Crystal Gail Mangum, notable for being a stripper!, Another "single-incident" BLP article Options

What is an article about a stripper who supposedly got raped by a college lacrosse team doing in Wikipedia???

Under Criminal history and credibility, it says :

Crystal Gail Mangum has a long history of mental problems and has been diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder.[17] She also has taken anti-psychotic medications such as Depakote and Seroquel.[18]

In 1996, she filed a police report that her 28 year old boyfriend (she was 18 years old) had sexually "shared" her with 3 of his friends 3 years earlier. Police dropped the matter when Mangum failed to provide a written report of the alleged incident.

In 2000, she was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, but not convicted. Court records indicate that her driver's license was revoked but do not indicate why.[19]

In 2002, she stole a taxi from a man to whom she was giving a lap dance. A high speed chase then ensued, and when the deputy chasing her approached the stolen taxi on foot, she tried to run over him. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired. She was sentenced to 3 weekends in detention.[20][21]

This is worse than anything in the National Enquirer. What is THIS doing in a serious encyclopedia??? And why is this blatent trivia considered to be notable??? Do school kids need to know this to do their homework???

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Writing an encyclopedia is BORING.
Hacking out a tabloid4noids is FUN.
Wikipediots do not have the professional ethics that it would take to write for the average supermarket tabloid.

Ergo —

They write for Wikipedia INSTEAD.

Klar?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Its the Duke Lacrosse Team rape case. Big news. Just got thrown out of court.

Apparently this article is payback.

Gag. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Its the Duke Lacrosse Team rape case. Big news. Just got thrown out of court.

Apparently this article is payback.

Gag. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

It's not even been mentioned at all where I'm at.

And why do we have to know all about this woman's medical history, her personal life and all of that?

The more I think about it, I find this article very offensive.

....The bottom line might be that if every stripper who claims to have been raped becomes notable, WP is going to have quite a few articles about strippers....

There is an extremely tasteful and delightful talk to go along with the article. Some of the better highlights :

Somebody asks where are the articles on the accused men? (now bluelinked).... And we get this delightful exchange:

Honestly, this whole Wiki story is disgraceful. Wow. I can't believe whatever standards you guys have allows this kind of thing to go on, on your site.

No, making anonymous attacks is disgraceful. Next time, sign your work. Ikilled007 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, there's this delightful exchange :

41.240.70.151 is continuing to vandalise the page by inserting "nappy-headed ho" into the first sentence over and over again. He/she also adds false descriptions of the edits. He/She has been warned more than once and it's time for an admin to spank him/her. Ikilled007 10:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of that description do you disagree with? The image on the article clearly illustrates that she is indeed nappy-headed. The fact that when the hospital did test upon her and they found cream from 5 different men in her vagina and anus proves that she is a ho. 41.240.70.151 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, maybe so, but that constitutes original, even if accurate, research and doesn't fit wikipedia policy. Ikilled007 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, and we're going to put this on a CD and share it with our poor neighbors in Africa so they can learn about this and better themselves?

Can anybody really take this seriously any more?

There is an entire article about this nonsense.....

There's some REAL classy stuff here too :

QUOTE
One player asked if the dancers had any sex toys and Roberts responded by asking if the player's penis was too small. The player then took a broomstick and said "use this."[12] This exchange of words abruptly stopped the performance, and both strippers went inside the home's bathroom. Players demanded their $800 back that they paid in advance for a two-hour show, thinking they'd been hustled.[12]

(note the inline cites, which gives it that serious academic look)

QUOTE
Shortly before 1 am, the strippers left although taunting abounded. Roberts called the players "short dick white boys," and one player yelled back "We asked for whites, not niggers." Roberts exclaimed, "That's a racial slur, a hate crime."

More important information :

QUOTE

It has been reported that Mangum admitted to Durham police detective Benjamin Himan that she performed using a vibrator for a couple in a hotel room shortly before the lacrosse party, which the defense contends could account for the "diffuse swelling."[21] Dr. Julie Manly, who performed the pelvic examination on Mangum, said the vaginal swelling coupled with her whitish discharge likely was a result of a yeast infection.[22]

I would like to apologize to those who might be eating while reading this....

Boy, I'm sure glad that Wikipedia is saving all of this valuable information for posterity!

Well Well Well.....none other than our old friend Moreschi took out part of the worst part of this article;...

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crystal_Gail_Mangum&diff=130777310&oldid=130762346]
But somebody reverted it all and put it all back in.[/url]

Nice try, though! Now, can you do something about the part where the docter says that she had a yeast infection? Do we really need to know that??

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

It's not even been mentioned at all where I'm at.

