Talk:Duke lacrosse case

message: In the section titled "Lawsuits filed by players", the article asserts: "the players' civil rights claims, which constituted the bulk of their Complaint, were dismissed on the grounds that the applicable civil rights laws pertained only to persons of African-American descent." The stated source is "Judge James Beaty, Memorandum Opinion, March 31, 2011."
The players' lawsuit, which can be seen here, cites three Reconstruction Era civil rights laws as the basis for its civil rights claims: 42 USC 1983, 1985, and 1986, better known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or the Ku Klux Klan Act. The laws can be seen here by clicking on 1983, 1985, or 1986.
These laws do not limit their protection of civil rights to African Americans and their descendants, and any judge who wrote so would be laughed off the bench. They were invoked in the 1960s when local authorities were involved in the murders of two white men and a white woman. They were invoked in 2010 when a suburban Philadelphia school district was sued for spying on students in their homes. They apply whenever government infringes on citizens' civil rights, not just on the civil rights of African Americans. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claim 

message: This case is notable because it was controversial; this should be included in the lede.
98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is included:  What additional information does the word "controversial" convey to the reader that those two sentences don't? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Having followed this case very carefully from Day 1, and having read copious amounts on the topic, my feeling is that it was the controversial aspects which made the news of this case go and stay viral enough that many people followed it closely until resolution. Thus, I suggest we include the word. And I think the very nature of the intensely contrasting postures of the early stage opinion camps is where the heat of the notability for this case arose from. Few cases of false accusations in recent times have stirred up this much controversy. Xerton (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you reply to the question I asked above: what additional information does the word "controversial" convey that's not already there? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you understand the point at issue: Each year that passes, it becomes less and less known to younger adults how much of a ruckus this case was in the national media. And, given the ordinary propensity of the typical reader to want up-front information about long articles, for the more controversial cases we should include that word in the lede; thusly placed, it alerts readers up-front to the fact that this case was a big deal in the news. Xerton (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you understand the point at issue: the word "controversial" is completely devoid of meaning. Controversial to whom? What was controversial? Social Security is controversial, the moon landing is controversial, the New England Patriots are controversial, and fluoride in drinking water is controversial. What meaning does the word convey? Only by explaining why people cared about a charge of false rape in North Carolina do we convey some meaning. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go read the lede to O. J. Simpson murder case and tell me that trials and cases can't be notable merely because they are notable. They can and some are. Xerton (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I need a new pair of glasses, but I don't see the word "controversial" (or "controversy") in the lead section. Its only appearance in the text is in the "Trial" section, describing not the whole case but a specific decision by the prosecutor that "would prove to be highly controversial". So what exactly was your point? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe you are being intentionally facetious, because at no time did I say that either "controversial" (or "controversy") are in the lede section of that article. But what I did say is that the OJ article lede makes clear that cases which were widely reported in the news ought to be stated as such, in whatever terms are appropriate, in the lede of the article. Xerton (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly me. For a week you had argued for the inclusion of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other, I cited the OJ article as an example of the importance of noting such in an article's lede, when a case/trial was very notable in the media. Not all cases make big news, but some do; OJ's did, Duke Lacrosse did, the Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Trial of George Zimmerman - these cases all did. I'd like to see a consistent practice in regards to noting this aspect of the big news cases, up front. In fact, some cases are so (dare I say it?) controversial that the pubic reaction to the outcome literally shapes history, such as how the outcome of the Rodney King case touched off the LA Riots. Xerton (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede sentence 

message: Far too long article. Get to the point, 86.156.211.130 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessively long article, should be reduced by 50%. 

message: “Duke lacrosse case” is simply false. Not only were the Duke Three declared innocent by the then-North Carolina Attorney General, and there was never any trial (“case” implies that a trial took place), but it was determined the very night of what career criminal Crystal Gail Mangum put, with the help of corrupt media, a corrupt sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE), corrupt Duke University officials, and a corrupt DA into motion, that this was a hoax.
Just read the report by Durham PD police Sgt. J.R. Shelton on the night of the non-incident. Sgt. Shelton exposed Crystal Gail Mangum as a fraud at the time, and the sergeant paid dearly for it. His police superiors destroyed his life, in retaliation for his telling the truth.
Clearly, there are “editors” here, who wish to keep hoax alive.
The proper title would be, The Duke Rape Hoax. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:44B4:87F9:2DA4:14F4 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False title