factual and cited info should be mandatory. We have control of article re-direction and should use it properly. Let's make one thing perfectly clear: <B>there was NO rape at that party !</B> Duke53  | Talk 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are preaching to the choir, please review my contributions on this page. This, however, strikes me as harmless.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the statement that there was no rape at the party, I also agree that users searching for the term 'Duke rape' are looking for this article—and should find it so they can be made aware that no rape occurred! Since it's a reasonable search term, I support keeping the redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a serious question? In case it is, here's a response: Since Wikipedia is written for readers, we have redirects from reasonable search terms. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Duke rape" could be replaced by "Duke rape case" and the users could find it easily enough. We have pretty wide latitude with redirects, but BLP violations are not allowed. There was no "Duke rape". However, there was a "Duke rape case". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, there was a 'Duke rape case'." Well, actually, there was a Duke Rape <U>Hoax</U> case. Duke53  | Talk 19:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a real case, though. And the idea is to allow the readers to find the article without having to guess too hard at what we've called it. "2006 Duke University lacrosse case" is certainly not the first thing I would think of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And certainly your redirect would be valid also. There are all kinds of redirects around, include frequent misspellings, just to enable the readers to find the articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

title move
So far what I see, three students got accused of rape. Where is a case? Do you think it should state falsely in the title. No problem. Mootros (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly was a case. Three students were arrested, released on bail, indicted, and eventually the charges were dismissed.  That's a case in my books.  Three, actually.  Of rape.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken. Thanks for the info. However, the privious title was not very good: "2006 Duke University lacrosse case" in contrast to what other Duke University lacrosse case. Also case is very generic why not spelling what the case was all about: i.e. case of rape accusation. Mootros (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The name's ridiculous.
Propose we change the name of this article to "Duke lacrosse case".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Second that. Duke53  | Talk 22:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Duke (it happened there), lacrosse (the team was pivotal in the events, especially afterward), and rape accusation should be mentioned in the title to best sum up what the article is about. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then a more precise title would be: '<I><B>Duke Lacrosse FALSE Accusation Case</B>'</I>, since no rape took place; what did happen was a <B>FALSE</B> accusation of rape. Duke53  | Talk


 * What's the objection to the current name? In terms of accuracy, I think the current title nails it: Duke University students were accused of rape. I think taking "University" out of the title makes it a little too informal, and the sport of "lacrosse" wasn't involved; you could substitute "lacrosse players" for "students" if you want to emphasize the team affiliation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Further thought: A similar article is titled Tawana Brawley rape allegations. We could shorten "rape accusation case" to "rape allegations"; it conveys the same idea in fewer words. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you say "Duke rape allegations"? Or "Crystal Mangum rape allegations"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "<I>Or "Crystal Mangum rape allegations"?</I>" Getting closer ... how about '<B>Crystal Gail Mangum Rape Hoax'.</B> Duke53  | Talk 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was any finding that it was a "hoax" as such, only that the charges were untrue. The Brawley case was, in fact, a more clear-cut hoax, but it's probably softened down to "allegations" for BLP reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Common names": What do the media refer to this story as, nowadays? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WTVD calls it the "Duke lacrosse rape case" in a lead to a story from March 2010 with an accompanying "Duke lacrosse case" graphic. WRAL's archive is titled the "Duke lacrosse case." Those are the two major TV stations in the area. Based on that, I now support Duke lacrosse case as the title, especially since enough other search terms will funnel in that somebody searching for the article will find it readily.

