Jump to content

Talk:Duke lacrosse case/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

No need for the n-word

There have been attempts to add in dialog where some of the players supposedly said the n-word and the stripper retorted with comments about their size. This dialog is unnecessary and it does not add to the article. Also, it does not move the article toward FA status--just the opposite. Why does the specific dialog have to added? Please explain this before it is added. Also, just saying that it happened or I think it is important is not good enough. Please provide encyclopedic reasons. Please explain what it is adding to the article that is not already there.--InaMaka (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article attempts to spell out a timeline of events. It initially discuseed the incident as a "verbal altercation" and had largely unsourced speculative sections. The current edits are accurately sourced and provide a fair depiction of the events that occurred. I'm not sure what your argument for leaving out certain facts would be. While it's understood that the players were falsely accused and that the DA was guilty of plenty, it's a false depiction to imply (by omitting such deplorable behavior) that the lacrosse team in this case was exclusively a victim. Much of the article presents information of events for the reader to determine the ultimate meaning (the implication to use the broom as a sextoy, the McFadyen e-mail, etc.). I see this as no different. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
First here are the quotes in question:
""Short dick white boys" and "We asked for whites, not n-----s."
I'd like to add some new information that was just posted to my talk page.
"what was said merely serves to demonstrate that the women provoked the verbal altercation by insulting the men's manhood and their race, which is every bit as offensive as the racial slur that was thrown back at them. If that one woman had kept her trap shut, maybe the N-word wouldn't even have come up"
That's about the most racially ignorant thing I've heard on WP. To my knowledge simply referring to someone as "white" is not insulting their race (at least when the someone in question is white). And in my personal opinion there is no comparison between telling someone they have a small penis and calling someone a nigger. But, the vulgar assertion that if the woman had "kept her trap shut" she wouldn't have been verbally assaulted? This is just plain ignorance. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
"Keep your trap shut" is colloquial, not vulgar. And if you think calling someone a "small genitaled white boy" is not highly insulting, you need to broaden your education. And furthermore, the guys were paying the money for this service. You can't dis your customers' manhood and expect to get away with it. Maybe the women thought they were being funny. Maybe the guys thought they were being funny. But the women were out of line, and they were hypocritical. So they have no leg to stand on in that war of words. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm, what would be your reaction if a white prostitute stripper 'exotic dancer' had called a black guy 'boy' ? Perhaps the insult here is in the word 'boy' ? Duke53 | Talk 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right, all 3 words put together constitute the insult, although if it were "boys" without the other stuff it would have been OK. The real blame lies with the organization that sent them over. If they asked for white, they should have either sent white or said they didn't have any available that night. That's an angle that may not have been explored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion limited to constructive suggestions for improving the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Constructive suggestions ? Is that what this quote from above constitutes ? : ... "I'd delete it again—in accordance with WP:EL— but I've had enough of Duke53 and his bullshit for today". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hang on here. The IP opened this door by insisting on posting part of the war of words, instead of the previous version which merely stated that there was an argument. He left out what the women said, which was a serious POV violation in that it left the false impression that the men had started the insults, when it was actually the women who started it. Then there comments were posted also. So what it comes down to is, do the gory details need to be in the article, or is the statement that they had an argument sufficiently "fair and balanced"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, you misunderstand I wasn't saying the words "keep your trap shut" are vulgar. I was saying that your assertion that a woman she need to do so to avoid being called a nigger was vulgar. Second, I made no claim that her calling them "small dicked" wasn't offensive, only that it wasn't racial. "You can't dis your customers' manhood and expect to get away with it." Yes, there were lots of options the players could have used to respond, complaining to the company, refusing payment, etc. Calling them niggers was not an appropriate response and your cavalier dismissal of this fact is as ignorant, if not more so, than that.
Duke53, calling someone "boy" has a differing context dependent on the subjects race. It is not the same thing to call a white man a "boy" as a black man.
I think this entire discussion taking place here is evidence that this needs to be included in the article. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
All it does is damage the women's case further. Is that your intention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of an encyclopedia here. My intention is neither to improve or damage anyones case (also there is no case here as all charges were dropped). The point is to present the facts as they occurred. And that is what is being done here. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
""Duke53, calling someone "boy" has a differing context dependent on the subjects race. It is not the same thing to call a white man a "boy" as a black man." Who made that rule and when did they make it ? In my neck of the woods if you call any man a 'boy' you'd better buckle up: at the very least you're going to have one hell of an argument; worse than that, you will more than likely get your ass kicked and perhaps be seriously injured (maybe worse). I'm not sure when blacks were awarded the right to dictate the terms of what is or isn't insulting or racist and / or who can use certain terms. Duke53 | Talk 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming to the realization that I don't think I'll be able to explain rational theory to you. I'm really sorry you think "blacks" dictate what's racist. And it's really said that in your neck of the woods you anyone would likely seriously injure somone (maybe worse) for calling a white man a boy. Regardless, the passion, and in my view ignorance, are examples of why the specific quotes are relevant. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm coming to the conclusion that you can't explain 'rational theory' to anybody, or that you even understand it.
We have a substantial disagreement. I don't doubt you feel that way. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• I didn't say that I would seriously injure anybody, so don't put words in my mouth. I said that it's more than likely to happen up here; there is a huge military installation here and these incidents occur daily. All anyone has to do is pick up local newspapers to learn about these incidents. Duke53 | Talk 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I revised my remark. My point was that you would do it, but rather it was unfortunate someone would. (it seems maybe we agree at least on that point?) 71.178.240.197 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Initially, the IP did not "present the facts", he presented one side of the facts, based on his POV that somehow insulting someone's manhood-plus-race is somehow OK and hence not worthy of mentioning. I'm inclined to agree with the OP that the dialogue adds nothing useful. You can link to the article if you want. Also, I had to laugh at your comment that the guys throwing insults back at the women was "not appropriate". If you cop the attitude they did, then you forfeit any expectation of an "appropriate" response. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I never imagined anyone would consider that being called "small dicked" was comparable to calling someone a nigger. That said, once the opinion was expressed, I immediately supported the expanded inclusion. I'm sorry you think they forfeited their expectation of not being called niggers. I don't think there's even an appropriate time to use those words, but that's my opinion. However, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The bottom line is that the exchange is still relevant for the reasons I posted initially and for the reasons we are all having this discussion. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I can't believe you think that insulting someone's race-plus-manhood is somehow no big deal. Look, if someone calls someone a name, especially a name that has to do with a racial stereotype, then logic dictates that the insulter can expect to be insulted right back, and they have no right to complain about what specific insult gets used. Based on the cited quotes, the women are at fault for that war of words. So by including that dialogue, you dis the women even more. So, again, I have to ask, as did the OP: What value does specifically listing the insults serve for the article, other than to further impeach the women's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This argument is getting cyclical. I understand now you consider to "small dicked white boys" and "nigger" to have equal weight. I also now understand that you think the addition of "small dicked white boys" shows that the women were at fault. The point of my last comment was that there was no intent to hide "small dicked white boys," but nonetheless I disagree that those things are equal and that it further impeaches the women's behavior. Regardless, the facts are presented to the readers. The bottom line is that use of the word nigger is notable in the context and can not be accurately described as simple a "verbal altercation." If you and or other feel that "small dicked white boys" adds context or shares equal importance I have no objection to its inclusion. I have yet to hear any argument for it not being included other than generic "unnecessary" labels. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you really think that calling a group of male strangers sexually inadequate is not hateful, then I don't know what to do for you at this point. However, if you're going to quote things, let's make sure they are in the right chronological order so there's no question of who insulted who first. If the guys threw the first insult, then they're at fault. If the women threw the first insult, they can't hide behind a cry of "hate speech" when they indulged in hate speech themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a substantial difference between hate speech and general insults or even something generally "hateful." I never confused the chronological order (I believe InaMaka might have), but regardless I disagree with your "fault" argument. Regardless, there is clearly, based on this discussion alone, room for interpretation, which is why the quotations need to stay. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone ever looked into the question of why the company sent black instead of white as they were apparently requested to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. I believe that's likely because it's wholly irrelevant to the situation. I don't think anyone has investigated why the Duke players didn't politely refuse the strippers either... 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Why the double standard? The women grossly insulted the men (which, if you were a man, you might understand). Why should the men be polite back? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So not that it should matter (though it seems you think it does), but I'm both male and white. First, the thing you disagree with (believe me I get you disagree) is that the Duke players calling the women niggers was a disproportionate response (and even without that two wrongs still don't make a right). That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying, if they wanted white strippers, then the Duke players could have politely refused them when then arrived, before the entire incident. 71.178.240.197 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You're focused too much on a specific word, and you're overlooking the drinking. You personally might not be insulted by a comment like what that woman said, but you don't have the right to tell someone else they shouldn't feel insulted by something - that's the depth of political correctness gone wrong. And if you did feel grossly insulted, why would you feel any need to hold back and not fire back with the most insulting response you can think of, especially if you've been drinking and your normal social inhibitions are impaired? (Which seems to have been true of everyone there. Like I said, there are no saints in this story, except maybe for the state's attorney.) You can't expect civil behavior in an atmosphere dripping with alcohol and who knows what else. Here's a more mundane example: If you've been drinking heavily, and you order a pepperoni pizza, and the delivery boy brings anchovy instead, how polite are you likely to be? Maybe you would be. But you can't expect everyone else to behave the way you might when under the influence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't whether you or I are personally offended by these types of words. It's not a question of should they have responded the way they did or if drinking contributed to it. The point in the language was used and al we're doing here is talking in circles further pointing out the need for this language to be here. The used the words and it clearly is relevant as part of the description of events. I think you for bringing this to a civil tone as well as trying to find common ground. I think we've gotten about as much out of this as we're going to. I'm happy leaving things where they are. Is there any disagreement on the current status of the page? If so, let's try to work that out specifically (while I do appreciate the discussion it has tended to get a little off topic). 71.178.240.197 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any verification that the words in questioned transpired beyond the claims of Newsweak? The altercation including the insult by Roberts regarding the student's "dick" and his response about the cotton shirt is familiar to me, but I have never heard of the racial response before now, and all quotes of it lead back to the Newsweak article as single arbiter of its existence. Where did Newsweak get it from? Is Newsweak a reliable source in this instance? HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. Here's where the issue of WP:RS comes in. Newsweek would generally be considered a reliable source. But one would think this would have received broader coverage than just one publication. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how hard you looked for alternate sources. According to the New York Daily News, Roberts said "They called me a damn nigger." And our own article quotes a Duke Chronicle article (dead link) that says Roberts called 911 complaining that the men called the women niggers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that why they cooked up the rape story? To get revenge? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, only Mangum complained of rape, not Roberts. And as to her motivation, you'd have to ask her. Last I heard, prosecutors said they thought she believed the stories she told police. That's the reason they didn't prosecute her for filing false charges. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd still like to know if their company was ever held accountable for not properly fulfilling the guys' request, assuming they actually made that request. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As it was, I looked quite hard, thank you. Since the clarification seems to suggest that Kim Roberts is the source for the claim that the players used the n-word, then that caveat needs to be present if we include the allegation (especially since Roberts' testimony changed considerably over time, albeit perhaps not as much as Nifong's or Mangum's.). The way the edit by the annonymous user stands, suggests that Newsweak's version is solidified by an iron-clad source. Roberts hardly qualifies. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"Roberts hardly qualifies" 60 Minutes interview[1]: Asked how she responded, Roberts says, "I don't know if I can say that on 60 Minutes.
"I called him a little [expletive] white boy," she recalls laughing. "And how he couldn't get it on his own and had to pay for it. So, he was mad. And it ended with him callin' me the n-word. And it echoed, so you heard n….. once, and then you heard, n….., n….., n….. .
Roberts acknowledges that her taunting provoked that remark but tells Bradley, "But when I think about it again, I say he could’ve said black girl. You know what I mean? He could’ve said black girl. He didn’t have to go that route."
So here we have a participant trying to dictate the 'rules of engagement': she can say whatever she wants to say but wants to decide which 'route' others must follow. I call bullshit on that theory. Duke53 | Talk 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well-stated. When you insult the manhood of a roomful of drunken paying customers, you have no right to complain when they insult you back. One thing worth mentioning is that Roberts was one of the first, as I recall, to refute Mangum's rape story. But since Mangum was merely an observer of this verbal exchange, then I wonder what the gory details have to do with this article - unless someone can demonstrate that the verbal exchange is what gave her the idea to invent the rape charge, to "get even" with the guys. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Revenege would be difficult to demonstrate, particulary when some investigators think she believed the story she told. ThatSaved (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Evidently Mangum "believed her rape charges" so much that she made false charges on more than one occasion. As for claims that Mangum was called a nigger, given how unimpeachable of a source she and the other stripper are, those claims should obviously be taken at face value.

February 2011 question

77.86.81.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77.86.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hmm .... I wonder if the editor who falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet Hull End 1 (77.86.81.199) is doing a little sockpuppetry Hull End 2 (77.86.124.158) himself ? If so, I believe that the original editor is in the midst of a ban; could this affect that ban ? Inquiring minds want to know. Duke53 | Talk 18:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why ask that here? You know by now, Duke53, there are places you can go to put more savvy admins than me on notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not ask it here ? This is a talk page about an article that 'might' be getting edited by a sockpuppet; I don't have the tools to check to see if it's a sockpuppet, so one of the admins who are involved with this article can do their admin thing if they want. If they choose to do nothing then the record is here and I have done my part in being a good WP editor. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You might want to check WP:ADMIN. I assure you that admins have no such tool. Were you looking for Checkusers?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know or care who has those tools, I just know that I don't have them.
I don't know or care if anybody does anything about this, I just wanted to put something on a record in case it becomes a problem.
I do find it odd that admins trip over one another every time that I am accused of anything, but can't seem to want to get involved in what is a fairly obvious sockpuppet incident. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The second IP is obviously the same guy as the first, but he only made the one edit, so it's unlikely the admins will block him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No, but the article was protected this morning—before Duke53's first comment—to prevent further disruption by said sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit advances April 2011

Read here and here RexZeedog (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Election

One thing the article has little to say about is how this case helped Nifong win re-election by cynically catering to the black community in Durham. It's mentioned in the suit section, but it's important to realize that this was being discussed in the press at the time of the election, it's not something the kids thought of after their ordeal was over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Now that depositions and discovery are on the way, previously concealed and unknown information is coming to light about Duke's actions during the false accusation scandal. The question is where does this get positioned? Should it be put in a section for responses/actions by Duke administration et.al. Or put in a section for the subsequent lawsuits since that is where we are finding things out (i.e. the fact that Duke edited Kennedy's letter about the boys' innocence and criticsm of Duke's attempt to prevent them from hiring lawyers). Suggestions are welcome. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Media bias missing from the lede

So, why is it missing? Even more hilarious given the long list of news sources supposedly critical of the case. more properly described as pathetic attempt to save face Whatzinaname (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusion

" Nifong served one day in jail for lying about sharing DNA tests (criminal contempt), although the lab director says it's a misunderstanding and Nifong says it's weak memory.[10] " I find this to be abrupt and confusing. Can I reword to " Nifong served one day in jail for lying about sharing DNA tests (criminal contempt), although there was some confusion between Nifong and the lab director. [10] " GreaseballNYC (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully oppose. Your change makes it sound like we know there was some kind of misunderstanding between Nifong and the lab director. We don't. In fact, there is evidence they were colluding. Weirvile (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. The original sentence is confusing because it doesn't clarify if the sharing of the materials was a misunderstanding/weak memory or if they lying about it was. It remains vague. GreaseballNYC (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crystal Mangum is notable on her own

Given the rape case, the arson charges and that apparently she's killed her boyfriend,[2] I would think that Crystal Mangum is notable on her own and we should have an article about her. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

there was no rape case. Rather, there was a false allegation of rape. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Aw heck, should I just be bold and start the article? I'm kinda busy so all I would do is one sentence and a ref and I suspect people will take it from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine, I'll move ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a stub, Crystal Gail Mangum. Perhaps someone will work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to resurrect the article that had already existed a couple of years ago before it got "deletionist-ed"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me see what is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The name of the deceased is Reginald Daye.[3]
I'm having some difficulty in accessing the deleted revisions of the article, I'm not sure why. It may have been oversighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite that, you've already got a pretty good start on it. Most of the stuff about Mangum after the rape case ended could be summarized in a sentence or two, and the rest of the content moved to the new article. I wonder if the current mugshot is public domain? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Check this article's talk archives, I think we've discussed that (if I recall correctly, it's "no".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
[4] or [5]. Obviously, a lot of the material is out of date. Nevard (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Collin Finnerty Georgetown incident

I came onto this page primarily to do a copyedit as the page was hard to read. However, when I hit the Collin Finnerty section, aside from its being out of place/ out of order in the timeline, it also seemed to lack sources, not be consistent with the facts in the sources (he was charged with simple assault, just say so) and at least verge on violating NPOV. I think it needs at least one more citation where I have marked, maybe that could come from the secondary source cited by the previous editor at end of paragraph which I don't have (it's not online). With respect to the criticism of Judge Bayly, I presume the incidents of judge's threats (note, I changed it from the previous wording of continuous harassment because it's not clear that two incidents of a judge supervising probation in this manner over a relatively short time really constitute "harassment" for purposes of NPOV) are supported by the same secondary source. However, it's hard to beat up on Judge Bayly in one sentence, when in the next sentence he's the judge quickly ending Finnerty's probation and signed the order vacating the conviction after Nifong dropped the rape charges. The originally written section made it sound like some totally different judge vacated Finnerty's conviction when really it was just an about-face by the same judge, Bayly. TheBlinkster (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Judge Bayly; by the time of the July 10-11 DC trial, it should have been obvious that the Durham charges were fake. (DNA had cleared the entire team of having any contact with Mangum, and that was publicly known on April 10.) The terms of a DC diversion program require that the defendant not break the law during his period of probation. Finnerty did not break the law-- but he was accused of doing so in Durham. Yet neither Judge Baily, nor the US Attorney for DC, Ken Wainstein, could rule that he did break the law, unless they were weighing in on the Durham case. Absent a decision in the Durham case, there was no criteria for declaring that Finnerty had broken the law. And if the standard of the law is "innocent until proven guilty", there was no legal basis for revoking his diversion program.
Bayly declared that if he thought Finnerty was guilty in the Durham case, then he was have consigned him to a halfway house. Since he did not, evidently he did not believe he was guilty in the Durham case. But again, if that were so, then again there was no foundation for revoking his diversion agreement and ordering him to trial--other than public pressure. And yielding to public pressure is not a good standard for jurisprudence.
Ken Wainstein, throughout his career, had imho a record of doing just that (compare how he handled the cases of Cynthia McKinney and Patrick Kennedy, for examples).
Again, absent public pressure, what was the rationale for DC to assign eight federal attorneys plus nine additional staff, to prosecute a minor misdemeanor scuffle (in which it was not even being alleged that the defendant had struck anyone, but only that he had called him an epithet and waved his fists at him, after being struck from behind and knocked down)? Previous DC cases, involving much more serious infractions, were handled differently (as in the case of David Shick, who was struck by a drunken Georgetown student and died as a result; his assailant was not charged with anything and was only required to write a 10-page paper about it for Georgetown).
Judge Bayly had previously given comparatively light sentences to police offices accused of rape, to a person who claimed he had a radio in his head and was stalking the White House, and so on. Finnerty's sentence was by comparison much more harsh; yet it provided the prosecution with a tool to pressure him, by continually threatening him with revocation of his probation and confinement in the DC jail--a place which is rated worse than many federal prisons and where the inmate population may be considered hostile to persons accused of racially-motivated crimes. Both the brother of James Earl Ray and some Watergate defendants were threatened with the same incarceration, were they to fail to agree to testify in the manner federal prosecutors desired.
Nifong in Durham followed the same strategy--attempting to coerce testimony: he arrested and tried on trumped-up charges the immigrant cabbie Elmostafa, who was therefore also threatened with deportation, when he refused to lie for Nifong. (He received a Readers Digest Hero of the Year award later for refusing to lie.) Nifong also arrested Mangum's ex-husband, her boyfriend, and another friend, with the disposition of their own separate charges in his own hands. He coerced Roberts to change her written statement, in which she had claimed that there had been no time for a rape, to "remember" that perhaps Mangum had been out of her sight long enough for there to have been a rape. In exchange charges against her on other matters (her embezzlement of $25,000 from a former employer, her violations of parole, etc.) were dropped. He arrested the daughter of the police chief on an old warrant, and she then faced prison time. The police chief disappeared from public view during the biggest case in his department's history, leaving Nifong as the only spokesman.
All of which constitutes a pattern into which the forced trial and conviction of Finnerty appears to fit. Four witnesses backed Finnerty's version of events; but the chief defense witness was ordered to step down from the witness box and was not allowed to testify (no explanation given). Police officers claimed to remember facts which were not in their notes--always a bad sign--about an event months before, which was only a minor incident. After the Durham case was over and it was bandied about that perhaps the alleged "victims" in the DC trial had perjured themselves and ought to be charged, the US Attorney for DC (Wainsten's successor) included their names on a list of witnesses to be honored for their "courage" in coming forward to testify in criminal cases. (The other recipients had faced violent retaliation from drug dealers, gang members, and the like.) To me--as to others--this seemed as though it was a signal from the US Attorney that the prosecutor had their backs.
All in all, it was another blatant example of prosecutorial abuse, imho; and a revealing account of how in the US justice system can succomb to public pressure and can result in persons being convicted not only when they are innocent, but even when the crimes of which they are accused (as in Durham) never even happened. (68.106.8.107 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

