![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
That has to be some kind of near-record. Are there any tools to count <ref> tags?-- 76.203.48.177 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is 130 KB! Can we tolerate a re-factor? Anybody have a suggestion on where we should slice?-- 76.203.50.19 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
Conclusion: there is no clear answer really. But none of the articles used Mangum as the main subject. In any event, they pretty much mean the same thing! Personally, I like "made false accusations against" if you choose to use Mangum as the main subject performing the action. I could see how somebody might argue that she was crazy and actually believed what she said, so saying "she falsely accused" is misleading (somebody could argue) because that suggests she maliciously made false statements. Obviously, it is certainly possible that she did, but we don't know. We do know, however, that the accusations ended up being false. Either "players were falsely accused" or "she made false accusations" would clear up this uncertainty because they don't make any judgment on if Mangum maliciously and knowingly made false statements - they merely point to the fact that they were false. Take from this what you want. - Bluedog423 Talk 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-- 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)
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)
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)
I have been trying to start a page on the Group of 88. People in Wikipedia are actively trying to suppress the creation of such a page. This article mentions this group, but the reader is not able to see who was part of this group or get more background information. Please contribute to that page, and support me in my attempt to keep it from being deleted [8]- The kekon ( talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) I have a partial list if you need it. HoundofBaskersville ( talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{ citations missing}} I've checked and noted where links are broken. Original citations are commented out.-- 15stamps ( talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Isn't it illegal to hire an escort?-- 195.226.227.100 ( talk) 10:22, 24 August 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)
Would a linkage to the Tawana Brawley case be in order? Naaman Brown ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
Today the following paragraph was added to the article:
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)
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)
To undo the redirect of Crystal Mangum and make it its own article.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Propose we change the name of this article to "Duke lacrosse case".-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Does anyone know how this omission can be fixed? Learn something - read a book today! ( talk) 12:52, 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)
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)
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)
•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 euphemism for stripping and is often the title used by strippers to avoid the negative connotation of their job title. ... [ [12]]
•2) A stripper [ [13]] Duke53 | Talk 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
That has to be some kind of near-record. Are there any tools to count <ref> tags?-- 76.203.48.177 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is 130 KB! Can we tolerate a re-factor? Anybody have a suggestion on where we should slice?-- 76.203.50.19 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
Conclusion: there is no clear answer really. But none of the articles used Mangum as the main subject. In any event, they pretty much mean the same thing! Personally, I like "made false accusations against" if you choose to use Mangum as the main subject performing the action. I could see how somebody might argue that she was crazy and actually believed what she said, so saying "she falsely accused" is misleading (somebody could argue) because that suggests she maliciously made false statements. Obviously, it is certainly possible that she did, but we don't know. We do know, however, that the accusations ended up being false. Either "players were falsely accused" or "she made false accusations" would clear up this uncertainty because they don't make any judgment on if Mangum maliciously and knowingly made false statements - they merely point to the fact that they were false. Take from this what you want. - Bluedog423 Talk 01:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-- 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)
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)
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)
I have been trying to start a page on the Group of 88. People in Wikipedia are actively trying to suppress the creation of such a page. This article mentions this group, but the reader is not able to see who was part of this group or get more background information. Please contribute to that page, and support me in my attempt to keep it from being deleted [8]- The kekon ( talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) I have a partial list if you need it. HoundofBaskersville ( talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{ citations missing}} I've checked and noted where links are broken. Original citations are commented out.-- 15stamps ( talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Isn't it illegal to hire an escort?-- 195.226.227.100 ( talk) 10:22, 24 August 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)
Would a linkage to the Tawana Brawley case be in order? Naaman Brown ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
Today the following paragraph was added to the article:
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)
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)
To undo the redirect of Crystal Mangum and make it its own article.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Propose we change the name of this article to "Duke lacrosse case".-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Does anyone know how this omission can be fixed? Learn something - read a book today! ( talk) 12:52, 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)
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)
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)
•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 euphemism for stripping and is often the title used by strippers to avoid the negative connotation of their job title. ... [ [12]]
•2) A stripper [ [13]] Duke53 | Talk 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |