Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Naming The Victim Based on Tom Leykis Sourcing 2 Office protection 3 Nomenclature: Victim, Alleged Victim, Accuser 4 Tom Leykis 5 More facts added on Smoking Gun 6 Google News Links to the Accuser’s Name 7 Unlock This Page 8 Why I am removing personal details and criminal record info 9 What is a Crystal Gail Mangum? 10 The criminal record is verifiable and reliable 11 Photo anyone? 12 Leykis 13 Early Accusations 14 Wikipedia only mainstream source announcing her name? 15 Criminal Record Rv 16 Birthday Rv 17 Discharge 18 Infobox 19 Race? 20 Merging Early Accusations with Criminal history and credibility 21 New Credibility questions raised

[edit] Naming The Victim Based on Tom Leykis Sourcing

Link to Leykis broadcast where he names Crystal Gail Mangum: http://podcast.1069freefm.com/kifr1/8882.mp3.

From the official WP:V policy:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

Tom Leykis, by his own admission [1], is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Currently, Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy, as proven above. Abe Froman 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally the WP:V policy states:

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."

Given that Tabloid newspapers (i.e. The British Sun, The National Enquirer, The Globe, etc) can hardly be considered journalists, it seems evident to me that using Tom Leykis as a source is not only permissible by WP:V standards, but is in fact encouraged so long as the editor properly mentions that the source is dubious at best.

[edit] Office protection

Earlier today, it looked like this had been cut down to a reasonably neutral and sourced article. Now what's the problem? --John Nagle 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Foundation, but I suspect the issue is that this is a topic that should not be written about until the furor around the court case has subsided. It is a general rule of responsible journalism to refrain from naming rape victims until after the case has concluded (if at all), and the last version of this article I saw was a hatchet job on the victim -- it certainly was not "unbiased content". This is an encyclopedia, and there's no reason why this article can't wait six months to be written -- or even to find out if it is worth being written. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Found this article on wikitruth. (See how censorship doesn't work?) Looked extremely neutral to me. All statements were referenced. TIME has an article they published with her in it. Are you telling me that wikipedia can't report on current events? How absurd.--God Ω War 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can give a cite for where TIME has reported on this alleged name, then please do so.--Jimbo Wales 17:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

second Kelly Martin's comment. And cite to time, please. I doubt time named the victim. Abe Froman 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly Martin as well. It was little more than an attack page. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The information regarding who she is seems like it can be well-sourced; the only problem is her name. I suggest restoring and renaming the article to 2006 Duke University rape scandal alleged victim or something along those lines if the problem is with using her name. --tomf688^{talk} 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind an explanation as to why this was deleted and protected by office action; Verifiability? --tomf688^{talk} 12:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Office actions don't need to be explained.Geni 12:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Geni's right, but I would speculate that verifibility is the issue. One radio shock jock is not a reputable source. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The WP:V gives clear details on how to reference "dubious sources" such as Tom Leykis. Reputable or not, it's not a good enough reason to delete the page.

Indeed they may not "need" to be explained, but to simply delete an article and not explain why it was done isn't wise. It would be like arresting someone and telling them they did something wrong, but not what they did. How else would people know what not to do in the future? --tomf688^{talk} 18:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What good is deleting an article when this very discussion page links the name of the accuser to the incident? <a href="http://www.dilby.com">Dilby</a> has posted the two news articles that include her name and describe her previous charges. Also, her name and criminal history reportedly can be found using Lexis-Nexis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.23.196 (talk • contribs) 17:10, April 29, 2006.

I just searched LexisNexis for Crystal Gail Mangum/Crystal Mangum and found nothing, so that doesn't seem to be true. --tomf688 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 04:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the false lead, then.

Looks like at least one news source (found at MSN.com's news search engine) is reporting the name of the victim. see the news article here.

That's not a news source, that's some guy's rant about how she's lying, and he doesn't cite his sources. Repeat after me: reputable sources. -- SCZenz 17:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeat after me: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability". Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."

The information cannot be verified through reputable sources. FWIW, using a mocking tone on an admin does not help. Abe Froman 20:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the WP:V her name is "legal" to be posted on Wikipedia even if the only source is one of "dubious reliability". Tom Leykis first announced her name as the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal accuser on his radio broadcast on Friday, April 2006 at approx. 6:14pm PST. Wikipedia should list this information as, "According to the Tom Leykis radio program..." per WP:V rules. Just because you can't create a hyperlink to a live radio program does not mean it can't be cited.

From the WP:V '"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research'. As far as I can tell, the WP:V states that it does not matter if the author at S5000.com or Dilby.com give their sources. We are not supposed to research whether or not they have done their research correctly, or if the statesments are true or false. We are just supposed to report on what other people are saying.

Tom and Abe, I went to the Nexis web site, did a search for Crystal Gail Mangum, and I had no trouble retrieving the article from the Charlotte Observer, about her June 2000 theft of the taxi, her being charged with assault on the cop, etc. There is no mistaking the fact that it's the same bizarre incident more recently reported (by many reliable sources) as part of the Duke accuser's past history. Maybe you were only looking for recent articles? I believe that the archived articles about her June 2000 arrest were the original source for at least some of the web sites, and ultimately Leykis, giving out her name. So, whatever people think about the ethics of publishing any alleged rape victim's name, I don't think it can be accurately maintained that her name is not verifiable in reliable sources. Kerumbo 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)kerumbo

First of all, where is the citation to the article in question. Secondly, linking a six-year-old article to the Duke case in order to conjure up the accuser's name violates W:OR. If reputable sources are not printing that the alleged name is that of the victim, we cannot help out by sleuthing it ourselves. See W:OR Abe Froman 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't link to it because it's not on a free web page -- users have to pay Nexis 3 dollars for it. (By the way, looking at the article again, I have to correct myself -- it's from the Raleigh News & Observer.) I could paste its contents below, if it would help anybody -- but you go on to say that the article is moot, because it requires an element of deduction: Lots of reliable sources describe in detail how the Duke accuser was involved in the 2000 taxi incident, and at least one reliable newspaper says that the woman who stole the taxi in 2000 was Crystal Gail Mangum. But, you're right, the newspapers have not said directly that the Duke accuser is Crystal Gail Mangum.