Sgt Mark Gotleib

It is with sad news that I would like to advise readers of the toll this has taken on a lot of persons. Sgt. Mark Gotleib was not a major player but more of a pawn in the case. Unfortunately the whole incident took it's toll. In 2014 Sgt. Gotleib committed suicide. He left behind a family, a daughter and wife, destroyed by the flip side accusations of the incident. Mark served his last years taking care of people of DeKalb County Georgia. I was fortunate to have worked with Mark. This man had a big heart. While in no way do I make any judgment nor opinion on the truth of what happened in this advisory. But there were many more victims in this event than the team players. Rest in peace Mark. I hope the lord can forgive those persecuted to the length of taking their life. 173.166.47.253 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC) RL, Paramedic. <Ref: his shift supervisor>

"Sgt. Mark Gotleib was not a major player but more of a pawn in the case." Is it possible for you to elaborate on this a bit?
Was he following someone's instructions? Was he permitted to disagree with Nifong at any point? (68.106.8.107 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

Did the players receive any form of sexual services from any of the strippers?

Any info as to the sex that actually did occur at the location that night? Handjobs, blowjobs, masterbation, etc 101.51.229.231 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DNA testing --which tested Mangum, her clothing, her belongings, etc. -- revealed that none of the players had any kind of contact whatever with the dancers. (68.106.8.107 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

