Talk:Duke lacrosse case

Note: Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. --tomf688 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

/Archive 1 - April 2006
/Archive 2 - May-Oct 2006

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)

McFayden e-mail?

Should this still be included? He's not been legally tied in to any of the criminal procedings, so is having the entry about the e-mail still relevent or not? Cwswb 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are the pages for David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty?

It seems hardly defensible to have a page on the accuser and not those for the accused. Huangdi 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe there wouldn't be enough content to fill a page. They haven't changed their stories 100 times like the accuser has. Wahkeenah 11:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Also, you can add pages on each of the gentlemen, yourself. Be prepared to see them removed, if the Wikipedia community does not feel they are necessary. Valtam 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Purim angle

Why are the wikipedians villifying the victim in this case when it hasn't even gone to trial (and may never do so)? Because the event occured on Purim, the celebration of Jewish revenge, and two of the three boys are Jewish. Now it's starting to make sense %%%%

• Dude, what, the fuck. 67.167.189.167 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I never thought the blood libel would come up in this case! People have amazing imaginations! Valtam 15:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mangum's prostitution career

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)

• I agree. If we have a citable source that says she has worked as a prostitute, then that is relevant information - especially if she has used it to explain the DNA. Please provide a citable source. Thanks. Johntex\^talk 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nearly every source in media and in court uses the term "escort", and confirms she worked at an "escort service". I suppose she could have been one of the 0.000000000001% of escorts employed at escort services that did not engage in prostitution, but this seems a little unlikely.  :)
• I predict there will be an edit war over this, unless it is written carefully. If you read the News & Observer article I put in as a reference to the "Before Arrival" section (it's the first reference), you'll find these quotes "The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week. ... This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said." Someone may make the argument that we don't know for sure what she did on her one-on-one dates, so we can't assume. The Biographies of living persons Wikipedia standard has become much more strict, and may apply here, as well. Valtam 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Valtam's take on WP:BLP. Any passage linking Mangum to illegal pursuits must be written with attention to the relevant policies WP:BLP and WP:RS. Abe Froman 15:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"the accuser" vs Mangum

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)

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

DNA lab chief hides evidence

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) Rape charges has been dropped!!!

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)

Equally to the point, as Rabbi Aryeh Spero asks, Where's the ACLU to Defend the Duke Lacrosse Players? Asteriks 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• That article about the ACLU is incorrect. It considers the Central Park rape case to be open-and-shut, but the convictions were all vacated in 2002. See Trisha_Meili 69.132.53.190 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Central Park rape case was open-and-shut; the convictions were all vacated for purely political reasons. There was no new exculpatory evidence -- police had acknowledged back in 1989, following the attack, that they had DNA evidence from an additional attacker or attackers. 70.23.199.239 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following paragraph, doing my best to make it appear balanced:

The conclusion of all this, according to Thomas Sowell, is that "this case was the salvation of [Mike Nifong's] career, by enabling" what Sowell calls a "demagogue" to go into an election "his opponent was favored to win" and "to win the black vote with inflammatory charges against white students accused of raping a black woman." Asteriks 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The real issue at Duke, Part I and Part II by Thomas Sowell

Removing comments from talk page

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)

Stub Suggestion : "Prejudicial Statements Made In The Case"

Such a page or addition to the main page will be of interest if/when a suit if files by the players against Nifong and/or other parties that made slanderous statements regarding the players. However, the content would not be limited to the players but would include comments made regarding the Duke Administration, Duke University, the crime lab which processed the DNA and other groups and organizations. The emotions surrounding this "incident", this case and this issue caused whether or not they regret them now people to make comments which were completely unsupported at the time they were made and/or ultimately proven to be false and/or never supported.

e.g. A Durham resident named Victoria Peterson stated, in regards to the DNA testing of the swabs taken from the accuser, "I believe the information Duke Medical Center received has been tampered with."(http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/04/12/News/Da.Still.Pursuing.Lax.Rape.Case-1845753.shtml?norewrite200701070507&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com ) She sited no supporting evidence.

Many such comments were made by ordinary citizens, media members, faculty and administrators as several universities as well as other prominent figures. While many kept their heads and measured their words throughout this ordeal, many did not. Those people should not have the luxury of having their pernicious and reckless comments fade from the public consciousness. They should be held to account.

