Talk:Duke lacrosse case

Excessively long article, should be reduced by 50%.

Far too long article. Get to the point, 86.156.211.130 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

False title

“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)

I have to agree with others. What case? "hoax", "false accusal", "scandal", "Miscarriage of media and wikipedia editors" (I read the old talk pages... eek). All more accurate. 24.63.3.107 (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Mangum has finally admitted to making up the false rape. It is time to finally change this to add "false" and/or "hoax." HoundofBaskersville (talk)

It's sad that even though those guys were proven not guilty in court and the allegation was false, the media, people, and even many editors here maintained that they did it. You can see editors arguing above that although charges were dropped because of no evidence, it doesn't imply a false accusation and it took long discussions just to add they were falsely accused in the lead sentence even though they were found not guilty! Now the woman herself admitted she lied about the case. I also think the "false" and/or "hoax." should be added to the title. AG47 ^Talk 12:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed 24.63.3.107 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@HoundofBaskersville: @AG47: I've requested a move below. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:C92B:E8A3:13D:BC24 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that a change is needed. But, it’s more than a hoax, and looking at current press reports “hoax” is not used much if at all: the general summary is that it is a false rape accusation. So for me The Duke False Rape Accusation meets the requirement in WP:TITLE that the title should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Springnuts (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead length

The length of the lead is astronomical and way out of sync with MOS:LEADLENGTH. May I suggest we trim it to this?

The Duke lacrosse case was a widely reported hoax in Durham, North Carolina, United States, in which three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape, and criminally charged.

The state of North Carolina later dropped all charges, with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declaring the three lacrosse players "innocent" and victims of a "tragic rush to accuse". The former lead prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, resigned in disgrace, and was disbarred and briefly imprisoned for violating ethics standards; the Durham Police Department was strongly criticized for its conduct in the investigation; and, the accuser, Crystal Magnum, later admitted she had "made up" the accusation. The three accused lacrosse players brought a civil lawsuit against Duke University, which was settled for approximately $60 million.

Investigation and resolution of the case sparked public discussion of racism, sexual violence, media bias, and due process on campuses. It was the subject of the 2016 ESPN documentary film Fantastic Lies

Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2024

Duke lacrosse case → Duke lacrosse rape hoax – The accuser has come clean on it being a hoax. See discussion at Talk:Duke_lacrosse_case#False_title. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:C92B:E8A3:13D:BC24 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No change from before. The accuser had no creditability and reliable sources(?) ignored it and kept a politically motivated prosecution going. 2601:248:C000:147A:C86:3EBF:C9FE:D503 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. I feel in most cases hoax is a poor title on Wikipedia, but this seems for once to be the most fitting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Hoax it’s just not the right word to use here, imo. This is a more purely selfish lie - how about Duke Lacrosse Rape Fabrication? Springnuts (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SENTENCECASE please. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

that's what a hoax is a lie made up to benefit someone like jussie smallest hate crime hoax it was done to help his career 199.116.88.204 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

In my mind a hoax is often done for selfish benefit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

She told a lie to try to get out of trouble, not to get people into trouble - so it wasn’t a hoax.

A Hoax is “a widely publicised falsehood” (which this is), created to deceive its audience with false and often astonishing information (which this is), with “either malicious or humorous intent” (which this is not: it’s certainly intentionally deceptive but not clearly intending to do harm) to cause “shock and interest in as many people as possible” (which was not the case here: whatever the reason for the lie it was not that of reaching a mass audience).

Springnuts (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Springnuts: Falsely accusing someone of rape is malicious and is clearly intending to harm them. Furthermore, here's how various dictionaries define "hoax":

* Merriam Webster: an act intended to trick or dupe

* Cambridge Dictionary: a plan to deceive someone

* Collins Dictionary: a trick in which someone tells people a lie

* Dictinary.com: something intended to deceive or defraud

* Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: an act intended to make someone believe something that is not true, especially something unpleasant

This case clearly satisfies all of these. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:B0C8:8BE7:2C5D:FFE4 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

But she didn’t set out to harm them. From what I have read her motivation was to get herself out of trouble. She did not (from what I have read) intend to harm them, though clearly the claim was immensely harmful to them. Springnuts (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It's probably better to consult dictionaries rather than Wikipedia articles when seeking the meaning of a word. Merriam-Webster's definitions are not so narrow – not even including an intent as part of the definitions provided. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, per Humpty Dumpty “a word means what I want it to mean”, so one dictionary definition isn’t the whole story. For example (Google AI overview) …

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, a hoax is an act intended to make someone believe something that is not true, especially something unpleasant. For example, "He was accused of using a bomb hoax to empty a rival restaurant". (Note the intention in the example)

(Disclosure: AI assisted text follows)

I propose that the title **Duke Lacrosse False Rape Allegation** is the most appropriate for this case, based on the following rationale:

1. **Clarity and Precision:**

The proposed title accurately describes the central issue—an allegation of rape that was ultimately determined to be false. It avoids ambiguity while maintaining a neutral and factual tone, which aligns with Wikipedia's article title policy (WP:AT).

2. **Avoids Loaded Terminology:**

The term hoax is often associated with broad public deception or sensationalism, which does not fully capture the nature of this case. The accuser's actions appear to have been motivated by personal factors rather than an intent to deceive the public for shock or humor, as is typically implied by hoax. Using false rape allegation avoids this connotation and focuses on the verified falsehood of the claim.

3. **Neutral and Respectful:**

Titles should strive to avoid unnecessarily charged language. False rape allegation is precise and avoids potentially inflammatory terms that may distract from a balanced presentation of the facts.

4. **Consistency with Related Articles:**

This phrasing aligns with titles of similar cases involving false allegations, ensuring consistency across Wikipedia.

In summary, Duke Lacrosse False Rape Allegation provides a clear, accurate, and neutral description of the case without introducing unnecessary connotations. It best meets the criteria of being concise, recognizable, and reflective of the article's content.

Springnuts (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Duke Lacrosse False Rape Allegation" is a clear violation of WP:SENTENCECASE, so it's a non-starter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

<Sigh> Duke lacrosse false rape allegation then. Springnuts (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I Support that alternative, and I apologize for the tone of my "clear violation" comment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Springnuts: What prompt did you use to generate the text you posted? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:B0C8:8BE7:2C5D:FFE4 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support A confirmation of what all of us have known for almost 20 years.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support with caveats I support the intention, but I think the specific choice of name is not ideal. I think calling it a "hoax" is too "silly" of a name, in the "it's just a prank bro" type of style. This was something much too serious to be called simply a "hoax". I agree with Duke lacrosse false rape allegation suggested by @Springnuts. Ergzay (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)