Jump to content

Talk:Duke lacrosse rape hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum)

False title

[edit]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
@Springnuts I agree, 'hoax' fails WP:Common Name and after reviewing the move discussion below, other editors expressed concerns with the term. I prefer your suggested title: Duke lacrosse false rape accusation. If you start a move request, i will support it. IP75 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 December 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus to move to Duke lacrosse rape hoax per nomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:SENTENCECASE please. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
In my mind a hoax is often done for selfish benefit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh yes she did. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
<Sigh> Duke lacrosse false rape allegation then. Springnuts (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support that alternative, and I apologize for the tone of my "clear violation" comment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Support A confirmation of what all of us have known for almost 20 years.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relisting comment: There is a new alternative. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnecessary information

[edit]

A few unnecessary statements regarding Mangum's background are in the article. For example: "She was divorced and supported two children." What does this have to do with anything? Why is this relevant to the situation? The article is about the hoax and the ensuing situation, it is not Mangum's biography. I don't see any reason for this statement to be included. 2601:CF:0:BEB0:35C6:5C7C:2AE1:4437 (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Motivation for Magnum to make the accusations, et cetera, is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14640-32 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced quotes

[edit]

Apologies in advance if I'm doing this wrong. I don't edit much. Under the "Effect on community relations" section, the main quotes attributed to citation 128 appear to not belong to that article. The citation itself is a non-working link and archive link, even though the actual archive page still works for the date it claims. The first part of the quote attributed to an unnamed leader comes from this uncited article that's no longer online, which does name the leader. The second part, however, beginning with the rhetorical "How scary is that?", doesn't seem to come from anywhere, and may just be someone's personal commentary. Since this wouldn't be a minor edit, could a more experienced editor take a look? Thanks. Lazegem (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victim Naming

[edit]

Perhaps the names of the men accused should be redacted or changed to First name and last initiial only. ~2026-14640-32 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_lacrosse_rape_hoax&oldid=1342553382"