I am accumulating a database of such unsupported/prejudicial/slanderous statements. If someone would be willing to set up a new page and link to it from the main article, I would be willing to provide them with sourced statements from relevant figures as I uncover them. Thank you.

• I would recommend that, if you want to create an article with these statements, you include statements in support of the team as well in order to be a more NPOV. Also, a title like "prejudicial statements made in the case" is too controversial, as people have different opinions on what they think is "prejudicial." I'd suggest making an article with a title of something like "Quotations about the Duke lacrosse case" or something like that. I'd then divide it by the author of the quotes. This should include comments both supporting the players and condemning them. The sections, divided by key figures in the case, ought to include quotes from people like Mike Nifong, President Richard H. Brodhead, Duke law professor James Coleman, People from the Group of 88, Houston Baker, Brian Meeham, Defense Attorneys, Judge Stephens and other judges in the case, other Duke faculty members, committee reports, media figures such as CNN's Nancy Grace and 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley, students from Duke, New Black Panthers, North Carolina Central University students, Durham residents (btw, Victoria Peterson is not an "average" Durham resident, she was the co-chair of the Nifong citizens’ committee in order to get him reelected), key witnesses including Moezeldin Elmostafa and Jason Bissey, and more. I wouldn't provide much of an analysis after each quote, maybe just setting it up with some context and then perhaps a sentence after from a reliable source if this was intentionally misleading at the time. This is quite a large project! It would also be necessary to include the date the quote was said and where it was published.

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?

hypothetical

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).

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)

Article needs prosecution's and accuser's side of the story

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)

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)

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).

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)

Guanxi: "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."

Of course they would, if they were telling the truth. The players never changed their story. Mangum did because she is a compulsive liar. When you speak of "after that kind of trauma and under that kind of national pressure," you are presuming that she was raped; we know that she wasn't. "National pressure" is also irrelevant, because 1. Like Tawana Brawley, she brought the national pressure on herself through her hoax; and 2. She began contradicting hereslf already on March 14, long before there was any "national pressure." When you speak of "NPOV," you are simply trying to protect her, at the expense of her victims. You can't stonewall the truth, by claiming it is non-NPOV. 70.23.199.239 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why does the accuser have a page dedicated to her, but the pages for the accused redirect, with no individual information on each? Do the guidelines for bio of living persons not apply when it is a woman who claims she was raped? Really horrible. One way or the other, but not different standards.

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)

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)

Political Censorship

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)

Blogs and personal websites are unacceptable as sources. You have been warned previously, and will not receive any further warnings. AuburnPilot^talk 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

External link to Wall Street Journal via a blog?

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)

Links to Tawana Brawley and Miranda Prather

This evening I added a "See also" section and, in it, links to Tawana Brawley and Miranda Prather. A few minutes later, these were removed by Abe.Froman with the comment "rv See Also. Suffice to say, neither person listed is even tangentially related to this matter".

I believe:

• there are clear parallels between the two earlier cases and the currently unfolding one,
• comparisons between the three cases are of interest, regardless of the outcome of this one, and
• inclusion of such links, and contradicting links, falls under NPOV and removal of them violates NPOV.

Where to from here?

TIA

Nat 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The matter at Duke is not even over with. Including cases that are completed is prejudicial, and introduces bias to the article. That, and the two women mentioned in "See Also" are not related to the matter in any way. It's fluff, better to leave it out. Abe Froman 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Miranda Prather case and racial tension at Duke are linked in "Hoax crimes - contrived racist and anti-gay incidents" (September 14, 1998 National Review article by Jon Sanders). Nat 10:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Abe Froman on this one. Including them is clearly POV, but even if it was a neutral point of view, these links contribute nothing to people's knowledge of this incident. -152.3.81.219 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying: what I meant was that comparable links of the opposing POV could be added just as easily. I apologise for not being more clear about this. Nat 10:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing them in "See Also" without context can be interpreted as violating WP:NPOV, but to Nat's points above, Google shows about 18,600 results for "Tawana Brawley Duke lacrosse," including in the first few pages comparisons of the two cases by US News, Newsweek, ESPN, the Raleigh News & Observer, and FoxSports, among others. Many apparently do find these cases related, and worth comparing. This fact belongs in the article, along with a mention of the many media reports about the media's role in the scandal, but neither of those fits in the current outline. Any suggestions for incorporating them? —- Xsmith (talk•contribs) 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems helpful and positive. Thank you. Plus, Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial says "Stick to the facts", so how about:

Comparisons with other cases

The high level of media interest that has been a feature of this case has included comparisons between this case and the Tawana Brawley and Miranda Prather cases.

