Open main menu

Talk:Duke lacrosse case

External links modifiedEdit

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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Dubious claimEdit

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

External links modifiedEdit

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Lede sentenceEdit

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)

This case was not proven a false accusation?Edit

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)
Return to "Duke lacrosse case" page.