Previous police interactions with Crystal Mangum

"Responding police recognized Mangum from previous interactions, and knew her name, home address, and that she had likely left two children at home alone. They asked for other officers to check up on her children." This cited the R.B. Parrish reference (not available online, unfortunately). However, Cohan's "Price of Silence" seems to disagree with this as it goes in great detail through the police interaction with Mangum and indicates they had someone check on her children after she came to enough to tell the attendants at the facility where she was taken that she'd left two small children at home. In addition to this disagreement between sources, whether the police recognized Mangum or not and whether she had left children home or not does not seem material to the events being described. There is other well-sourced material in the article already showing that Mangum had a police record (for the 2002 taxi incident). So including another incident where sources contradict is unnecessary as well as possible BLP. Hence, I've taken that line out. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet Cohan's book is not considered by many (most?) reviewers to be a trustworthy source about the case. (See the reviews of the book on Amazon; also reviews by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall St. Journal, by Stuart Taylor, etc.). It appears imho to be constructed largely from various media accounts, and so reflects the distortions and hype which were present in the initial reporting on the case. Some people believe it was constructed largely to serve as a frame for the presentation of the Nifong interviews contained therein (in which Nifong offers an apologia for his actions). At any rate, as noted, the remainder of the book is not generally regarded, at least by many reviewers, to be either a complete or a reliable source.
This is particularly so, imho, in its account of the party and the immediate aftermath, in which (again imho) it appears to follow the media accounts, rather than information which emerged later. (It may be noted that Cohan's book doesn't even mention the Durham police chief, Chalmers, nor the arrest of his daughter by Nifong; gives credence to the later discredited assertion that the players received a $60 million settlement--better research might have avoided that error--and has no footnotes or bibliography; unusual, for a book which would purport to be a detailed investigation of an historical event.)
The detail that responding Durham police officers knew Mangum's name, home address, and that she likely had left two young children home alone --before she had said a word--is relevant to questions about whether or not a frame-up was being set in motion. Moreover, when the defense asked in court for police radio tapes of that incident to be handed over ("It's Crystal"), those tapes were then destroyed by the police (in a "routine" action). At the very least, this would again point to prosecutorial abuse.
The circumstances of the initial police response (to a "non-emergency" call by Roberts that she had been called a name), and the arrival of two patrol cars on the scene within 2 minutes (120 seconds)--in a city where some calls for police (including those involving "shots fired") require much longer response times (20 minutes or so) and sometimes are not responded to at all--again has led to speculation that a frame-up was in process.
All of that requires further investigation; but for those reasons, citing the relationships of Mangum with the Durham police department becomes relevant.(68.106.8.107 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC))
I agree that Cohan's book is not well sourced. However, that doesn't make the other reference authoritative. In any event, the connection between whether police knew Mangum or not, whether their knowledge of her was positive or negative, and how (if at all) that influenced what happened next, seems to be really tenuous and perhaps beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article unless there is more than one good source backing up that either they did or did not know her. Since we have two sources in conflict and nothing like additional reliable sources backing up one version or the other, I think there is a risk of NPOV or BLP violation to accept one or the other position, and it's not critical to the reader's understanding of the facts: police arrived, they took her to the clinic, she made an accusation of rape....to me it's only after she made the accusation that we really care about the police behavior going forward. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, even a strict adherence to "sources" can be overrated. It would be possible to write a book about the Scottsboro Boys and "source" it from various newspaper accounts of the time, and report that the alleged 'victim' (Victoria Price) had her breast bitten off by the "fiends" who raped her; and that other similar brutalities were inflicted. The problem would be, though, that even though sourced, this was untrue. Ditto imho for relying too much on contemporary media accounts of the Duke case. There was a lot of media hype, which a careful historian ought to be critical enough to sift through. (IMHO, Cohan's book fails to do this.) Moreover, Cohan credits a Durham resident who made an oral history with Nifong (Acknowledgements, p. 615); but now a question has arisen as to whether Cohan actually interviewed Nifong himself, or just used the oral history. Transcripts of both the history and Cohan's interview with Nifong were supposed to have been made available last year (Acknowledgements, same page); however, now both appear to have been delayed "for some time", delaying any possible comparison. (If so, though, this would be something of a literary scandal.) Finally, Wikipedia does not permit websites to be used as sources; although a great deal of material relevant to the Duke case (as well as to other modern events) is first developed on websites -- which cannot then be "sourced", even though the information may be relevant. Which is, therefore, a policy which imho Wikepedia ought to consider revising.(68.106.8.107 (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

Unsourced commentary

Why is the remark that Nifong failed to add hate crimes to the charges against the players, deleted as "unsourced"?

That's merely a simple fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.8.107 (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

First, even "simple facts" need reliable sources. See WP:Verifiability.
But what you added isn't a "simple fact". A statement about something Nifong did might be a simple fact. A statement that Nifong didn't do something implies he could have done it, perhaps should have done it. Using the expression "failed to" betrays your lack of objectivity. It's commentary. It needs to be attributed to its source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, considering that the preceding sentence is : "Many persons involved in or commenting on the case, including District Attorney Nifong, stated or suggested that the alleged rape was a hate crime.[4][5][6][7]" it would seem imho to be reasonable to add the concluding fact, that Nifong didn't add hate crimes charges. But how to phrase this? He "refused"? Possible. He "declined"? He "failed to"? Are we arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And the fact that adding hate crimes charges would have involved bringing in outside federal investigators, as a matter of course, is also simply a matter of fact).

A reader wanting to know about the case might assume, from the original sentence, that hate crimes charges were indeed brought, and then wonder, why didn't the DOJ investigate? Adding that Nifong didn't bring such charges, and that therefore the DOJ did not become involved, might be a helpful explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.8.107 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to write about things that didn't happen. For example, Nifong didn't fly to the moon. But if you want to add "simple facts" to the article, you need to provide reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent comment

Earlier today, User:Missjil added this comment to the article instead of the talk page:

Full Transparency: The following is in clearly in favor of the accused (the lacrosse team) and does not include any of the alleged victims statements. The following is in no way an accurate reporting of the case. The following is biased.

