Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 3

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

message: It seems hardly defensible to have a page on the accuser and not those for the accused. Huangdi 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the pages for David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty? 

message: I've noticed people sometimes add the fact that Magnum was a sex worker, and then its deleted later.  Isn't it relevant that she was, in fact, a prostitute?  This isn't really up for debate -- she's admitted as much, and the escort company she works for regularly sent her out to have sex with men for money.  That's prostitution, obviously.  The fact she was only hired as a stripper for this particular event shouldn't mean we ignore her chosen profession, which is certainly relevant since she's saying that's why she had the DNA of several other men inside her (though no lacrosse players).  Omitting her profession seems to be done out of sympathy to her, but wouldn't true NPOV not downplay her job just because it sounds bad?  JK 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am about to revert an edit as per this discussion.  I think it's a fine line... While the evidence that has come out has made it abundantly clear that Mangum did in fact perform sex acts for money, it still stands that I have not seen a single RS that refers to her as a "prostitute" -- therefore, Wikipedia better err on the safe side and keep it as "escort."  Reverting now... --Jaysweet 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangum's prostitution career  

message: While the media has adopted the term "the accuser" as a title for Mangum in this case for some reason, I don't think an encyclopedic entry on this event should follow that example.  I recommend all unnatural references to "the accuser" be changed to 'Mangum'. 69.121.109.152 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed, but with a slightly different reasoning. An encyclopedic entry should follow that example if it follows the same ethical guidelines as the media.  Wikipedia, however, is not censored and personal morals are not supposed to be imposed on the articles.  Her name is already revealed in the first sentence, so I see no problem with putting her name throughout to make it more readable.  See #25 in Archive #2 for more about this. -68.60.255.55 04:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree.  We should use the name Mangum. Johntex\talk 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not an uber-editor on Wikipedia like many of you, but I agree that her name should be included for readability.  Frankly, she has been protected as a victim in the media until now. The Attorney General's decision to drop charges and to effectively call her a hoaxter no longer affords her the right to be given the protection of a rape victim. --Redheaded dude 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the accuser" vs Mangum  

message: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16259881.htm
The head of a private DNA laboratory said under oath that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.
Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security, said Friday his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear, pubic hair and rectum of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected the samples a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case. --Wussycat 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yay for that, all I know is what I gained from briefly skimming through this page and I'm shocked how one woman can cause such damage to other people from making such unsubstantiated claims. Mathmo Talk 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA lab chief hides evidence 

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

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

message: I realize that almost all publicly available information tells the defense's side of the case, so there may not be an easy solution, but almost the entire article is dedicated to telling the defense's side of the story.  We should also present the prosecution's (and accuser's) story as best we can.  At least, maybe add a section on the effects of the alleged assault and the following coverage on her.
It is admittedly difficult to get the prosecution's and accuser's sides: They are local people not skilled in PR, in getting their story out nationally, or in competing for national public opinion. The defense has professionals.
Guanxi 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the prosecutor played the media for fools for weeks. Or weren't you following?
70.23.199.239 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but there is a major problem. What story do we tell? The most recent version? Or her first account of the event? Or somewhere in the middle? All of these are quite different if you read the transcripts of them.  The timelines are different, the accused persons are different, and the accused acts are different. Furthermore, the reason the defense attorneys "side of the case" has been publicized so much more is because the public (and media) obtain information from submitted motions in court.  And who has submitted all of the motions? The defense.  The prosecution has yet to submit one.  Keep in mind that I would say these motions are more reliable than interviews with media since these are legal documents that require evidence with significant consequences if intentionally false information is included.  With the judge saying that both sides need to stop talking to the media a long time ago, the public generally has acquired information through the defense motions.  I don't really see any way to remedy this as the vast majority of information available supports the defense's case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.81.219 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the accuser's stories are inconsistent is the defense's argument. We should have a NPOV and not use one side's criticisms as a basis for editing the article.  Anyway, parts of her story may have changed, but it's not like she is now accusing the North Carolina basketball team for a different crime on a different day.  I'm not sure most people would, after that kind of trauma and under that kind of national pressure, keep their stories straight, honest or not.  Still, I agree, it's a tough to find hers or the prosecution's sides. Guanxi 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with that is I doubt many wikipedians will be wanting to write a new summary each time a new story comes out. As for the consistancy, I have read comments from other SANE nurses other than the one in the case who say that while some details change, they do not, for instance, forget how many men raped them, if they were penetrated with a penus, etc. BMWman 05:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: If this bothers you, then create the appropriate pages for the defendants.  And, yes, BLP does apply.  If the information on the page is verified and otherwise complies with BLP, then it should be there.  Valtam 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somewhat agree, but I think the reason is because there has been a lot more information available about Mangum than the accused.  A section is dedicated to the background of the defendants in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal#Arrests and indictments.  The accused don't really have anything unique about them (if they had a continued history of violence, it would be in the article), and the defense and media has obviously tried to seek out the accuser's credibility as is done in many rape cases.  They could merit their own article, but they'd be pretty short.  Mangum's article, however, is a lot of repeat information as well. -152.3.81.219 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs prosecution's and accuser's side of the story 

message: User: AuburnPilot's wikisophistry strategem of censoring any source whose facts or politics he or she dislikes, and calling it "spam," is pathetic. Have you no shame?
70.23.199.239 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs and personal websites are unacceptable as sources. You have been warned previously, and will not receive any further warnings. AuburnPilottalk 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that AuburnPilot is not, however much he may wish otherwise, an admin. Thus, he is in no position to be issuing "warnings" with the implication that he can mete out some sort of punishment if not heeded. 71.203.209.0 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He would have to take his case to an admin if he wants someone blocked. He's right about blogs, though. Blogs are just opinions and personal rants, nothing more, and they are not regarded as reliable sources. Wahkeenah 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Censorship 

message: I would like to add the link From The Wall Street Journal: A Dirty Game The Duke "rape" case unravels to the "External Sources" section of the article.  Although it is a link to a blog, the blog gives the full text of a widely quoted article from the Wall Street Journal that is only available from the WSJ itsefl by subscription.
Is it permissible to do this?
If so, how would one format the reference?
TIA
Nat 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to Wall Street Journal via a blog? 

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

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

message: Note that User: 130.156.30.57 just made his fourth revert in less than five hours, in violation of the three-revert rule. Note too that User: 130.156.30.57 is a suspected sockpuppet from Bloomfield College, whose recent m.o. and history are identical to:
User: 130.156.29.61<BR>
User: 130.156.29.134<BR>
User: 130.156.31.143<BR>
See whois summaries below:
20 January 2007
“:According to the WHOIS reports for 130.156.29.61 and 130.156.29.134, your friend is a student or employee of Bloomfield College. Not sure if that helps, but obviously it's the same person.  AuburnPilottalk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, you two.  Take your dispute to the appropriate place.  This is not it.  It's becoming to be tedious for those of us who want to contribute to this article. Valtam 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Revert in Five Hours by Suspected Sockpuppet User: 130.156.30.57

message: "Wikinews has news related to this article:
Duke lacrosse season ends, coach resigns"
This seems to me tired and stale. What are the criteria for keeping current news current in an article on an event in progress? Nat 08:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews link 

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

message: While taking no position on whether or not including the image of the accuser is appropriate, I believe it is incorrect to feature it as the lead photograph. In it's current location, it is apropos of none of the surrounding text. I propose moving it to the first section that deals specifically with the accuser. Ronnotel 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image location

message: Per the Manual of Style, the best practice is to not specify a size when including an image.  This allows the user's individual preferences to determine the image size. Therefore, neither photo has a size specified. Johntex\talk 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus, in the interest of fairness and neutrality, I have shrunk the photo to only a little larger than the men's photos. Wahkeenah 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Whoever challenged my calling it a "mug shot", <I>that's what the original uploader said it was</i>". Well, the original uploader mischaracterized it then; did you notice any booking information (name, date, etc.) on the image? K.C. Johnson explains exactly what the image is on his site. Duke53 | Talk 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The uploader claimed fair use under the mug shot template, thereby asserting that that's what the photo is. Wahkeenah 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I never heard of K.C. Johnson, but I don't find a page for him here, so I must not be the only one. Wahkeenah 00:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is is not your job (or right) to alter anybody else's work (<I>uploads, e.g.</i>) to suit your preferences; please stop. The uploader decided which size photo he wished to upload.<I>"Also, I never heard of K.C. Johnson ..."</I>. Do a Google search, I bet you can find him; there's a great big world outside the pages of Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he were actually a notable photographer, he would not be giving away his work for free. Wahkeenah 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't make that claim to any of the fine photographers who have freely contributed content here under the GFDL or CC license. Johntex\talk 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also not your job (or right) to push a viewpoint by making her picture huge and leaving a little grainy photo of the men. And I say again, no one has yet to demonstrate that posting her picture here adds any useful information to the article. Posting it here is strictly for voyeuristic purposes, i.e for "decoration", which is against wikipedia policy. And I could make the same claim about the photos of the men, FYI. Wahkeenah 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And, as I expected, you reverted to the larger photo, to continue to push the "Butterfly McQueen look" that the pushers of the photo want to achieve, in order to further ridicule the accuser. Wahkeenah 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  All I did was revert the image to the size <I>intended by the original uploader</i>. I would suggest that you pursue this through the accepted Wikipedia channels rather than to continue to make decisions arbitrarily. Your personal opinion or 'sensitivity' cannot be used to determine what goes into Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother? The voyeurs hold the numbers advantage on this page. They just want to see her picture and laugh at it, wikipedia policy be damned. Wahkeenah 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the WP:MOS requests that we allow the user's preferences to determine the image size.  Specifying a hard-coded image size defeats the purpose of the image preferences.  We should leave the size unspecified.  That way, if you are visually impaired, you can make images big; if you have a small monitor, you can make images small.  Also, please watch your tone. Johntex\talk 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to find a bigger photo of the men, for the sake of fairness and neutrality. And don't be lecturing me about my tone, young man. I'm having to resort to a verbal club to try to get you all to think outside of your voyeuristic boxes, although it seems to be a vain effort so far. Wahkeenah 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Then you need to find a bigger photo of the men ... " <B>WHA ?</B> Nobody <B>has</b> to find <I>anything</I> to satisfy <I>your</I> wishes; if you are so interested in this issue then <I><B>you</b></i> can find a different image. You certainly have one of the strangest ideas of how Wikipedia works that I have ever seen. Duke53 | Talk 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been told time and time again, on the subject of the rules about pictures, by folks who make wikipedia pictures their specialty, so I'm not making this up. And one major point is that pictures, especially fair use pics, are not to be used as "decorations". They have to add information to the article, and no one has put forth any evidence of that, beyond "wanting to know what she looks like", and the dubious POV-push about wanting to see if she's got bruises or not. I see the pic is already marked for delete due to the lack of a verifiable source, so this may become a moot point in a week or so. Wahkeenah 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: People need to chill out.  Wahkeenah, please Assume good faith, be civil, and avoid personal attacks.  Saying things like "Posting it here is strictly for voyeuristic purposes" to "invite further ridicule of the accuser" and that others "want to see what this n*gger b*tch looks like." Asking sardonic questions like "Do you have a doctorate in forensic science?" and saying that people's motives are "to reinforce the stereotype that this evil black woman tried to hurt three innocent, childlike white boys who were just having a little harmless fun with booze and strippers at their little picket-fenced cottage" only hinder this conversation.  Obviously, this case has a racial aspect to it, but there's no need to escalate the levels of tension on a relatively meaningless wikipedia talk page by accusing people of being bigots.  There is plenty of actual proven racism, antisemitism, and hatred in the world that you shouldn't be potentially inventing more.  Neither you nor I know others' actual motives so there's no point to guess, but you should Assume good faith once again.  You continue on and on saying "She looks like the average black woman; attractive to some, unattractive to others; to some, she might even look vaguely threatening" and that you are "having to resort to a verbal club to try to get you all to think outside of your voyeuristic boxes." Also, Johntex is not a forensic scientist, but Kathleen Eckelt has 30 years of forensic nursing experience and finds the photo odd.  However, again, this is a blog so it cannot be used as information.  Btw, KC Johnson has a wikipedia page and is NOT the photographer; it was taken by a police officer. However, having said all of that, I agree with Wahkeenah and believe that the photo should be deleted since it does not add any information to the article.  It would add information to the article if the date of when it was taken and the apparently strange lack of bruises could be mentioned from a reliable source (i.e. not a blog), but since it is not, it serves no purpose whatsoever.  Even if the source data is valid and reliable, the photograph adds nothing so fair use can't be claimed.  Analyzing the photo would either be original research or violate WP:V, in my opinion.  Everybody relax!  Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for a good recap of the issues. I'm going to stop watching this page for a couple of weeks, then I'll check back and see if things have gotten any better. Wahkeenah 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Therefore, the image should be included with no hard-coded pixel size. Johntex\talk 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, the topic is the 2006 Duke university lacrosse team scandal.  If the pictures of the people that the accuser picked out of the no-wrong-answers photo lineup are fair game, so is the picture of the person who picked them out.Unlearned hand 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *This is not an article on assault.  For that, please see assault.  This is an article on an incident and people involved in that incident.  Please see Dick Cheney hunting incident,  2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner for examples of articles on Wikipedia that benefit from pictures of the people involved.  The same is true here. Johntex\talk 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image size

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

text: I am not sure what your actually goal here is;<I> if you are trying to discredit this image then you had better take a different tack</i>. We know when the photo was taken, we will take the uploader's word about who took it, and the rest of the world is accepting the fact that the woman in the picture is Crystal Gail Mangum; I have a picture of her from her HS yearbook ... it is the same person. Duke53 | Talk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sigh*. This section does not address that issue. Guanxi 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *<I>Double</i> Sigh.  This section doesn't really address anything concerning the 2006 Duke lacrosse <S><I>scandal</i>
 hoax, which is what this page is intended for. Perhaps you should be trying to build a consensus on this issue on article talk pages concerning rape, false accusations of rape or some such. Duke53 | Talk 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whose post was that? ! Guanxi 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on complainant's photo 

message: Do not post opinions here -- We are only gathering information. Only post citations and NPOV summaries of relevant Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and precedents.  Discussion will come later.
THE QUESTION: Including photos of important parties is normal Wikipedia practice. The question is, are exceptions made for alleged victims of rape or sexual assault?
:Please post improvements to the Question under Improving Consensus, below. Again, let's not get bogged down. Guanxi 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy/Guidelines/Precedent

message: Please post suggestions here for improving this procedure. Let's not get bogged down in minutia; our goal is to come to a resolution, not a perfect process. Apologies in advance for any misstatements or confusion on my part. Guanxi 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what your actually goal here is;<I> if you are trying to discredit this image then you had better take a different tack</i>. We know when the photo was taken, we will take the uploader's word about who took it, and the rest of the world is accepting the fact that the woman in the picture is Crystal Gail Mangum; I have a picture of her from her HS yearbook ... it is the same person. Duke53 | Talk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sigh*. This section does not address that issue. Guanxi 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *<I>Double</i> Sigh.  This section doesn't really address anything concerning the 2006 Duke lacrosse <S><I>scandal</i>
 hoax, which is what this page is intended for. Perhaps you should be trying to build a consensus on this issue on article talk pages concerning rape, false accusations of rape or some such. Duke53 | Talk 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whose post was that? ! Guanxi 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving Consensus

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

message: I suggest that in light of recent events in this case, the page be renamed to "2006 Duke University lacrosse team incident" since scandal has a specific connotation and it's no longer npov to describe the incident as a scandal. Ikilled007 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably better to wait until after 2:30 p.m. EDT today (04/11/07) to rename it; I am confident that this article will be getting quite a bit of play in the next couple days. :) Duke53 | Talk 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Ikilled007 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I also think some of the redirects should be changed and/or more should be added.  When I search for "Duke rape hoax" the only relevant result I get is the Mike Nifong page, but when I search for "Duke rape" I get redirected to the article.  It would seem some updating in light of recent (and not so recent) developments in the case is in order. 24.57.207.199 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well the DA just nuked the case. Not only did he say what was expected -- that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, but he declared them to be innocent (virtually unheard of) and then went on to nuke Nifong with words like "bravado" and he even is suggesting a new law that would empower the Supreme Court of NC to take cases away from a DA who acts in a similar manner. Also he says they considered charges against the accuser, but that she might be delusional (actually believing she was raped) and that they thought it would be best not to charge her. Ikilled007 18:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel that the more accurate name would be <B>2006 Duke Lacrosse hoax</b>, or perhaps 2006 Duke lacrosse extortion attempt. Duke53 | Talk 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of those would do, but how about "2006 Duke University lacrosse false prosecution".  The scandal is now in the prosecution, not in what supposedly happened in that house.--Wehwalt 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the pages should redirect to "2006 Durham County District Attorney Malicious Prosecution Scandal". Ikilled007 20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I do think that "2006 Durham County District Attorney Malicious Prosecution Scandal" would be an appropriate title, in the interest of brevity I was thinking something more like "2006 Duke University Rape Hoax" or "2006 Durham Rape Hoax". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.207.199 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would vote for 2006 Duke Lacrosse Hoax or would suggest 2006 Duke Lacrosse Hoax Scandal. Valtam 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I agree with Guanxi that "Duke" and "Lacrosse" should probably stay in the title.  I also agree "Hoax" is probably too negative against the acuser.  We don't know why she made the allegations she made.  Maybe she was trying to extort money.  Maybe she was delusional. I favor 2006 Duke University lacross team allegations. That would cover all allegations backwards, forwards, and sideways that have been made by all the various participants.  Johntex\talk 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your last suggestion, Johntex, but then I start thinking the name should be 2006 Duke Lacrosse Stripper Allegations as the lacrosse team didn't make any allegations.  Another proposal: 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team Allegations (Disproven). Valtam 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say 2006 Duke lacrosse case or something like that, with a bunch of other obvious synonyms redirected to it. Since the case never went to trial, attempting to impose judgments in the title would be inappropriate and against policy. Those POV-laden titles could be used for redirects, though. Wahkeenah 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about <B>2006 Mangum / Nifong Lacrosse Team Hoax</B> ? Duke53 | Talk 06:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't sound very neutral to me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change For This Page 

message: and picture.  Wow...Fox News. Her name was also used at least twice during the press conferences from media and a defense attorney. I'm shocked. -Bluedog423Talk 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why be shocked? It has been pretty much determined that she was the only one who committed any crime that night. Hers days of being a 'victim' are long gone. Duke53 | Talk 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that she is a victim, far from it.  I am shocked because I cannot recall another rape complainant having his or her name released - even after charges have been dropped.  It is unprecedented, in my understanding.  This just shows that this case is clearly not typical. -Bluedog423Talk 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tawana Brawley. Αργυριου (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"I cannot recall another rape complainant having his or her name released"</i> The Amsterdam News revealed the name (and other info) of the (true) victim of the Central Park Wilding Case. Duke53 | Talk 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I stand corrected and spoke too soon.  NBC and CBS (at least their wral affiliate) have also used her name in news telecasts so now several media outlets have revealed her name. -Bluedog423Talk 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream news source releases her name