Name is atrocious, agreed. "Duke lacrosse case" might have worked, except for recent sad developments. "Duke lacrosse rape allegations" might work. IronDuke 02:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever the name ends up being, I believe "false" or something to that effect is a necessity. Just because the national media did not get this rigt in 2006-2007 (and still does not now, apparently, if the WaPo is of any indication), does not mean we should not. My own suggestion would be "Duke Lacrosse False Rape Scandal."  Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "<i>Duke lacrosse case" might have worked, except for recent sad developments.</I>" I must have been out of the loop lately ... what 'recent sad events' concerning the Duke Lacrosse Case have I missed ?  Duke53  | Talk 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he refers to Mangum's arrest on serious felony charges.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * •Perhaps, but I wouldn't describe that as being 'sad' for anybody but Crystal Gail Mangum's children and boyfriend. This was another case of her dictating <B>all</B> the events in an incident, and paying the price for those decisions; IMO, it can't be considered 'sad' for her. Duke53  | Talk 13:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest Mangum rape allegations That the accused played some type of sports is irrelevant. "False" is not necessary as allegations means without proof. Mootros (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As with the Brawley case, the full name is more appropriate, aspecially as there's a Mangum Street in Durham, and that might cause some confusion, as that street has no connection to the case that I know of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are closest to Duke lacrosse case. I have no objection to the others on redirect, but Duke lacrosse case is most likely to gain consensus.  Any objection to it?  Keep in mind we could easily break up into a bunch of arguments and net no change.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Up until two weeks ago (give or take), this article was titled 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. If we're going to say there's no consensus for a name change, we probably need to unwind that move as well. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2006 Duke University Lacrosse Team false rape accusation is probably "fairest", but what a mouthful. htom (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the the entire team accused? Mootros (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three players were accused; the team was suspended; the coach drummed out of the school; and later the prosecutor was disbarred; all of this was fallout from a false accusation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In reference to Duke53's question above, the only "recent sad developments" I can think of are the homicide of one lacrosse player by another, but that was at the University of Virginia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the case I had in mind. Don't know if it will even ever have its own article, so perhaps my fear is premature. IronDuke  22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? An alleged case of murder in Virginia is somehow a 'recent sad development' concerning a false rape accusation in North Carolina ? Whouldathunkit ? Meh. Duke53  | Talk 05:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (<--) There is a connection, but it's slight or scanty or even less. The accused in the current murder(?) case went to high school with some of the Duke players, and was interviewed about them. http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnns-don-lemon-describes-uva-lacrosse-murder-suspects-connection-to-duke-lacrosse-sex-scandal/ htom (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's about as lame a connection as a reporter could concoct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article for that case has been created at UVA Lacrosse Killing (which is a terrible name while we're on the subject). It really needs work if anyone who's been taking care of this article can help out there. -- Yarnalgo  talk to me 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's already renamed to Murder of Yeardley Love. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And the move has been subsequently reverted. -- Yarnalgo  talk to me 05:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current name is atrocious. Put me down for supporting a name change to "Duke Lacrosse Case" or "Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax". WhipperSnapper (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Duke lacrosse case" seems to be the winner. Unless there is objection, I'll switch it over. I'll wait a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article does not explain why criminal charges were never filed against Crystal Gail Mangum for making false crime reports to the police.
Does anyone know how this omission can be fixed? Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to make at WP:POINT, or is there some WP:NOTABLE reason this should be included? NickCT (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a reader of the article, I am curious to know why she wasn't charged. I tried googling to find out why, but no one seems to have reported on it. Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why it's not in the article. If there's no secondary sources published on the subject, there's nothing to base the text on to include it in the article. Including it otherwise would be original research. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand. Thanks for explaining it. That's why the talk page is here. Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that she wasn't prosecuted because in her mind the report was correct, so the charge was not knowingly false or hoax, just an incorrect report. Google led me to the NYTimes and this:

“We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred,” he added.

Mr. Cooper said he had considered but ultimately rejected the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the accuser, who continues to insist she was attacked at a team party on March 13, 2006, and asked him to go forward with the case. Mr. Cooper said his investigators had told him that the woman “may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.” He said his decision not to charge her with making false accusations was also based on a review of sealed court files, which include records of the woman’s mental health history. from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/us/12duke.html I'm inclined against lengthening the article to include this detail. htom (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. I won't add it to the article without consensus. But even if it's not added, it's still good to know that it has been reported on. Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's ALREADY in the article. See the end of section 2.2, Arrest and Investigation Timeline ThatSaved (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be that "reading with comprehension" thing that I sometimes struggle with. Like it in was invisible text, did not see it. Thanks for pointing it out! htom (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stripper v. dancer
Can we work this out? Plainly some sources say one, some the other. I'm bored with all the reverts.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people seem to feel that Crystal Gail Mangum attains some sort of 'credibility' or respectability by being described as a 'dancer' rather than as a stripper. <I>If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig</I>. Let's face it it, she was a prostitute/stripper, no better, no worse. Duke53  | Talk 05:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some editors seem to forget that WP:BLP applies to all living people discussed on Wikipedia, not just the innocent ones. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fact is, Crystal Gail Mangum was a prostitute, not a Premier Danseur: <I>BLP can't (and won't) ever change that fact</I>. Duke53  | Talk 10:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources say each of the two terms, and there is no suggestion that she did anything illegal or discreditable by her actions as a dancer/stripper. Can we agree on compromise language?  I've got this article on my long-term "improve to GA/FA" list and I'd like to put out the brushfires as they arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This should clear things up a bit:

•1) The terms dancer and exotic dance can have different meanings in different parts of the world and depending on context. In the erotic sense, "exotic dance" is a <B>euphemism for stripping</B> and is often the <B>title used by strippers</B> to avoid the negative connotation of their job title. ... []

•2) A <B>stripper</B> [] Duke53  | Talk 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should ask for a third opinion?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement drive
I'd like to get this to FA this fall. I can take care of a lot of the writing and sourcing. My major concern is images. Do we have a free use image of the house, or can we get one? Or of any of the principals in all of this?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already has a free image of the house, File:2009-03-20 610 N Buchanan Blvd in Durham.jpg. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, good. Hopefully we can dig up other useful images.  I probably won't get to this until September.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nifong's mugshot is on his page, so I would think that image is acceptable. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to look at the licensing. Just because an image is on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see no photo on Nifong's page. It is impressively referenced though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shows how often I pay attention to these things...Anyway. A picture of Nifong still, I believe is appropriate. Also, perhaps a photo of the three players, and probably Mangum would be as well. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Won't say no to that. Finding one free use could be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)