And why do we have to know all about this woman's medical history, her personal life and all of that?

The more I think about it, I find this article very offensive.

....The bottom line might be that if every stripper who claims to have been raped becomes notable, WP is going to have quite a few articles about strippers....

Impossible. It is nationwide news. You either forgot, or you didn't notice. She is notable, as apparently the case was dropped - and it was a nationwide case (dropped because either her allegation was false or cannot be proven).

Having said that, her verbal gang-rape on Wikipedia is unforgivable.

Wikipedia should put a STOP to it. FAST. There's some serious libel going on there.

This post has been edited by wikilove:

This is just a complete disgrace. In fact it is the most offensive article I have ever seen on wikipedia. This story is non-notable tabloid fodder of no value. The worst part is when it lists Miss Magnum's previous convictions.

The obvious solution would be to delete it. But with wikipedia's policies, and smug brats like BadlydrawnJeff around to compound the pressure on "little people" who are unable to fight back, I have no doubt that that it will be kept. Much to the shame of wikipedia. The last sentence of the article states "She told detectives that her older children have emotional problems because of the case". Thanks wikipedia for adding to these woes.

Actually, her previous convictions already came out in the press.

But detailing the contents of her privates? TOO MUCH.

And she's hardly a "little person". The entire black community (maybe nationwide) was up in arms about this, when it first got poo poo'ed by Duke. The head of the lacrosse team had to quit for covering it up, or responding incorrectly.

Maybe she lied about the whole thing - I don't really know - didn't follow why it got thrown out. But what's happening on WP is horrid.

She's quite capable of defending herself. All kinds of rights organizations financed her court case. So if I were WP, I'd be VERY VERY careful about messing with this woman. And by extension, the entire black community of the United States.

This post has been edited by wikilove:

Impossible. It is nationwide news. You either forgot, or you didn't notice. She is notable, as apparently the case was dropped - and it was a nationwide case (dropped because either her allegation was false or cannot be proven).

Entirely possible. I don't live in the US. I find the entire story entirely ridiculous and can't believe that the entire US press actually talked about this? I mean, a buncha stupid jocks decide to hire a couple of "exotic dancers" and then the stupidity plays itself out exactly as one would expect and this is news???

Having said that, her verbal gang-rape on Wikipedia is unforgivable.

Wikipedia should put a STOP to it. FAST. There's some serious libel going on there.

Well, it looks like Moreschi is on the case, but there is quite a bit of resistence. Why do people think that this infromation is important enough to keep as an article?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Entirely possible. I don't live in the US. I find the entire story entirely ridiculous and can't believe that the entire US press actually talked about this? I mean, a buncha stupid jocks decide to hire a couple of "exotic dancers" and then the stupidity plays itself out exactly as one would expect and this is news???

Excuse me, ARE YOU REALLY SAYING IT IS OK TO GANG-RAPE EXOTIC DANCERS? Hoooooooooookay.

According to the original story, she was gang raped with a broomstick - and the normal way - by 5 guys.

Also, in a nice wealthy school like that, it did as it "should" and covered up and dismissed the entire thing, which really got the black community (rightfully) upset. If it was a white stripper, there would have been an immediate investigation. That is national news - yes.

Turns out that either she lied, or the case isn't able to go through.

This post has been edited by wikilove:

Entirely possible. I don't live in the US. I find the entire story entirely ridiculous and can't believe that the entire US press actually talked about this? I mean, a buncha stupid jocks decide to hire a couple of "exotic dancers" and then the stupidity plays itself out exactly as one would expect and this is news???

Because gang rapeing stripped with broomsticks (and the normal way - which is what was alleged) is normal. Hoooooooooookay.

Also, in a nice wealthy school like that, it did as it "should" and covered up and dismissed the entire thing, which really got the black community (rightfully) upset. If it was a white stripper, there would have been an immediate investigation.

Turns out that either she lied, or the case isn't able to go through.

My point is that everybody talking about this does more damage to her than it helps her. I am not surprised though that the incident took place as it did. That's what is predictable.

Where I live, prostitution is legal and the police protect prostitudes against things like this. If something like this happens, there in no way that the prostitude's name will ever be released to the public and even if somebody leaks it, the press won't print it.

If she was raped (and I believe that, in spite of what ever the men's lawyers said, that at the very least she was sexually assaulted), then what good does it do splashing her name and all of the other nonsense all over the papers and the Internet for all time? Does this solve the problem? I don't think so.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Well, it looks like Moreschi is on the case, but there is quite a bit of resistence. Why do people think that this important?

I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but people are abusing this woman online - as a sort of revenge. That's important.

Secondly, she had enough resources to attack Duke University, and the press was at her heels the entire way. Wouldn't it be lovely if they sniffed around Wikipedia, and found out what a lions den of libel this place is? And also if she sued the crap out of them? Funded by every rights organization that was funding her before?

WP should edit a very simple page and lock it the hell down, if they have half a clue.

Well, it looks like Moreschi is on the case, but there is quite a bit of resistence. Why do people think that this important?

I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but people are abusing this woman online - as a sort of revenge. That's important.

I agree with you. I'm sorry if my description of the incident gave you another idea, but what I find incredible is that the police should have released her name in the first place....not to mention what was in her privates...

Just to be completely clear, I think that this article has no business in WP because it is very clearly an attack article. I agree that she should probably sue the hell out them for allowing this stuff to be posted.

But, what is an even bigger scandal is that her name, her criminal record and the contents of her body were released to the general public.

At the very least, the article should be rewritten to have a completely different tone.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel:

Boy, and we're going to put this on a CD and share it with our poor neighbors in Africa so they can learn about this and better themselves?

And coming soon to a theatre near you... Of course, the African kids won't get to see the "good stuff." They might "misunderstand" what Wikipedia is "really about," resulting in the need for a "cluesticking."

Can anybody really take this seriously any more?

No...

But as for Ms. Mangum, it's not surprising that she'd be vilified in this manner on Wikipedia. Putting aside the fact that what she did was pretty bad (though what the prosecutors did with it was probably worse), this story plays into the deepest, darkest fears of the 20-something male psyche. I still believe that young white males in the United States go to colleges to get educated, but once there, anything goes. So they join fraternities (and to a lesser extent, athletic teams and such) to get away from parental (and in some cases religious) strictures, fall in with a safety-in-numbers herd mentality, and ideally, find some attractive women. Those who are less sociable, or whose talents lie elsewhere, do other things - such as form rock bands, or join the Young Republicans. Some also join the armed forces. No matter what the constructive or edifying ostensible purposes of these activities may be, they're all social activities. There are very few extracurricular activities at colleges or military bases that involve going off alone for long periods of time with little or no contact with other humans.

Meanwhile, editing Wikipedia may seem like a solitary endeavor at first glance, but clearly, only a small handful of utter nut-jobs see themselves as Wikipedians first and everything else second. Sitting in front of a computer late at night in a dorm room, a typical editor - even if he would never participate in such activities directly - can usually still identify with the problems facing a male student (lacrosse player or otherwise) who just wants to have a good time, doing the sorts of things he believes are expected of him, including attendance at parties where there are exotic dancers performin'... But we don't know anything about the Wikipedia editor, other than what he/she tells us, which is inherently suspect. He may well be even less cognizant (or simply more dismissive) of the difference between an exotic dancer and a prostitute than a typical athlete would be, and he may also be a racist, a misogynist, or both. Perhaps worse.

People like this are drawn inexorably to articles like the one on Ms. Mangum, because it gives them a place to vent their frustrations, angers and hatreds without the accompanying baggage of a troubled conscience. After all, ignoring for the moment the fact that student-athletes in an ideal world would not hire strippers for wild parties, Mangum did do a Very Bad Thing™. But because there are so many WP users out there looking to use it for payback purposes, and willing to ignore extenuating circumstances, you quickly see a "pile-on" effect - as we've obviously seen in this case. And when policies like NPOV and BLP run up against the essential need for Wikipedians to use the site as a revenge platform, you soon see the usual edit wars, bans, and suchlike as well.

It's one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses as an encyclopedia, but one of its greatest strengths as a "Trolling the World Machine."

No...

But as for Ms. Mangum, it's not surprising that she'd be vilified in this manner on Wikipedia. Putting aside the fact that what she did was pretty bad (though what the prosecutors did with it was probably worse), this story plays into the deepest, darkest fears of the 20-something male psyche. I still believe that young white males in the United States go to colleges to get educated, but once there, anything goes. So they join fraternities (and to a lesser extent, athletic teams and such) to get away from parental (and in some cases religious) strictures, fall in with a safety-in-numbers herd mentality, and ideally, find some attractive women. Those who are less sociable, or whose talents lie elsewhere, do other things - such as form rock bands, or join the Young Republicans (... or edit Wikipedia?? - comment added).

I have to say that heard believable accounts of, quite a few gang rapes while studying in university. Usually in connection to a fraternity party. One took place while I was in the building. I know people who participated in them - men I mean. Usually performed on a woman too drunk to remember what happened. There was a word for it, called "training" (as in the men would each be a car on the train, passing by one by one), which was the subject of a lot of jokes by dumbass college guys.