message: I cited a Fox News item ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html ), which states that on at least one occasion she admittedly had sex with a "customer"; even if she only had sex with a 'customer' (aka a 'John') one time (which I DO NOT believe) that means that she was a prostitute. Period. Duke53 | Talk 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. She took a customer of the strip joint home and had sex with him. We don't know (adn it's not stated in the article) that he paid her for anything - we only know that he paid to see naked girls dancing. Therefore we can't say that she's a prostitute. (Unless there's a reliable source for a prostitution conviction somewhere else.) Αργυριου (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with this. We know that she had sex with the customer, but not whether she was paid specifically for the sex. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"we only know that he paid to see naked girls dancing"</i>. And how, exactly, do we <B>know</b> that little fact? I don't think that the article said that, did it? Quite a leap of faith on your part, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it says in the article he was a customer of the strip club. So,Argyriou is correct in saying that "we only know that he paid to see naked girls dancing" because a) it's a strip club. b) naked girls dance in strip clubs. c) you have to pay a cover charge to get in. d) we only know that much about him. You really don't have to be snide to people you know? Mefanch 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: the previous posting is still a good question........there were no entries on the accused now "innocent".......there wasnt before the verdict.......blatenly a smear campaign by mostly likely the duke durahm wiki project...the ones who most likely started the entire entry in the first place.............still even after the verdict.......it is a blatent violence to have mangum's picture on her page.....and no pictures/info of the lacross team whatsoever.........regardless of the court of law's determination of the facts of the rape......members of the lacross team are still guilty of being over sexed out of control demonic bigots.....and therefore are not innocent by any means......"thank your grandpa for your cotton shirt" anyone.....?..........and yes this is the new milleneum.
at least attempt to be somewhat fair.....if you are not going put info up on the members of the lacross team....then you need to take her picture down.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.220.129 (talk • contribs) 17:26, April 13, 2007  (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.220.129 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her picture needs to stay up. The picture of the men involved should also be up. The facts are the facts and the pictoral record should exist. The men are innocent of rape, of course, and being horny is not a crime under American jurisprudence (that I know of). If you can't leave your biases at the door then maybe wikipedia is not for you. This is an encyclopedia and should reflect facts. Someone should put images of the three men back on the page. Ikilled007 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Her picture definitely needs to stay up.  I have no objection to also including the picture of the accussed, but unfortunately it looks like some over-zealous image deletionist deleted that picture. Someone can re-load it if they like. Johntex\talk 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It should stay up.  As for the three, as victims of crime, they need not have photographs here.  However given their repeated press conferences I see no harm in having them.--Wehwalt 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Perhaps this merits inclusion in the article somewhere:
According to the National Post, at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=41cf8ef1-d41a-45e9-83e4-aae85d0fd52c&k=52797 
:A History Professor KC Johnson, did investigative work on his blog "Durham-in-Wonderland". Here is a quote from the story (with emphasis added): "For a July, 2006, post that questioned the photo identification method that Mr. Nifong used, for example, Prof. Johnson says he contacted every district attorney in North Carolina, as well as 10 police departments. He questioned them about lineup policies and procedures, and concluded the process used in the Duke case was wildly atypical. The blog became an invaluable tool for the students' lawyers involved, said James Cooney, the lead lawyer for one of the three accused. He would read Prof. Johnson's blog every morning and follow the links to his original source material, all of which was meticulously documented, to help build his defence. He recalled one post in January, 2007, quoting a Duke Police report that said a woman working on Mr. Nifong's re-election campaign had advocated the house where the alleged gang rape occurred should be burned down. 'He really worked as a historian,' Mr. Cooney said. 'He did what historians do: He'd go in and he'd look at source material and try to put together facts and understand what was going on. He was just doing it more in real time.' ...One of the accused lacrosse players publicly thanked Prof. Johnson for his 'diligent work exposing the truth' after the North Carolina Attorney-General dropped the charges".
Wowaconia 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks legit.  Suggest we add a new section "Efforts in support of the students" with this, the support of the men's and women's lacrosse teams, anything else we can think of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were one of the people obsessively following this case over the last year or so (guilty as charged here), Johnson's blog was unquestionably the most reliable source for the most up-to-date information on the case.  Everything was meticulously sourced, and I can't recall that he was ever wrong on any substantive issue - and he was quick to correct on the rare occasions that his information was wrong.  I think the new section is an excellent idea, as the efforts of bloggers and regular people to help the students clear their names both on- and off-line was one of the real significant aspects of this case.Unlearned hand 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KC Johnson's effect on the case 

