Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 2

message: Although I like how there are now more sections and such, several pieces of important information have been deleted (namely the mentioning of the lack of DNA evidence) and the timeline seems not as informative.  Likewise, there are numerous more NPOV problems with the wording (i.e. She was then dragged instead of she was the allegedly dragged).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluedog423 (talk • contribs) .
>>>Perhaps the article needed a cleanup, but the current incarnation needs quite a bit of work in the POV (and proofreading!)department. The current wording has an unmistakable pro-[accuser]] feel. 
A) "Reputational attacks on the victim" as a heading describing the defense strategy. (edited) B) The removal of all information (timestamped party photographs, ATM receipts/photos, flawed lineup procedure) which have thrown [the accuser's]] accusations into question, while "The McFadyen Death-Email" remains. (no time to add this info)
C) Now [the accuser] is 'a performer'? This may leave folks with the impression that she was there to merely peform magic tricks or something. Don't think it benefits anyone to intentionally obscure the seedy nature of her employment at the party. (will probably edit this later)
Anonymous User, May 3—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.71.254.2 (talk • contribs) .
:(response to Bluedog423:) I haven't closely compared the two versions, but I think I agree.  Catstail, thanks for all the work you are putting into this article.  But you are making some substantive changes.  Could you outline for us what your main goals are in your cleanup?  Thanks.  --Allen 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinserted the relevant - escort/stripper information.  I feel this is clearly relevant, as  the accuser is implying that while she was accustomed to one-on-one meetings as an escort, this was the first time she was to perform in front of a large group of people, and may not have been prepared for the occasion, psychologically or otherwise.  As this information came from the accuser herself, it clearly is relevant, as it shows her state of mind on that evening to some degree Valtam 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: What is it?  A number of users' comments (including my own) have been deleted from the talk page.  What is the Wikipedia policy on this? Valtam 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User's comments should not be deleted unless there is a valid reason. --tomf688 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See top of talk for explanation.  I leave it to the admins.  Abe Froman 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new here, but I must interject that deleting the name on the talk page seems a bit odd.  While you cling to WP:V like a life-raft, those objections do not justify censoring a talk page.  I recognize that your intentions are good, and I think that we should have a real discussion about whether a rape victims name should be mentioned anywhere (talk pages or articles), but, failing a consensus view to the contrary, the free and open exchange of information must be our objective.  I recognize that this is not an easy issue, but I cannot support censoring a talk page without community consensus supporting it, and that is something that clearly does not exist. Rjm656s 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policy is not to publish the unverified names of rape victims (or anything else unverified for that matter, with particular attention paid to situations where legal difficulties may result).  It's no more correct to publish those names on the talk pages than it is to publish them in the articles. There's no reason to use her name here, as discussing whether to publish her name does not require that we use that name: in fact, the use of the name here on the talk page has been a quite transparent attempt to circumvent our verifiability rules. When her name is published by the reputable press, it will be published here.  - Nunh-huh 06:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy on deleting other users comments on the talk page

message: ::From the official WP:V policy: 	 
 	 
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." 	 
 	 
::Tom Leykis, by his own admission , is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy, as proven above. Please do not post the name based on Leykis' sourcing until the policy above is met. Abe Froman 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we are clear, I removed the unsupported victim name from the commentary.  A violation of WP:V had been documented and discussed, beforehand.  The article has been edited to include Leykis' allegation.  In present form, the Leykis passage does not violate WP:V.  The passage also mentions that, so far, Leykis is alone in making this allegation.  Abe Froman 23:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lots of baying, today.  The passage in question currently conforms to WP:V.  Enjoy.  Abe Froman 00:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Baying or no, we have to decide whether we are going to follow Wikipedia guidelines, or not.  WP:V says, "Take it to the talk page" if there are issues on sourcing.  WP:TPG prohibits editing or deleting other users' comments.  If these guidelines are offensive to you, Brian/Abe, then you should consider advocating for their amendment.  Valtam 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a reminder that banned user User:Amorrow should not be editing Wikipedia from any IP address. - Nunh-huh 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the way I understand it is that since Leykis was the one who mentioned the name, that the name can still continue to appear in his article and talk pages.  -EmiOfBrie 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming The Victim Based on Tom Leykis Sourcing

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

message: I looked at that news report that Bluedog just cited.  It also has this quote from the taxi driver: "The detective asked if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case," Elmostafa said. "When I said no, they took me to the magistrate."  This quote seems more central to this article than the details of the crime Elmostafa is charged with, so I'm replacing that info with this quote.  Feel free to revert me.  The info about the purses isn't completely irrelevant, I'm just trying to keep things brief in the interest of encyclopedic-ness. (encyclopedicality? encyclopedicism?)
The Herald-Sun is also reporting that the private-lab DNA results have come back with an incomplete match between DNA under the accuser's false fingernails and the third (unnamed) suspect, the one she IDed from the photo lineup with 90% accuracy.  I'm not adding this info to the article, because I'm undecided as to whether we should wait for more complete info.
--Allen 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also removing the last paragraph of this same section, about Kim Roberts.  According to the News-Observer source, these are just things that the defense lawyer said, not necessarily uncontested facts.  If the defense lawyer had been clearer about his accusation here (or if the News-Observer had been clearer in reporting it), then it might be notable as the defense lawyer's claim.  But the source paragraph is so vague I think we should leave this part out pending a clearer citation.  (The source quote is, "[Seligmann's defense lawyer] contrasted the treatment of the taxi driver with that of Kim Roberts, the other dancer at the party. Conner said Roberts initially told police no rape occurred at the party but changed her story after she was arrested on a probation violation. District Attorney Mike Nifong later reduced Roberts' bail.")  --Allen 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my mind, and included the info about the possible partial DNA match.  --Allen 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxi driver, and more info 