I don't propose to argue Wiki protocol with you or anyone, because I am not an expert on it. I just thought it seemed a but disingenuous for all of us to keep pretending that Tom Leykis is the only source, when in fact her name is plainly deduced and verifiable from "real" newspapers. If that's against the rules, I happily defer to those who know the rules. But what I've said is fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerumbo (talk • contribs) .

Encyclopedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, also (rarely) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." Further: "Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain." Thus, publishing the accuser's name is neither "comprehensive" nor "important ... knowledge". "Comprehensive" can mean "covering broadly" and not necessarily "covering completely". Therefore, an encyclopedia can be an abridged version of all known facts, and the rules for that condensing can be political or even arbitrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.17.220 (talk PS: If you can bolster this argument with bit of editing, feel free.• contribs) .

Why isnt this article being shown? Tom Leykis has the right to reveal her name, so Wikipedia should too. By the way, THE NAME IS STILL HERE. Theres just no info. So its not like were diclosing that much by just revealing involvment with the case. [template:unsigned]

[edit] Nomenclature: Victim, Alleged Victim, Accuser

Kelly Martin above says "refrain from naming rape victims". This woman is not a rape victim. She's an alleged victim or, better, the accuser. In this case, no rape conviction, no rape victim. More to the point, why is Katelyn Faber's name revealed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) 16:14, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. According to User:RobertKeller's previous logic, sexual assault victim's names should be public until their allegations are proven, at which time their names will have magical pixie dust sprinkled on them, and become secret again. In any case, no reputable source has published the name. Using the name violates WP:V. Abe Froman 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Abe. Ridiculous comments by RobertKeller. Abe Froman is correct. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose once the lacross players are vindicated they can have pixie dust sprinkled on them so THEIR names can become secret too.

Yup. Pixie Dust is the duct-tape of criminal justice. Abe Froman 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Farber's name was revealed by the court after the case was dismissed. No reputable source will reveal the name of an alleged rape victim until the court releases the information (almost by the definition of reputable), so we have no article until then either. And the article was a disgusting POV hatchet job, full of irrelevant (alleged) facts designed to cast the subject in a negative light. -- SCZenz 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The accuser should be named; a Google search under her name returns 850 hits, including one directly from the North Carolina Department of Corrections listing her prior convictions:

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/apps/offender/offend1?DOCNUM=0801264&SENTENCEINFO=yes&SHOWPHOTO=yes&numtimesin=2

How many sources must one have to meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria? If 850 isn't enough, then Wikipedia needs to shut down today. The rape shield law prevents a rape victim from testifying about her past sexual encounters. It has nothing to do with the media choosing to publish or withhold names. Every defendant has the right to a public trial anyway, and there is no guarantee that someone from the public won't recognize her and shout her name on a street corner.

For the asnwer, see WP:V. Abe Froman 01:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already read it. Which part of the North Carolina Corrections Dept. fails to qualify as "verifiable," "reputable," or "published?" Let the name be published, then lock the page once the content is written in a neutral manner. That's a fair compromise to all parties.

There's nothing notable about someone having prior convictions. We're not a mirror of prison records. The point is, there is no verifiable reputable source for the alleged fact that makes this person notable. -- SCZenz 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have the same standard of verifiability when it comes to Barry Bonds; the only steroid evidence against him is a book which quotes secret (and unverifiable) grand jury testimony.

Anon makes an apples and oranges argument. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the Bonds' allegations. [2] The allegations are also published in the book, Game of Shadows. [3] This meets WP:V. Abe Froman 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Abe Froman is the one making the apples and oranges argument. The fact that an allegation is published numerous times is not the same as verifying the accuracy of the facts. Mangum's name is also published on numerous websites, so it meets the same "verifiability" criteria as Bonds. It's no more ethical to shield the accuser's name, than it is to reveal the defendant's name, said defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[edit] Tom Leykis

Shock jock? Yes. Controversial? Yes. One-hundred percent accurate when naming alleged victims, including Kobe's accuser. Yes. Did he articulate how we could also uncover the accuser's name using paid Websites? Yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) 16:14, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

Where is the cite, for verification? See WP:V Abe Froman 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And how do you propose we cite a radio broadcast? The WP:V also mentions how to reference "Sources of dubious reliability". The WP:V does not give any reason why this page should be censored.

Admitting the information cannot be cited confirms the information does not meet WP:V. Abe Froman 20:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because the information can not be hyperlinked to does not mean it can not be cited. Tom Leykis named Crystal Gail Mangum as the alleged rape victim on his radio program, April 21st.

That's where you're wrong. You can link to the radio stream. See above.

[edit] More facts added on Smoking Gun

Looks like smoking gun has posted she has a prior rape complaint in the books.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0428061duke1.html

wonder how thats going to play out in the media now.  ALKIVAR™ 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is covered already in the Duke scandal article. Abe Froman 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.pretendpundit.com/2006/05/duke_rape_accus.html claims that the parents of Crystal effectively verified the alleged victim's name

Nice blog. See WP:V. Abe Froman 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's "sick" isn't it? User:RobertKeller

No need to even look at it. Blogs of self-published information non-journalists are not reputable sources in this case. Save yourself some time by perusing WP:V. Abe Froman 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people seem to have forgotten that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. This article should not exist until the facts have been publicly established. Kaldari 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we ought to lock down pages on the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and UFO's while we're at it then? Those pages have multiple "facts" without citation in the popular press, and often cite blogs and other tabloids as their sources. If you say we can have one without the other then you're just a hypocrite.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Abe Froman 20:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Face it, Abe Froman is a hypocrite. He and his cronies won't unlock this page until her name is on the front page of the New York Times, and even then they'll still have some excuse to keep the page locked. It doesn't matter how many times you point out that the WP:V has allowances for publishing information that can only be cited from tabloid sources. It doesn't matter how many other pages on Wikipedia fail to meet Abe's inflated version of the WP:V. The admins have a bug up their ass about this page and they'll continue to be hypocrites.

Peruse WP:V. The vast wiki-conspiracy anon alludes to does not exist except in their own exercised mind. Abe Froman 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anon. Note to Abe and others: please stop hiding behind NPOV, Wiki-maneuvering and optional journalistic ethics. Abe's says revealing her name is “sick”. Abe’s called her a victim, before a court conviction. When we couldn’t link to a Leykis source, he cried foul. When we found a Leykis source, he cried “tabloid.” Advancing your personal morality and opinion on Wikipedia and hiding truth behind verifiability weakens Wikipedia. At least tell us the truth, Abe, this isn’t about process, is it? RobertKeller

Save ad hominem attacks for a venue where people care. Wikipedia has rules for good reasons. Check some of those reasons out at WP:V. Abe Froman 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Abe, go read the WP:V's information about tabloids [4] and then come and tell us why Leykis, and the blogosphere don't fit this description. The WP:V that you keep hiding behind does not offer you the protection you think it does. The WP:V clearly states how information such as the identity of the alleged victim should be given. It does not state that it should be censored by Nazi's like you.

To wit.

From the official WP:V policy:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."

Tom Leykis, by his own admission [5], is not a journalist. At this time, a search of Google News, 4,500+ news sources, returns zero hits on the name he gives. Currently, Leykis' self-published material does not meet the official WP:V policy, as proven above. Abe Froman 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The WP:V clearly states,

Sources of dubious reliability In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."

Given the details of the WP:V for dubvious sources, why can't this page say, "Accoring to Shock Jock and non-journalist Tom Leykis, Crystal Gail Mangum is the name of the woman who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her." and provide one of the numerous citations to his broadcast which verify this statement. It fits the rules of the WP:V just fine. Abe has been confronted with this many times, but has never actually refuted it. He continues to say that Leykis is not a reliable source, and not a journalist and directs people to the WP:V. However he always seems to skip over the portion of the WP:V which allows dubious sources. Funny that. Maybe he can't read that fine print from on top of his high horse.

Tom Leykis, by his own admission [6], is not a journalist. Therefore this tabloid argument is bunk. His self-published allegations do not even rise to a tabloid level, therefore WP:V precludes their use on Wikipedia. Abe Froman 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that Tom Leykis "by his own admission is not a journalist" lacks citation. You're citing a Wikipedia article, but that article contains no citation of any website, news article, or tabloid which verifies it. Find me a citation from a verifiable source that Tom Leykis is not a journalist.

The citation for the claim is directly beside the claim. It's the little number you can click on. From Leykis's own Wikipedia article: "Leykis... says he is not a journalist" [7]. Abe Froman 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no such citation on the Tom Leykis wikipedia page. Please cite a verifiable, reputable source.

If Anon cannot read an article, it can't be helped.  :-P For the third time, claim is included here. [8] Abe Froman 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're using an odd sense of logic Abe. You're saying that it's fact that Tom Leykis is not a journalist, and your only citation is a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article contains no citation for this claim either. There are only two citations listed on the Tom Leykis page. One is to an mp3 file where he names Crystal Gail Mangum as the alleged duke rape victim. The other is to a page on TheSmokingGun.com and is in reference to his criminal record. There is no citation on that page to back up the claim that he said, "I am not a journalist".

So choose A: There is no citation to back your claim that Tom Leykis is not a journalist, and therefore the accusers name can go public on Wikipedia based on the dubious sources qualifications of the WP:V. B: That linking to another page on Wikipedia qualifies as being a "reputable source", in which case the Crystal Gail Mangum page should go live because we can link to the Tom Leykis page on Wikipedia. or C: (my personal favorite) There's nothing in the WP:V that says that a dubious source has to be a journalist at all, and therefore the page can go live with the clarifications required by the WP:V that this information comes from a dubious source.

Who cares? The amusing amount of text aside, Leykis is talk radio host who likes to self-publish names. From WP:V "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." yadda yadda yadda. Read it. Live it. Love it. Lets see if we can make the text fall off the right side of the page :-) Abe Froman 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

this is rediculous, you guys are arguing about whether or not to name someone, when any wikipedia user just has to look on this talk page to find out exactly what the person has done, and how they are involved in the court case. what a bunch of idiots you are. Pxw324 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Idiocy? What about a clever circumvention of the would-be censors, who've locked the article page and similar pages because of personal bias? They present Wiki-trivia, argue "this is sick", delete paragraphs from Tom Leykis' page and ridicule discussion. Idiots? More like genius! (Ooops, I gotta be careful or the lefters from Berkeley will lock and hide this page, too).

[edit] Google News Links to the Accuser’s Name

Google News links to the accusers name: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=crystal+gail+mangum&btnG=Search+News Previously the censor nazis said that the page could be unlocked once her name was found through Google News.

I have also confirmed this. Abe Froman's 5/22/06 statement that Google News returns "zero hits" on her name is now outdated and incorrect. You won't see Mr. Froman admit this though, since he's already on record as calling people "sick" who want the name published.

Who is Lew Rockwell? He does not give his sources. This is the same problem as with radio host Tom Leykis. Cranks publishing personal, uncorroborated, and unsourced pet theories are not encyclopedia worthy. See WP:V Abe Froman 20:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, Abe the Ignorant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell He may be a poltical commentator, but he's also a pretty important person in the intellectual world. As for your "cranks" theory you know as well as anyone of us here that the accuser's name IS Crystal Gail Magnum, you simply are using the fact that the mainstream news press hasn't used the name (due policies that protect ALLEGED victims that often go back before some of the younger of us were born) to avoid dealing with the fact that her name is now known. And you know that wikipedia will end up publishing when all is said and done, so at most all you are doing is delaying the inevitable.

Anon should know by now that ad-hominem attacks do not deflect a good editor. My question stands, Lew Rockwell and Tom Leykis have an unsourced, uncorroborated theory that the accuser has the name they give. What evidence do they give? None. Where is it documented? Nowhere. They are simply parroting each other, which is not sourced verification at all. Personal crank theories that have no possibility of verification do not belong in an encyclopedia. See WP:V Abe Froman 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Abe, as mentioned before, at least one mainstream paper mentioned that Leykis had revealed the identity of the accuser and, as they would know it that pretty much counts as verification right there. On my own, I've seen the criminal records of Crystal, I've read the search warrents and noted that CGM (abbreviated) fits perfectly in the blotted over typed spaces, seen the BunnyHole website (which she was originally on, don't know if she is still there) as well as followed the debate on here for awhile. Yeah, yeah, yeah, lots of that is "original research" yadda yadda. Point is, there's little reason to doubt the accuser's identity now; I'd prefer you be more honest and simply admit that wikipedia does not wish (or the editors of THIS section) do not wish to release the names of potential rape victims under any circumstances. That would be more intellectually honest. I don't honestly think you doubt the accuser's name after all; I think you have a moral reason for not allowing it, and I think you know it will eventually make the wikipedia in the end. Some section I'd like to start eventually would be a list of "false accusers", I'm willing to bet in the end that CGM would make that list. Anyway, I won't attack you in the future, but calling commentators you disagree with "cranks" who (at least Mr. Rockwell) probably have more education than you do and access to more sources than you do doesn't go over well with me.

Wikipedia does not operate on Faith. It relies on reputable sources to anchor claims. There are zero cited sources given, above. Abe Froman 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are now multiple (two) reputable sources for her name, both linked on this page (Tom Leykis, and Lew Rockwell). Rockwell is a published author, Ph.D., and a professor at a respected college university. Why don't you just admit it Mr. Froman, that you don't want the name of a rape accuser published under any circumstances? Wikipedia's Verifiability requirements threshold is now met:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

You now have MULTIPLE reliable, published, sources revealing her full name , Crystal Gail Mangum, and one reliable, published source (Tucker Carlson) who revealed her first name, Crystal. (Italics added by --Robertkeller 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)) .

Where is this evidence? Provide links to the citations, please. Remember, personal crank theories that have no documentation or corroboration are not allowed under WP:V or WP:RS. Abe Froman 15:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why bother? You keep asking the same questions, so others provide the evidence, then you hide behind Wiki-games and inane repitition. --Robertkeller 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll bite. Provide a documented source, meeting WP:V & WP:RS, that documents the "Full Name" of the accuser. Make sure to link to it so it can be verified. Review WP:V & WP:RS to avoid reposting individual crank theories. Abe Froman 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Abe, we have... dozens of times. It's not our problem if you can't scroll up to see those references. When we have provided you with those references, you have countered with "Ok, but where did they get their information from?". I find this to be rather funny, since you constantly reference the WP:V. Perhaps you missed the part of the WP:V which states:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.

. You try to counter the claims of Tucker Carlson, Tom Leykis and Lew Rockwell by stating that they are using Original Research. I don't believe you fully understand the concept of Original Research. Using your logic, we shouldn't be able to cite the New York Times either, because they used Original Research... or that we shouldn't quote scientific journals for the same reason. Every time we meet your criteria for a resource, you move the target. Please take your moral high horse home. It's not wanted at Wikipedia.

Still waiting. Provide a documented source, meeting WP:V & WP:RS, that documents the "Full Name" of the accuser. Make sure to link to it so it can be verified. Review WP:V & WP:RS to avoid reposting individual crank theories. Abe Froman 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a link to a court document filed by Reade Seligmann's attorney and available on the attorney's website. It names the accuser. http://www.kirkosborn.com/Motions/MotiontoSuppressPhotos.pdf

Anon above [9] has done what the screamers wouldn't: verifiably document the name. Abe Froman 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Court records presented by the defense (1 234) reveal the accusers name to be Crystal Gail Mangum. This name matches the name given by both Tom Leykis and Tucker Carlson. It's time to unlock this page. The name has been revealed. The citations meet the requirements of the WP:V and WP:RS. It is not original research. Tom Leykis was right, and Abe Froman needs to sit down and eat some crow.

There's a misunderstanding. It wasn't publishing the name that was the problem. It was publishing a private citizen's name using unverified and/or crank sources that was the problem. Now that the allegation has real, verifiable sources, the posting went ahead. See how Wikipedia works? See WP:V & WP:RS. Abe Froman 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll take your apology, but I hardly believe you when you say it was a misunderstanding. You repeatedly called the action of revealing her name to be "sick", and pushed your own moral and ethical agenda on us and Wikipedia as a whole.

No apology is proferred, or necessary. It is sick to overturn a private citizen's privacy based on unsourced or crank allegations. That is why Wikipedia has policies on it. Until Anon provided the missing link [10] verifying the allegation, the publication of the name was against Wikipedia's policies on verification. Try reading them. Abe Froman 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You twice call CGM a "private citizen." Is this original research? Of what country is she a citizen? Have you seen her immigration papers? Her birth certificate? Her passport? Does her published photo on national television make her private or public? Please provide Wikipedia-compliant links of your assertion that she is now or ever was a "private citizen". If you don't, then we'll continue to accuse you of Wiki-games and question your agenda. --Robertkeller 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough guys. The war, and this discussion, is over. Abe lost. You don't need to rub his nose in it.

Lost? I'd rather say Wikipedia won. Abe Froman 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, some guys just don't know when to quit. Alright, I was wrong... maybe he does deserve to have his nose rubbed in it for a while.

Thank god her name is finally being published on wikipedia. Mista Froman, you lost.

[edit] Unlock This Page

Evidence has been given that proves the identity of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser. This evidence meets the requirements of the WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. There is no longer any reason to keep this page locked with a WP:Office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.79 (talk • contribs) .

Notice to any other admin who may read this: DO NOT UNLOCK THIS PAGE. Administrators have the ability but not the authority to unlock pages protected by office action. I have requested unprotection from Danny. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it's been over 48 hours. How long does this process normally take?

Go ask Danny through the link above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This page has been protected too long, court documents clearly list Crystal Gail Mangum as the accuser, and FOX news (not a "blog") has gone on record to say that none of her charges have any merit; this has now been declared a major hoax perpetrated by Mangum and she should be sued for wrongful defamation. RFerreira 05:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Will it kill any of you to just wait while the process completes itself? Calwatch 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it will kill us. We want to see her name and there's no good reason why we can't. Rape is a serious allegation and these people have to know they can't just make false clims and hide behind a blanket of anonymity.

See what happens when all the power in wikipedia is centralized in a few people?--God Ω War 06:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Process, what process? People have been waiting patiently for days going on weeks and Danny has not made any visible effort to respond to these requests. RFerreira 06:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the {{editprotected}}. It appears you want the page unprotected, and taking that up with the protecting admin is the correct procedure - I can see you have taken that up. Please don't use {{editprotected}} when you actually want the page unprotected.

By the way, Wikipedia has over 1,000,000 articles that you can edit. For example I need a hand expanding Whaling in Australia and Gizmondo needs someone to fact-check and add references. See the Community Portal for other things to keep you busy.--Commander Keane 09:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that "Wikipedia has over 1,000,000 articles that you can edit" in light of these circumstances is somewhat of a cop out. The protecting administrator has been unresponsive, so I am replacing the template until this has been properly resolved. Please do not remove it again. I added it because I want to edit a protected article, that is what it was designed for. Thanks! RFerreira 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No admin is going to pull a stunt like that not after what happened last time. If appeal to danny doesn't work (past experence suggests it wont within a reasonable time frame) you also have appeal to jimbo or other foundation board memebers. Unlikey to work but that's life.Geni 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I move removed the {{editprotected}} tag. Do not add it again, because getting attention from administrators won't help you. Your only appeal is to Danny, Jimbo, and the Foundation. -- SCZenz 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The history of the accuser CGM article is incredible and should be documented:

When editors added, others instantly deleted her name calling its revalation "sick"

When too many editors re-added, Wikipedia Foundation locked the page

When knowledgeable blogs were cited, it wasn't good enough

When Tom Leykis was cited, it wasn't good enough

When Google news yielded results, it wasn't good enough

When court documents were cited, an unlock was requested on 12 June 2006

Now the request to unlock is ignored for seven day (and counting)

Pardon me, but your agenda is showing. Also see Animal Farm --Robertkeller 16:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A request was made on WP:RFPP, and since admins should not unprotect an office protected page, and Danny appears inactive, I have left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Prodego ^talk 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You will have to define inactive. If you think that failing to get engaged in mindless debates about non notable people when there are legal issues involved as inactive, then yes, I am. One million articles need review. Is this really the only one that matters? Danny 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't have any edits for a couple of days. There are certian section of wikipedia where people will consider that means you are inactive until you start editing again. In any case any legal issues should be past. The US doesn't have the UK's privicy laws and we can cite stuff from court documents and the stories surfaceing on google news.Geni 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Up until now, I've avoided getting involved in this debate, but this comment really bothers me. Amongst your jobs is Office protection and unprotection, and this is currently the only Office-protected page (that we know of...there seems to be an ongoing debate over whether secretly protected pages are kosher). Therefore, it should be at the top of your to-do list, at least when it involves Office protection. Notability is NOT yours to decide. As Jimbo himself said in creating Office protection, it is not supposed to replace community consensus. I'm not even saying that the community wants this page...I'm saying that as long as it remains Office-protected, we have NO IDEA what the community wants because they can't do anything. Jimbo himself asked for a reliable cite (Time specifically, but I assume public legal documents would suffice) earlier in this conversation. Though no one can speak for him but himself, since he doesn't frequently intervene, I think many assumed that was a prerequisite for Office unprotection. Prerequisite met. What other hoops would you like us to jump through?--MikeJ9919 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal issues? What legal issues? Her name is a matter of public record now. Tucker Carlson, a notable journalist, has mentioned her by name on his own show. Her name appears on multiple hits from news.google.com. By keeping the page locked, you are showing your own moral and ethical bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.137.120 (talk • contribs) on 06:49, June 21, 2006.

There are no legal issues involved. It is simply a widespread media agreement not to print the names of alleged rape victims. Anyone who disagrees need look no further than www.kirkosborn.com. If the defense attorney can reveal her name to the public, so can Wikipedia. Print her name already, this is turning into an embarrassment to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.67.146.218 (talk • contribs) on 14:01, June 21, 2006.

The page has been unprotected by Danny. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I am removing personal details and criminal record info

This person's accusation may make her notable; that does not make the details of her life notable. I am particularly disturbed by the detailed presentation of her criminal record, which make the article a slanted (i.e. POV) hatched job. -- SCZenz 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, we give the personal life and history of a lot of people that have nothing to do with what makes them notable. See Jimmy Wales, for example.--God Ω War 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with GoW. George W. Bush's article has an entire section about how he was arrested for driving under the influence in 1974, for example. That isn't why he is notable, though. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a balanced article, however; it violates NPOV rather severely, and it implies that her sexual and criminal history has an impact on the veracity of her claims. Wikipedia should not be supporting such bullshit. -- SCZenz 18:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to explain in common English how NPOV is violated. The article is factually accurate, a simple factual recounting of her life in a nutshell. Admit it, you are unhappy that she has been identified by name. Are you equally unhappy with defense attorney Kirk Osborn?

Prior criminal records of the accused rapists have been on the Duke Scandal Page for months, and you haven't raised a stink about it over there. Implying that we can have one while the other is "sick" demonstrates your moral and ethical bias. Neither is wanted on wikipedia.

second that. The article is meant as a hatchet job. It should be one NPOV paragraph, max. Abe Froman 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the facts are biased, why don't you supply some facts which support your bias and then we'll meet somewhere in the middle. Just because you don't like the facts presented doesn't mean that it's biased. Remember, Wikipedia will not be censored by your ethics.

um, one's criminal record DOES have an impact on one's credibility. There is nothing biased about the paragraph. It is simply a list of facts. Facts can not be, in themselves, biased.--God Ω War 18:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which facts we choose to present, and which facts we don't, obviously introduces a bias. The balance of facts presented is one aspect of NPOV. -- SCZenz 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, frankly, the strong emphasis on sex-related information in the article definitely implies the old "she's a whore, so she can't have been raped" argument. That is a big problem. -- SCZenz 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the facts presented show she's a criminal and therefore more likely to tell lies. That is all.--God Ω War 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this page should be submitted for either mediation or arbitration. Extra editors on this problem will help. Abe Froman 19:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is skipping ahead a bit, isn't it? Especially since the arbitrators resolve interpersonal disputes, and this seems to be mostly (not entirely, but mostly) a content dispute. Mediation or RFC would be a perfectly reasonable course of action, in my mind.--MikeJ9919 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack by anon removed. -- SCZenz 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

• The criminal record is definitely notable. Step back and think about this article as a being about a person, not about an incident. We are not litigating the Duke lacross team rape accusations, we are writing about a 27 year-old person. Most 27 year-old people don't have such an arrest record. It is a notable fact that helps describe the life she has lived so far. It is factual, and it is properly sources. Johntex\^talk 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a Crystal Gail Mangum?

Please, someone,

what is a

"Crystal Gail Mangum"??

Is that like

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Gayle >,

with a gun??

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/magnum >.

Hopiakuta 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this, a failed attempt at a Haiku?--God Ω War 04:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

no but i'm pretty sure its a failed attempt at a joke.  ALKIVAR™ 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The criminal record is verifiable and reliable

I noticed Hipocrite's edit removing Magnum's prior criminal record.[11]. I'm not reverting, because I don't know whether it's notable, but thought I would write to say that IMHO, hipocrite's incorrect on reliability. In this case, the North Carolina official government website offered[12] is both verifiable and a reliable source. Although it is a primary source, it doesn't take any special expertise to read, and there's no question that it what it appears to be. Republication of the same info in Rawstory or the National Equirer wouldn't make the information any more reliable than it is right now. TheronJ 14:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Whoops, Hipocrite's totally right and I'm totally wrong. TheronJ 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP reads in part "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them." (emph mine)Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. You're right - thanks for the correction. TheronJ 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If a wikipedian were to search for background on someone using such primary sources, then that'd not be good, but hasn't her background been mentioned by the defense and local media? Andjam 05:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been mentioned by third party sources and one of them has now been properly cited into the article. Johntex\^talk 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo anyone?

This is a biography. When are we going to get a photo? Any other degrees of higher education, professional honors or ISBN-bearing books would be fine, also. We got her almost wrapped up now. We are almost ready for peer review - and then FA status and on towards the Main Page. -- 75.25.181.242 07:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leykis

I'm removing the comment that Leykis "violated the spirit" of the North Carolina rape shield law. That's blatantly POV. If some notable source has given their opinion that he did so, I would support re-adding it as long as similarly notable supportive statements are added.--MikeJ9919 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the Leykis passage. It is an advertisement for his show and the antics it generates. It has nothing to do with the accuser or the accusations. Abe Froman 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the information about Leykis. How the name came to be released, and our source for what he name is, is clearly relevant to this article. Johntex\^talk 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is propaganda and an advertisement to include Leykis. Johntex may think sexual assault victims deserve no privacy, but his thoughts are against WP:LIVING, which holds that people who wish to remain anonymous should have Wikipedia articles shorn of everything but the situation that makes them notable. Leykis was not at that party, that night. He is immaterial to the accusations. Reverting. Abe Froman 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are dramatically misinterpretting WP:BLP. Biographies routinely list things that are relevant to the their overall life: what state they live in, where they went to school, whether or not they were married, etc. Johntex\^talk 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reported Abe.Froman for violating the Three Revert Rule.

The Leykis information was already in the article, but anon inserted again, making the same allegation twice in a one page article. This article is about the accuser, not Tom Leykis. Report me for 3RR all you like, removing repetitive information [13] from the article does not count. Abe Froman 13:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Accusations

"She later recanted her story" When? There should be a link, because I haven't seen that anywhere (though I could be wrong). Also, according to her ex-fiance, she went to the police about her allegations of rape in the prior incident after he had encourgaed her to do so. I added that. As well as her moth's explanation as to why her father does not believe any rape took place in 1993.NeoApsara

Alright, I still haven't been able to find where she recanted her accusation of the 1990s rape and nobody has answered, so I'm going to just delete it unless somebody actually brings in a link. NeoApsara

[edit] Wikipedia only mainstream source announcing her name?

I am not an expert on this case so pardon me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell her name was never officially released, nor are almost any of the media covering this case using her name. It looks to me like her name was LEAKED out, accidentally, by a person who uploaded a sensitive court document to a defense lawyer's web site without censoring the name. If this is the case, it doesn't seem right to me that Wikipedia would openly broadcast the identity of an alleged rape victim whose case has not yet been tried. It seems to me like one of the following is what happened in this case: (1) The events transpired more or less as she says they did, and that the Duke players sexually assaulted her. (2) She was never sexually assaulted and filed this lawsuit for illegitimate reasons, or she was sexually assaulted and is falsely accusing the Duke players of doing it. Now at this stage, before any trial has been conducted, it seems very inappropriate to me that with (1) an open possibility that should be carefully considered at all times, that Wikipedia would be the only widespread-audience outlet that unashamedly broadcasts her identity to the world, and that its only company in that respect are some fringe journalists/bloggers and a shock jock radio host. Some say Wikipedia is not censored and does not care about ethics, but it seems like this new policy on living persons would disagree with that sentiment strongly. I would support re-nominating this article for deletion, not on account of notability, but on account of the above. — GT 06:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be someone who goes around screaming "censorship" at anyone who wants to remove content. Far from it. The use (I should say misuse) of the word censorship by people who disagree with removing some fact is appalling in its frequency. Censorship is something imposed by an outside authority. If we believe on moral grounds that the woman's identity should be kept secret, then we can make that decision for ourselves and no one should call it censorship.

Having said that, I believe on moral grounds that the woman's name absolutley should be made public. The fact that she has made an accusation is less damaging to her than the accusation itself is to the men accused. Yet the "mainstream" media have no qualms with naming the accused. This is worse than a double standard.

As to Wikipedia policy, the woman was named by a source that is deemed as verfiable. That is all we need. WP:BLP has been satisfied by the fact that this page was originally protected from being created. This was done under WP:OFFICE, which can only be undone by Danny or Jimbo himself. Once the name was published, Danny unprotected the article himself.[14] Therefore, we are right within the policy to have this article here. I argue that we are morally right as well. Johntex\^talk 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Chances are, if the accuser in this situation were an 18 year old white female from Chapel Hill, the "morally right" brigade would not be foaming at the mouth to publish this name. Abe Froman 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

History disagrees with you Abe. Try looking into the history of Katlyn Faber. She was a white female not too much older than 18, and accused a black man of raping her.

If you think the issue is whether it might damage her reputation that she made an accusation, then I'm afraid you misunderstand the point of concealing the names of sexual crime victims. The point is that people who have suffered through rape should not be further humiliated by that fact being made public to the rest of the community (something you probably would not want done if you or a family member were so unfortunate). Almost all mainstream sources have conspicuously failed to mention her name, and I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't side with them instead of the fringe bloggers and some shock jock radio host, considering Wikipedia has a greater audience than probably all of them put together and multiplied by a hundred. Quoting policy: It is not our job to be ... the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. What good is there by having this article that outweighs the harm it might possibly be doing? Furthermore, as far as WP:OFFICE goes, I would guess that Danny unprotected this page because this woman is an unlikely candidate to press charges against the Wikimedia foundation, which seems to be the "Office"'s primary concern. — GT 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not worthwhile to brood on what WP:OFFICE intended, or did not intend. What is worth brooding over is that outside this Duke situation, the accuser has no notability. None, zip, zero. This article, if left to its original creator's devices, would merely exist to defame the accuser. I would support re-nonimating the article for deletion based on WP:LIVING. Abe Froman 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Man you just don't know when to give up. Seriously Abe, go find a new pet project. You first wanted the article deleted because it didn't meet your criteria for citation from a reliable source. So we got one. Then you wanted to delete it because you didn't feel she was notable enough. That got voted on, and you lost... badly. Now you want to try and fight it again on the basis that she's alive? What are you going to do when you lose this battle too? Accept your loss and move on.