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

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

message: This user is making massive, radical changes to the page without first visiting the talk page to review what discussions led to the article's current structure. Many of his edits completely ignore consensus already discussed and reached. Ikilled007 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The allegations were false -- that issue has already been covered extensively on this talk page. "Latest boyfriend" -- I agree with your assessment. Latest is loaded language and should be removed. As for the accounts, it turns out the players' accounts are the ones substantiated by the Attorney General's investigation. My suggestion is that you make smaller edits, one at a time. When you make one gigantic edit changing elements all over the article, it's radical. If you make just one edit at a time, then your edits can be more thoroughly examined, and a total undo won't be required if some of your edits are in conflict with the consensus. For instance, you should make the "latest boyfriend" edit. Ikilled007 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of your changes have merit, but most seem to be removals of content that, while possibly unflattering to one party or another, is germane and well-sourced. I think it would be best to bring up changes one at a time here, to establish consensus, rather than getting into an edit war. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  gomez didn't sign his reply. Just want to clarify that you're in agreement with me, Hit. Ikilled007 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: *Saying that "she did not tell the truth" doesn't necessarily imply an intent to deceive on her part; it's just an assessment of the accuracy of her statements, and it seems pretty clear at this point that her version(s) of events don't correspond particularly closely to those of anybody else, or to the physical evidence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I posted this on the Crystal article talk page, same advice applies here. This shouldn't be difficult to work out.
I saw this posted on the BLP noticeboard. Here is my learned take on this dispute. I have followed the news reporting on this story, and the state atty. did use the word "innocent" at the press conference, and that is not insignificant. I think it should be presented (and surely can be sourced) that he declared them "innocent". However, in order to comply with WP:BLP, she cannot be said to have made false statements unless she has been convicted of it. As far as I am aware, she hasn't even been charged. So it's simply a matter of a proper rewording. Something like "she made these statements, which the state atty later declared them to be innocent of." Those are the straight facts as reported by reliable sources, and the reader can draw the conclusion that the statements were false all on their own. - Crockspot 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I would prefer "untrue statements" which is not a crime.  I will go looking for an adjective to put in quotes and footnote.  I think some of you are overprocessing this.--Wehwalt 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure I understand this argument... Mangum made statements which were "untrue" but not "false"? What is the difference between an "untrue" statement and a "false" statement? Can someone present examples of each so that everyone can be clear on the issue and proper language can be included in the article? What is the difference between "false" and "untrue" with respect to statements? Ikilled007 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Making false statements" sounds like the formal name of a crime, which is, near as I can tell, Crockspot's quibble.  "Untrue statements", while meaning the same thing, in my view, doesn't carry the same connotation.--Wehwalt 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that "making false statements" is a crime.  "Filing a false police report" is a crime in most if not all jurisdictions, but that's not what the article says.  Unless someone can point to a NC statute making it a crime to "make false statements", I don't believe this argument holds water.  I confess that I do not understand the aversion to the term "false statements", which virtually everyone acknowledges is factually accurate (untrue=false).Unlearned hand 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is my thinking too, Unlearned hand: the opposite of true is what, "untrue" or "false"? I thought it was "false". Something is either "true" or "false". To call her statements "false" seems like an accurate description of those statements to me, even if she is not being prosecuted for some formal charge of making such statements. Maybe we can add a statement like "Attorney General Cooper explained that Mangum will not be prosecuted for making false statements because in his opinion, it's possible she believed them to be true" with a citation to his press conference where he said exactly that. Would something along those lines be helpful? To me, the point is that this article should be clear on two counts: Firstly, that for purposes of the law, no attack took place; Secondly, for purposes of the metaphysical reality of the situation, no attack took place. These are important distinctions and need to be clear in this article, less the article leave the impression that it's possible Mangum was raped by these men, but that there's just not enough evidence to prosecute them. I get the impression that some of the users here want to have that slant in this article, but this article should reflect the metaphysical reality that no attack took place (for lack of a better term). What do you people think? Ikilled007 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite frankly, if they told someone a couple of days later that "I'm going to get paid by the white boys" (as Mangum reportedly did according to the manager of the club where she "danced"), I'd be less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt than most of the people who keep removing the "falsely" terminology from the article.  "Falsely" is accurate and NPOV, and is still the best description, IMHO.  However, I have not reverted it in the article to allow other opinions to be expressed. Unlearned hand 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"How about unfounded".</i> Crystal Gail Mangum's allegations were found to be false by North Carolina's Attorney General Cooper's in-depth investigation, so using the term 'unfounded' would be a lie here. Duke53 | Talk 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has the proper connotation.  I think "false" is adequate.  While this is not a democracy, there does seem to be majority support and proper arguments for it.--Wehwalt 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard response