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

message: I find it particularly interesting that with the release of the second round of DNA tests, media headlines vary greatly.  From something like "DNA shows no link to any player" to "DNA may link lax players."  ESPN who uses the AP report uses the headline "Defense: DNA tests show no link to Duke lacrosse."  On the other hand, the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, who writes their own three paragraphs, headlines it with "Report: DNA link possible for third Duke player."  Yahoo! Sports, which uses the AP article, says "Defense attorney: Second set of DNA tests show no link to Duke lacrosse players."  The Seattle-Post Intelligence says "2nd DNA test shows no conclusive match," which seems more of a middle ground.  The Durham Herald Sun says "2nd DNA Test Shows No Conclusive Match."  ABC NEWS says "New DNA Results Don't Link Duke Players to Rape Accuser, Lawyer Says."  In any event, I just it was important to repeat to everybody that news organizations, try as they might, cannot be completely unbiased, as seen by the fact that with the same information the headlines vary greatly.  Take the news with a critical eye. Bluedog423
After looking through a myriad of articles including the ones talked about by the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review (Charlotte Observer, Durham Herald-Sun, ABC News and WRAL-TV), I cannot find another source besides the Pittsburgh-Tribune that says the DNA shows some similar characteristics to the third player and that he might be indicted on Monday.  Someone please show me.  If nobody can find it, this piece of information should be deleted, but I am probably just missing it. Bluedog423
Ok, continuing the conversation with myself I found one example where they say it may link to one of the players.  But it doesn't say the "third" player (whom she id'ed with 90% certainty). "The Herald-Sun reported Thursday that, according to well placed sources, a preliminary report from a private laboratory concluded the tissue came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of the players who attended a March 13 off-campus party"  Bluedog423
:Hi Bluedog.  I was the one who added the thing about the DNA linking to the 90% guy... it was from here.  Down toward the bottom, it says,
Nifong said earlier he was pursuing the possibility of another indictment, although reports indicated the dancer was able to identify a third person with only 90 percent certainty. WRAL-TV, citing a transcript of the photo identification session the dancer had with police, reported Wednesday that she indicated a fourth player also may have been involved in assaulting her.  Tissue found under the dancer's fingernails was consistent with the third man's DNA pattern, sources told The Herald-Sun on Wednesday. 
:But this article was one of the very first reports on the subject, based on unnamed sources.  So if the link between the DNA and the 90% player isn't being repeated by other sources since then, I think it makes sense to take it out.  --Allen 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media variance