I hope Missjil will join us to discuss how we can improve the impartiality of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Duke lacrosse case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claim

In the section titled "Lawsuits filed by players", the article asserts: "the players' civil rights claims, which constituted the bulk of their Complaint, were dismissed on the grounds that the applicable civil rights laws pertained only to persons of African-American descent." The stated source is "Judge James Beaty, Memorandum Opinion, March 31, 2011."

The players' lawsuit, which can be seen here, cites three Reconstruction Era civil rights laws as the basis for its civil rights claims: 42 USC 1983, 1985, and 1986, better known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or the Ku Klux Klan Act. The laws can be seen here by clicking on 1983, 1985, or 1986.

These laws do not limit their protection of civil rights to African Americans and their descendants, and any judge who wrote so would be laughed off the bench. They were invoked in the 1960s when local authorities were involved in the murders of two white men and a white woman. They were invoked in 2010 when a suburban Philadelphia school district was sued for spying on students in their homes. They apply whenever government infringes on citizens' civil rights, not just on the civil rights of African Americans. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


I shows a very clear bias in your editing that you elected to not actually read the decision itself which explicitly states what you are claiming to be "dubious."

Here is one reference to the fact with a link to the decision. " ("As recognized by the controlling law in the Fourth Circuit, the only class of persons protected by Section 1985(3) are African Americans.") (citing Harrison, 766 F.2d at 161-62); Stock v. Universal Foods Corp., 817 F. Supp. 1300, 1310 (D.Md.1993) (dismissing § 1985(3) claim because plaintiff, as a white male, was not a member of a class that has suffered historically pervasive discrimination); Blackmon v. Perez, 791 F. Supp. 1086, 1093 (E.D.Va.1992) (dismissing § 1985(3) claims by white plaintiffs because "plaintiffs do not represent a class of persons who [do] not enjoy the possibility of []effective state enforcement of their rights" (internal quotations omitted))" [1]

Seeing as the judge was not laughed off the bench, you are very clearly incorrect and should probably not make such statements of opinion as if they were fact in the future.

2602:304:CE5F:C290:3DDB:3A5A:8B70:3BA4 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Just A Passing Reader

References

  1. ^ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2177560/mcfadyen-v-duke-university/

Lede sentence

This case is notable because it was controversial; this should be included in the lede. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Was this case proven a false accusation? (According to the sources cited, yes.)

(I have taken the admittedly unusual step to edit the section title because it was highly misleading and frankly attracting the wrong kind of attention. The sources cited by the main article indicate that the Duke lacrosse players were declared legally and factually innocent by North Carolina legal officials, which is as close to absolute proof as is possible to get. As the cited sources stand, the other position is a fringe position. I have, of course, not edited any signed discussion. Belovedeagle (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

It is showing some bias to label this case a "false allegation" because the case was never brought to trial, the charges were dropped. Not enough evidence to prosecute doesn't imply a false accusation. The alleged victim still maintains, even over 10 years later, she was sexually assaulted that night. The case was determined to be unsubstantiated. People BELIEVE the allegations were false. Jayx82 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles report what reliable sources say. Multiple reliable sources characterize Mangum's accusations as false, e.g.:
  • Katz, Neil (February 18, 2010). "Crystal Mangum, stripper who falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, charged with attempted murder". CBS News. CBS. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
  • Associated Press (November 22, 2013). "North Carolina: Woman in Duke case guilty in killing". The New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
  • Yamato, Jen (March 12, 2016). "The stripper who cried 'rape': Revisiting the Duke lacrosse case ten years later". The Daily Beast. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
Reliable sources allow us to avoid arguments about what people believe or don't. In this case, reliable sources say the accusations were false, so that is what this article reports. Lagrange613 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


Well that seems like cherry-picking... I would point out that plenty of reliable sources do not refer to the allegations as "false" but as baseless or unsubstantiated, which is a different category from false accusation. I'm just wondering why the wording "false" was decided on as opposed to unsubstantiated? Is it because the sources use the exact phrase "false accusation" in them? Thank you. Jayx82 (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A source calling the allegations baseless or unsubstantiated would not contradict the multiple sources calling the allegations false. Lagrange613 12:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It does show that the preferred term in the media is not "false accusations". Combining the two (stating that false and unsubstantiated can be seen as the same thing) is OR, specifically WP:SYN. Further, WP:NPOV isn't just about having an RS - just because you can show that some places have said that its false, it doesn't mean that you can put it in the lead. For example, many reasonably reliable sources (including the Australian government) state that chiropractics are a good treatment; however, stating in the lead that its good, while not explicitly contradictory to the truth which is that it's deeply unproven, would give undue weight. While in this situation, it's not quite that obvious that the two are different, it would still be WP:UNDUE or a WP:BALANCE issue to put false in the opening sentence if it is not the majority viewpoint. I believe aiming for balance is why an edit combining both was proposed below. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Jayx82 Thank you for bringing this up. I agree. I do not think the current lede sentence is NPOV. The three citations are also not about the basic story but about much later events. As an alternative lede, may I suggest: The Duke lacrosse case was a widely reported 2006 criminal case in Durham, North Carolina, United States in which three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team were charged with sexual assault. The charges were eventually dropped and are widely accepted as false. Beauxlieux (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Tara Reade's Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden is also a case in which the accuser has largely been discounted but the Wikipedia page does not state that it was a false accusation. I think consistency across these types of cases would be appropriate. Beauxlieux (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