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

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

text: In common usage, "Hoax" usually carries a sort of practical joke connotation as opposed to something more serious. How about "Incident" instead? Duke Alleged Rape Incident or something like that? Ikilled007 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal to move this article 

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

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

message: Lying on her side would mean making an untrue statement while on her side. Laying on her side means her body was in a horizontal position.
The article cites nearly 190 sources, that is part of the reason why the factual accuracy is in doubt.  Much of the information produced by the sources cited is in doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davemarshall04 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy and Grammar 

message: I added the two Baldwin letters to the "Other Faculty" part for two reasons.  One is they represent the only faculty statement published in the student newspaper disapproving of the firing/resignation of Coach Pressler, and two is the clear importance that actions involving Pressler will have on the story of this case.  DukeEGR93 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baldwin Letters 

message: As the proposal above seems to be gotten lost, I propose the article be called "Duke lacrosse controvery".  The existing title should go because it didn't involve the team except in a small part, and scandal seems a bit pov.--Wehwalt 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article should be named "Duke lacrosse rape case."  This is the name used by all three books currently in press about it, including the one co-written by the former coach.  These books are It's Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered by Don Yaeger and Mike Pressler, A Rush to Injustice: How Power, Prejudice, Racism, and Political Correctness Overshadowed Truth and Justice in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Nader Baydoun and R. Stephanie Good, and Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson. -Bluedog423Talk 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "2006 Duke University lacrosse case"?  There were more than rape charges, then there were not rape charges at all.  I get the feeling that the typical search terms will be Duke and lacrosse anyway.  DukeEGR93 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "2006 Duke University lacrosse case" is, if nothing else, much more neutral than the existing title.  Currently it contains the term "scandal", which would seem to indicate some form of major wrongdoing on the part of the lacrosse team.  "Case" is much more neutral, though there are numerous other acceptable words that could be used as well.  (Incident, perhaps)  At the very least the title should be changed to avoid the term "scandal". -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly live with that.  "2006 Duke University lacrosse case".  Very neutral.--Wehwalt 13:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to "2006 Duke University lacrosse case" since it seemed like that was the general consensus. -Bluedog423Talk 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to rename article

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

text: Unfortunately, whatever you may like to think of wikipedia as, it's not that. I suggest you start your own website for that purpose. Per many policies including BLP, the fact that something is verifiable isn't sufficient for it to be included Nil Einne 11:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Removal

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

message: There are several bad links in references. Not sure the best way to clean them up.
--gunnerclark 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an article this controversial, search for alternative links to the same references and then if not found immediately remove broken links without comment, and remove any resulting unsourced potentially derogatory statements.  I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bad links

message: On May 23, 2007, David Gerard deleted the entire Crystal Gail Mangum page, which fortunately has been reproduced at Wikitruth. 
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Crystal_Gail_Mangum
Gerard’s rationalization for his indefensible action was, <I>“delete for salting against mission posters”</I>. I have no idea what that means in English, and due to Gerard’s meta-censorship, you can’t even read it at WP – he even deleted the rationalization for his censorship! Perhaps the phrase is a reference to the ancient practice whereby an invading army, after committing genocide (think the Romans in Carthage), would salt the earth throughout the area so that, were any survivors to return and seek to till the land, it would prove barren, and they would starve.
Some of the material from Mangum’s page seems to have been incorporated into the Duke Rape Hoax page – against the standard WP recommendation that was for so long visible at the page to abbreviate it. Since this material now lacks the hoaxer’s photograph, which graced her own page, it appears that at least one of Gerard’s motives was to prevent readers from knowing what the racist who ruined so many lives looks like.
[personal attack removed]  
...to the sober-minded, something is certainly amiss with an “encyclopedia” article that can be edited by people who know nothing of its subject matter, while one of that “reference work’s” princes (who also gives no evidence of being familiar with the subject) does his best to keep readers in a permanent state of ignorance about said subject, and too cowed by his wikipower to call him out on his egregious misconduct.
70.23.167.160 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:BLP. There's a very good reason why this article here is sufficient and a page for Magnum is unnecessary. hateless 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship Alert

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