Her name was released by a verifiable source, and Wikipedia is not censored. See also the content disclaimer. If the article is going to be deleted, it will have to be on the grounds that she is not notable enough, which failed miserably last time. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I anticipated and have already addressed this comment. — GT 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Abe.Froman, judging from your statement "Chances are, if the accuser in this situation were an 18 year old white female from Chapel Hill, the "morally right" brigade would not be foaming at the mouth to publish this name." I don't see you offer up any evidence or even a logical basis for your claim. I can only conclude that you may have some unfortunate bias against white people and/or against those that are morally right.

GT, you say "...The point is that people who suffered through..." and therein is where you start to go wrong. No one has proved she did suffer from rape. The people she accuse are innocent until proven guilty. The mainstream media are morally wrong to smear their names while they conceal hers. I think you are the one that completely misses the moral point if you think it is OK to publish names of people that have not been convicted of crimes and to cause their reputations to suffer as a result of what may end up being bad faith allegations. As for notability, Lee Harvey Oswald and Wham are each pretty much noted for one thing, yet we have articles on them. The Duke lacross controvery is only notable because of the Duke lacross controversy. Would you have us delete that article as well? You mention the "harm [this article] might possibly be doing". What harm is that, exactly? I see no harm in letting people know this verifiable fact. Johntex\^talk 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, I hope you'll notice that I've very specifically not spoken in absolute terms when it comes to this woman and her situation. What I am saying, though, is that at this point she is possibly a victim of a sex crime, and responsible publications generally do not announce to the world that a person has allegedly been a victim of a sex crime in order to protect the reputation and dignity of the person in question in case her allegations are true, and they do so at the cost of withholding a piece of information from the public that they may be curious to know about. Apparently they judge that tradeoff as being acceptable (for both moral and business reasons, I imagine) and I think Wikipedia should find it acceptable as well, especially as there isn't really a legitimate reason that anybody outside of the ongoing criminal investigation should have to research any details of this woman's life at this time. As far as the Duke athletes go, I understand this dilemma and equally would not want an innocent person to have their name smeared if they did not commit a crime. Therefore when we refer to suspects we say that they are "accused" of a crime and that they "allegedly" did something, while keeping in mind that, as you say, in America we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Anybody who rushes to judgment on either this woman or the players without allowing the investigation and trial to run their course is doing so very irresponsibly. To answer your final points, the harm is the humiliation that I have spoken about if her claims are legitimate, which is a possibility that should be accounted for, and I have explicitly not made this about notability, as the bar for notability is pretty low here at Wikipedia. — GT 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification/amplification of your view. I think that if it is sufficient to label the accused perpetrators as "accused" or "alleged" then it is sufficient to label the accusor as the person making the accusation. It is true that embarrasment could come to this person, but the same can certainly be said about those accused. I think the moral play is to reveal all names or no names at all. I would be happy with either. Johntex\^talk 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to know what I think, I wouldn't identify the Duke players in Wikipedia either. Are there articles that currently do? If so then mark me down as supporting the removal of that information as well. I agree that it is potentially embarassing for both sides and that only in obvious cases and where the actual crime itself was of great significance (such as the case of Brian Nichols) should an accused criminal be identified here. However I do not think that the embarassment of being accused of a crime falsely is quite comparable to the level of additional humiliation and unhappiness a rape victim would suffer if the entire world learned about it (both being the more undesirable possible scenarios). I find that especially true here where there is widespread support for the idea that the Duke players did nothing more than behave as rowdy college kids do all the time. So, that's why I personally would place a higher priority here than on the Duke kids, even if consistency demands we remove all of their identifying information. — GT 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it is more embarrassing to be called a "rape victim" than a "rapist". Rape victims have not committed a violent crime. There is nothing for them to fear from having it known they are a rape victim. An accused rapist, on the other hand, would be shunned by society. Johntex\^talk 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Sexual Assault victims can be and are stigmatized by society. Would Johntex mind if a Wikipedia article carried the information that he, or perhaps a family member, had been raped, along with his birthday and personal history? Apparently not. The victim in this situation has not come out publically, and is not notable other than being a victim. WP:LIVING implies she should not have an article. But if she is to have one, to focus on the accusations, only. Abe Froman 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. Being raped is nothing that can be controlled and therefore nothing that should be redacted from someone's biography. Face it Abe, you're in the minority on whehter her name is used on Wikipedia or not, now you are just on a campaign to make this article contain as little information as possible. Johntex\^talk 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem attack. Fact is, WP:LIVING holds this article should hold no more information about the accuser than the accusations provide themselves. Johntex believes any sexual assault victim deserves no expectation of privacy, which is against WP:LIVING as well. Abe Froman 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is funny that you label it an ad hominem attack. You are the one that starts your statements with a one word "Ridiculous" or "Absurd". I was just imitating yu a bit. You are mis-reading WP:BLP and you are misconstruing my statement. I am saying that an alleged assault victim in a publicized case enjoys no more expectation of privacy than the accused. It is immoral to name one set of people and not the other. Johntex\^talk 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, you must recognize that the nature of a crime like sexual assault is much different in kind than that of, say, a stabbing or burglary. The fact that it is almost universal convention among American media to conceal the identities of sexual assault victims illustrates this. I hope you understand why this is the case -- it's, of course, not because we are finding the victim at fault for what happened to her; it's more to do with the "personal violation" that comes with that crime and the subconscious reactions people will have when they learn about it. If your female co-worker got raped and you learned about it, you probably wouldn't be able to look at her after that for a long time without immediately remembering what happened to her. As bad as a rape is, it would be even worse if you had to walk around after that knowing that when you were talking to people they all knew about your rape and that they were acting differently towards you because of it. Imagine the possibility that we, with this article, are one of the primary vehicles of making that a reality for a woman who was such a victim, and not just spreading it among her co-workers and acquaintances but the entire world. I still don't see any legitimate reason why anybody outside of the investigation would need to know the name of this woman in relation to the case at hand, and attempting to hold an alleged victim accountable for her allegations is the job of the criminal justice system, not the Internet public. I hope we can all agree that when when this woman filed her charges, she did not imagine in her wildest dreams that anybody on national TV would be talking about her or the suspects, so I think we should lay to rest any arguments that we need to be holding her accountable for smearing the names of possibly innocent men (and leave it to the courts to settle it). Finally, the fact that the media, in the interest of sensationalist journalism, decided to pump up this otherwise completely ordinary and non-notable event (people are sexually assaulted every day) does not mean that we forego the ordinary ethical guidelines (and policy) that we have for such cases and their possible victims. — GT 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• We are not journalists and therefore we are not bound by their conventions. I think their conventions are flawed. Clearly, as embarrasing as rape may be, being accused of rape is far more embarrasing. Johntex\^talk 18:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I find your last sentence offensive. Who the hell are you to say that? And why should your personal opinion of what's "embarrasing" affect anything? -- SCZenz 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you find it offensive. As to why my opinion matter's, the same could be asked of you. Who the hell are you to give comments on my opinions? The answer, of course, is that this is a Talk page, and we are free to give our opinions here about how the article is to be edited. Clearly, (discounting psycho-babble such as the Twinkie defense), people have control over whether they rape someone. They don't have control over whether they were raped. The rapist has demonstrated themselves as being contempible, the person raped has been an unfortunate victim. Clearly, it is far more embarrasing to be accused of being a contemptible person than it is to be accused of being an unfortunate victim. Johntex\^talk 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Johntex, I went into considerable detail about why a rape victim would feel embarassed or ashamed to the point that it would make the trauma from her assault even worse, but you seem to have ignored all that with your last two posts, continuing to mistakenly assert that embarassment only can follow a bad decision. For instance, I think if a child pulled his mother's skirt up in the middle of a crowded area she would be quite embarassed, even if she didn't do anything particularly wrong herself. Furthermore we are, of course, not journalists and not bound by their code of ethics, but I believe the fact that when they, deliverers of information to the masses just as we are, face such a situation, they have made virtually a unanimous decision to NOT print sexual assault victims' names under nearly any circumstances (even when it would be far easier for them to just do so and satisfy their curious readership). I think this fact is of great use to us in this discussion and sets an example we should follow. — GT 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh I don't mean to say that embarrasement can *only* come from actions you do deliberately. Believe me, I've sat next to drunken family members at dinner parties that embarrased me plenty. But I *am* saying that any embarrasement of that type pales in comparison to the embarrasement of being charged with a heinous crime. This is an example where the "mainstream morality" (I.e. the prevailing practice of "mainstream media" to name the accused and not the accusor) is simply wrong. Our ethics should be to reveal both names as long as they are verfiable. That is Wikipedia policy. Johntex\^talk 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I was taking offense at how callously you expressed an opinion on something that I very much doubt you have personal experience with. Argue in terms of policy, by all means, but you don't need to trivialize other peoples' trauma to do that. I was a little ruder than I ought to have been, perhaps, and I'm sorry for that. -- SCZenz 02:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Again I'm sorry to have offended you. I don't mean to trivialize anyone else's suffering at all, but I do think the hypothetical suffering of someone being disclosed as a rape victim is less than the hypothetical suffering of someone who is accused of rape without having been convicted of any crime. If and when the person accused is convicted, that is the time to label them with the scarlet "R" for rapist. In the meantime, it would be hypocrisy to name the supposed rapist and not name the accusor. This is relevant to policy because we can't morally have a policy of naming the accused without naming the accusor. This article names both the accusor and the accused, and that is how it should be. The reader can then learn about both sides of the controversy. Johntex\^talk 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire talk page is not a documentation of the editorial process at work- it a sad tale of how public information is manipulated behind the scenes to fit some sort of vague amorphous agenda. "Chances are, if the accuser in this situation were an 18 year old white female from Chapel Hill, the "morally right" brigade would not be foaming at the mouth to publish this name. Abe Froman 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)" .