After waiting over a week, I made the lede sentence factual NPOV. The wording is now more in keeping with another case widely recognized as a false accusation and which is listed in the "see also" section: Tawana Brawley rape allegations Beauxlieux (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As the article states, the falsely accused were all declared innocent, that's totally different to cases where charges are dropped, such as due to a lack of evidence, and arguments above discussing such scenarios are utterly irrelevant here. Thus, anyone suggesting this might not be a false rape accusation is completely wrong, particularly in relation to those who were falsely accused. On top of all that, we know the original prosecutor to be a "rogue prosecutor", which is surely the nail in the coffin for any of those attempting to deny reality. I strongly suggest people read the superb book "Until proven innocent" to learn more about the reality of the case, that's by far the best and most comprehensive resource availableShakehandsman (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Above talk shows that there's consensus for the pre-existing lede being NPOV and confirmed by multiple sources. Moreover since the change was accompanied by adding irrelevant information about the history of the victims in this case, I'm a little doubtful about the good faith in this instance, as I would be in a change to any article which adds irrelevant information about victims. I have reverted both changes.(I would support re-changing the lede to remove the fact that the rape accusations were false if the change also added reliable sources that the rape actually occurred. None of the existing RS on this article seem to support that position.) Belovedeagle (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The above talk may show consensus, but this talk is a new one and doesn't have consensus that
Further, could you explain why that's not GF? I agree, it's the wrong place and possibly irrelevant to include, but that's why articles are written by multiple people. The two edits co-occuring also isn't any reason to be suspicious, not only were both adequately described in the edit summary, they were also in separate edits. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Could I request that in this discussion, we use names (or players/lacrosse players for Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann as a group), as that would make it easier to follow the conversation. EG the use of victim is confusing, because both the players and Magnum have been described as victims in sources. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that the players were victims in fact, and Magnum was not. This is perhaps the clearest case in recent public memory of a false accusation which was later proven as far as possible to be false, and to deny this because it's so rare and proof is essentially impossible is perverse. To change the article from correctly pointing out that the accusations were false to anything else is to rewrite history to suit current political objectives, and nothing more. There are, I repeat, no credible sources who even entertain the likelihood of the accusations being anything more than a total fabrication by the perpetrator (who is currently serving a jail sentence for murder), among all credible sources which post-date the discrediting and trial of Mike Nifong. (Sources predating this are generally not reliable as they were tainted by proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt lies by powerful government officials. This is no different from how we would not use sources pre-dating Einstein to say that Newton's theories were correct and general relativity is doubtful because those sources did not describe Newton's theories as incorrect.) It is not NPOV to claim that something which demonstrably, factually, historically did not happen might have happened. To claim that the accusations might be true is essentially no different, as far as NPOV policy goes, from claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen (with apologies for Godwin's law, but I think it's an apt comparison for what the NPOV policy does and does not mean). There are not two positions on the matter to balance between; there is only one position. It may be appropriate to have a "Duke Lacross denialism" page to match Holocaust_denial, if you can find sufficient sources for such (which I claim don't exist), but much like the mentioned parallel such views don't merit a change to the the main article or a "neutral" stance on whether historical facts are real. Belovedeagle (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But to be extremely clear at the expense of repeating myself, my above position is predicated on the overwhelming weight of credible sources - those postdating the discrediting of Nifong and Magnum - giving no credence whatsoever to the claims. If sufficient reliable sources could be shown (with enough credibility weight to be more than a tiny fringe theory) which seriously question whether the claims might have been true after all, then NPOV would of course demand that the article not take a position on the claims. But such sources are not yet quoted by the article, and we should be judging articles based on the sources we have not the sources some editors would like to have in the name of "parallels" to other cases. Belovedeagle (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Considering the North Carolina States Attorney, Roy Cooper, in his official capacity declared the accused students as "Innocent," there doesn't seem to much room for a debate about the whether the accusations are false. An official, legal determination was made, as a matter of legal record. Nifong was disbarred for (among many other things) false statements. Again, a matter of official legal record. The wording should remain as it, and the tag should be removed.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the editors maintaining the fringe position have now been absent for two weeks, I am removing the tag. I am also concerned that the section heading in this talk page is attracting politically motivated editors unfamiliar with the source material quoted in the article like flies to... excrement, so I will reword it in a subsequent edit. Belovedeagle (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_lacrosse_case/Archive_5&oldid=1263250865"