Reconsidering

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)

Tense used in timeline

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)

VDARE link as reference

There appears to be a low intensity revert war brewing on this page and several related pages, Crystal Gail Mangum and Mike Nifong, over the use of a page from the VDARE site as a reference. Most of the additions and removals have been done without edit summaries, the edit summaries that do exist tend to be accusations of bad faith. I have taken an admin action and am thus honor bound not to take sides, but something needs to be done to allow for a consensus to be built over this disputed link. Does anyone have any reason to support the inclusion or removal of this reference? --Allen3 ^talk 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the beginning parts of it, and it seems to me to be very non-NPOV. The author cites a lot of references, but at its heart, it is an opinion piece, in my opinion. Valtam 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The POV rule does not ban the citing of POV material; the rule bans the writing of POV Wikipedia articles. If no one could cite any POV articles, no major exposes could be cited here. (And I dare you, no pun intended, to find a more thorough expose on the Duke lacrosse case.) And exposes notwithstanding, throughout Wikipedia, POV articles are cited, and linked to in footnotes and in external links. And that is permitted by the NPOV rule. What is not permitted is the deletion of all POV links/footnotes from one side of a dispute.

The constants in this revert war go beyond the VDARE article; the "editor" in question has used four different IPs so far at Bloomfield College in NJ, while following me around from article to article (not just Duke-related), and as User:Valtam noted, never writing an edit summary. 70.23.199.239 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion for or against the inclusion of the Vdare reference, and I think this whole argument is somewhat odd since the article doesn't provide any new information. However, I think its current placement in the article is inappropriate. Its after the first phrase, "The 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal." We need a reference for that? No we don't. It could be used later on in the article if others find the source appropriate, but I really don't think it's that significant of an article and if it omission makes people spend more time on productive edits, then I think it should be left out. If it does contain some information not found via other sources, then it should be placed after the sentence it is supporting. -Bluedog423^Talk 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it belongs, if anywhere, in the list of external links at the bottom. But, as pointed out, it doesn't seem to add anything new, so I'm not convinced that there's any point in adding it. Nat 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how really only two people care. It is the same person adding the reference and a different person that keeps deleting it. It doesn't matter, sheesh. But definitely the reference shouldn't be placed after the first phrase of the article. See Special:Contributions/70.23.199.239 if you want to see the constant battle between these two. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is a mini-consensus that the link doesn't add anything new to the article, and that its placement at the head of the article is inappropriate. I'm going to delete it, and add myself to the two people who care. :) -- Andyparkerson 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Revert in Five Hours by Suspected Sockpuppet User: 130.156.30.57

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
User: 130.156.29.134
User: 130.156.31.143

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. AuburnPilot^talk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)”

---

http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl 4:39 23 January 2007 Search results for: 130.156.31.143

New Jersey Higher Education Network NJEDGE (NET-130-156-0-0-1)

                                 130.156.0.0 - 130.156.255.255

---

23 January 2007

Search results for: 130.156.30.57

New Jersey Higher Education Network NJEDGE (NET-130-156-0-0-1)

                                 130.156.0.0 - 130.156.255.255

Bloomfield College NJEDGE-BLOOMFIELD-COLLEGE (NET-130-156-24-0-1)

                                 130.156.24.0 - 130.156.31.255

1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-01-22 19:10
2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

---

On 6 September 2006, User: 130.156.31.143 also violated Wikipedia rules by secretly deleting an entire passage by another editor (not me) on the Talk:Jim_McGreevey page.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_McGreevey&diff=prev&oldid=74166450 70.23.199.239 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wikinews link

"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)