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

message: What motive has the accuser to invent these charges? Why lie some women about being raped? Strange world.
*http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson131.html
*http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,199358,00.html
--Der Eberswalder 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see what those previous two passages contribute to the discourse, other than highlighting innovative new ways to be a thoughtful racist.  Abe Froman 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brian, I fail to see why your only defense is to start a personal attack and accuse a fellow editor of being a racist.  Be nice to others, yeah?
Right, I should have provided a better link
http://cornell.elliottback.com/archives/2006/04/19/duke-rape-scandal/
There is no evidence that a rape occured, and the accuser has a history of false accusation. What has this to do with racism? Ok, the DA Nifong plays the racism card to get "the black vote" for reelection, but beside of that, no trace of racism.  --Der Eberswalder 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They are op-ed's.  Save them for the blogs.  Abe Froman 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, should be counter-sued for defamation of character.  I hope that happens.  RFerreira 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I think that this page should be updated to also include a section named '<U>Background of the Accuser</U>', including having a picture of her. The details revealed so far of this 'scandal' have now progressed far enough to where her actions that night are highly questionable. To maintain NPOV I think that all info concerning the accuser should be consolidated in its own section. Duke53 | Talk 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it should not. We should NOT be publicly naming sexual assault victims before the cases go to trial, nor should we be digging into their background. Better yet, the page naming the accuser needs to be DELETED post-haste. Wikipedia also needs to have a stated policy about naming alleged victims of sexual violence, if it doesn't already.--Pinko1977 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After her defense team made her name public, her name was public information.  Wikipedia does not hide the truth. Valtam 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that the 60 Minutes episode has been aired I think it is even more important to explore this woman's background. There is film of her performing at a strip club less than two weeks after supposedly being 'traumatized' at the party. To hear her people tell it she is / was one step away from a total breakdown; photographic evidence shows that she is lucid enough to work at least one aspect of her trade. Even money says that she is also performing the other acts included in her career choice</I>.  Duke53 | Talk 02:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Pinko1977 - presumably you mean alleged victims before the cases go to trial.  For Valtam - she does not have a defense team as she is a witness, not a defendant.  It is still a matter of some controversy how her name was made public as well.  DukeEGR93 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  The section should be expanded with the newly available information. Johntex\talk 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even money says that she is also performing the other acts included in her career choice. I'd be careful about making such reckless (not to mention tasteless) accusations here or elsewhere until more facts come in.  Refer to WP:BLP. Dubc0724 16:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay then, thanks for your concern. I am pleased that you will be careful. (<I>It's funny to see what is viewed as '<I>reckless</I>' or 'tasteless</I>' by different people</I> :)) I'd certainly hate to offend a prostitute. Duke53 | Talk 07:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not so much hurting her feelings that we should be worried about.  I was thinking more along the lines of libel. Dubc0724 12:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TRUTH = libel? Not in the good old U S of A. I am not worried a bit; you can do that for both of us. Duke53 | Talk 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation <> Truth.  There is no reason to assume she is a prostitute based upon any source I've seen.  If you think she has worked as a prostitute, cite your source. Johntex\talk 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Her admission to police about her 'date' (with a couple in a hotel room) <I>for hire</I> previous to her dancing 'engagement' for the team. <B>Sex acts for money = prostitution</B> . Duke53 | Talk 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a long article - could you quote the exact text you think supports your assertion, please?  I see one sentence that says "The woman herself told the police that she had performed with a vibrator for one couple."  Is that it?  If so, I would disagree with the prostitute label - there is nothing in that sentence that she had sex with anyone.  Johntex\talk 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  If you look at the News & Observer article I linked to above, on May 1st, you'll find this quote: "The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week."  Whether she actually had sexual relations with her clients is unclear - it's possible she was just doing strip shows for individuals.  Whether that is considered prostitution is a matter of personal interpretation, I think. Valtam 15:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not here to do all <I>your research</I>; do yourself a favor and look up the statute which defines prostitution. It eliminates the personal interpretation.  Disagree all you wish, it is 'sex acts'  for hire that define prostitution not the act of intercourse. I am also not going to start searching for <I>'short'</I> sources, if you're interested enough you will wade through the <I>'long'</I> ones. Duke53 | Talk 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the rest of us are here to listen to your incivility either, and you don't help your cause by being belligerent.  I think I was very polite to you when I asked you to "...quote the exact text you think supports your assertion, please?"  I did not ask you for a shorter reference, I simply asked you what you think supports your claim.  Do yourself a favor and start being civil or you may find yourself banned for incivility.  If you are interested enough in pushing your view of what the article should include, you will make it easy for other editors, not hard on them. Johntex\talk 04:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have never asked another editor to <I>"...quote the exact text you think supports your assertion, please?"</I> and I never will; I did my part (<I>according to Wiki policy</I>) by citing a source. It is then up to other editors to read that source, not ask for a detailed explanation of the article cited. I thought that you were showing incivility by asking me for details since it was right there in the article. You seemed to have been confused about there having to be actual sexual intercourse to occur to establish the act of prostitution ... it doesn't have to occur.  I think that your presumption about <I>that precipitated <I>this</I>. You think I was not being civil; I think you were not being civil. Now, if you wish to discuss the article, I will do that. Duke53 | Talk 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you I did not mean to be incivil, and I don't see how you can view a request for more infomrmation as incivility.  I even took a guess as to what you may have been referring to.  You could have just answered my polite question as to whether or not that was the passage you wished to be referencing.  Insteasd, you replied with a very hostile remark "I am not here to do all <I>your research</I>; do yourself a favor and look up the statute which defines prostitution."  Then you followed up by saying "I am also not going to start searching for <I>'short'</I> sources,..." even though no one asked you to provide a shorter source.  Then you said "...if you're interested enough you will wade through the <I>'long'</I> ones."  Clearly, I did read the link you provided, or I wouldn't have been able to ask you if I had the right passage.  As to your claim that "sex acts for hire" constitutes prostitution - that is not a given.  The definition of a prostitution varies by jurisdiction.  Do you have a source that says performing with a vibrator for a couple would constitute prostitution in Raleigh? Johntex\talk 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Duke53 | Talk 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  If you provide it then we can consider whether it is sufficient to back up your claim. Johntex\talk 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also look forward to seeing the source.  Thanks in advance. Dubc0724 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background of the Accuser

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

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

text: Agreed, for what it's worth! Valtam 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of subscription articles as a source

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

message: There is a new source published in the New York Times today, Duke Rape Case Shadows an Unusual Campaign.  It is primarily about the effect of the case on the race for district attorney election.  GRBerry 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link! I'm going to read it; it should be noted that the NYT has been very pro-Nifong, since the beginning.  So I'm going to read the article with that in mind... Valtam 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source