So her story isn't at all un-thinkable. Or unusual.

It is bad for everyone that she lied - especially for future victims, who face an uphill battle for credibility.

This post has been edited by wikilove:

Guess why her name was released to the papers and published?

....because it was already in Wiikipedia.... In fact, it looks as if it was leaked by Wikipedia itself.

That's what the the papers themselves say.

In Wednesday's coverage of the Duke lacrosse case, The News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.) for the first time identifies the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, of Durham, N.C., by name.

During the year since Mangum told police she was assaulted at a lacrosse team party, The N&O followed its longstanding policy of not naming claimants in sexual assault cases. This policy is accepted practice among most print and broadcast media in the United States.

The N&O has upheld this approach, which the newspaper has followed for at least 15 years, to avoid discouraging victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting such crimes. The N&O's policy regarding sexual assault claimants has rarely been challenged and we saw no reason to abandon the policy in the midst of a case.

In recent weeks The N&O's senior editors consulted a number of people with an interest in these issues, among them advocates for sexual assault victims, defense lawyers, current and former journalists, a district judge, journalism educators and ethics experts, in considering whether and under what circumstances to identify Mangum. No consensus emerged (my comment - rather ironic under the circumstances), but the conversations helped us consider essential questions about precedent and impact.

With the decision of the state attorney general's office to drop all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, no charge of rape or sexual assault exists. Mangum's claim has been vehemently denied by the three men indicted in the case and by their teammates, who believe they have been damaged by a false accusation. Attorney General Roy Cooper said his office concluded that the three are innocent.

Mangum also has been widely identified on the Internet, including on mainstream sites such as Wikipedia. Because of these circumstances, and in order to more fully report on the case and its aftermath, we decided to publish her name. Additionally, we will review our standing policy.

If you would like to weigh in on this decision and the broader issue of naming sexual assault claimants in criminal cases, go to our forum on "Naming accusers" at share.triangle.com and post your comments. We ask that you be civil and encourage you to include your name and town.

In other words, Wikipedia was one of the first media providers to actually use her name.

Interestingly enough, the articles written about the men involved in this trial all redirect to the main article page about the incident.

Why does she get singled out for an article and not the guys?

In other words, Wikipedia was one of the first media providers to actually use her name.

Interestingly enough, the articles written about the men involved in this trial all redirect to the main article page about the incident.

Why does she get singled out for an article and not the guys?

Jesus. This is the clearest evidence possible that Wikipedia IS a publication. When will "they" get it? Wikipedia knows this, but they are pulling one over on a lot of people.

This was an act of revenge. Which was able to be pulled off because Wikipedia has no standards for journalistic practices. Scary as all get-out.

To be fair, the guy's name's have been all over the press for over a year. They (or people who support them) must have lept with joy to get her name out there - to get even.

I agree that she should probably sue the hell out them for allowing this stuff to be posted.

But, what is an even bigger scandal is that her name, her criminal record and the contents of her body were released to the general public.

That's a tough call. She's not a sympathetic victim anymore. I think that the District Attorney (or someone close to that role) lost their job over this debacle (reminding that the Duke Coach for Lacrosse lost his job the year before fore the "cover up").

Its a lawsuit, but you get favor or interpretation based on good faith, and she's shattered hers.

This post has been edited by wikilove:

She's not a sympathetic victim anymore.

I'm glad nobody was convicted of a crime they didn't commit. But I am certain that everytime some rich frat boys hire a stripper someone's a sympathetic victim. And it not the rich frat boys.

That applies to "candy strippers" as well.

She's not a sympathetic victim anymore.

I'm glad nobody was convicted of a crime they didn't commit. But I am certain that everytime some rich frat boys hire a stripper someone's a sympathetic victim. And it not the rich frat boys.

That applies to "candy strippers" as well.

I think I went to that movie at a drivein when I was at college, way back when.....

Well, leaving aside the "moral" issues, which are a lot bigger now that I understand what all the fuss was about (and yes, I was being honest when I said that I never heard of this where I am), I still fail to see what this person's psychiatric profile, criminal record, GPA and contents of all of her orifaces are doing in an encyclopedia. And regardless of who did it or not, if she's got an article, then the men involved should have articles as well. They don't. What does this say?

And the fact that the story was indeed leaked here is an angle that nobody's yet exploited. Wikipedia IS doing a lot of real-world harm to people, regardless of whether they're guilty or not, and people are able to hide behind an anonymous cloak to do their dirty work. This is some pretty conclusive and important evidence, IMHO