           What "chances"? - 10%, 45% 99.6%?
           What institute studied this scenario to determine the 'chance' and that it would apply to a hypothetical scenario
           Why is people being persistant enough to overcome Abe's obviously incorrect stonewalling  "foaming"?
           Is "Johntex" part of a "morally right brigade"? How was his membership determined? 
           Why is the context of this that it is a bad thing to be "morally right"?
           Does Abe even know the age of Mangum? She isnt 18, so why 18 in the ananology?
           And lets assume that the statement is 100% correct. Johntext is a total hypocrite. Does that mean that otherwise important information should be suppressed so that Abe can punish his "frothing" nemisis?

It would appear that some of the editors are sallying forth on their highhorses to shape the public record to battle against what they determine the agenda of the ""morally right brigade" is.

I think this would make a facinating article or book-length examiniation. I dont think the general public knows how busy some people are to shape what they are allowed to know about.

Abe, I'll just quote all your text directly, ok? Thanks. -Very Anon

[edit] Criminal Record Rv

The accuser has not come out publically. Wikipedia has policies to protect non notable living persons who wish to remain anonymous. I removed the criminal record passage based on the following Wikipedia policy on living persons:

From WP:LIVING

Non-public figures Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above). In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Abe Froman 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with this interpretation. The criminal record is relevant to understanding the entire life of this person. The article is about the person, not just one incident. Therefore, we should be striving to include notable information from her whole life. Johntex\^talk 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect Johntex I have again removed the section. None of her record has anything to do with rape, filing false police reports, slander, or anything else that is tangentially related to any of the possibilities that exist in this situation. A court of law does not allow unrelated convictions as admissible evidence and neither should we here since her singular reason for notability is her involvement in this particular case. Part of the purpose of WP:LIVING, and something I have been concerned about for a long time as well, is that here on Wikipedia we try to perform the impossible task of reducing somebody's entire life and essence into a few paragraphs. Thus, with living people, we take care not to include details about their lives, while 100% true, verifiable, and factual, whose presence may present a skewed, biased impression of their lives. Now some, maybe you, may regard this woman as a lifelong criminal, a liar, and an overall bad person, but as yet that judgment is based upon assumptions and Wikipedia should, for the time being, respect her privacy and not encourage people to make such assumptions. — GT 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I certianly wouldn't call her a life-long criminal based on one or two arrests. At the same time, her criminal record is longer than most people's and is certainly part of what makes her a unique person. It is relevant to a complete biography on her. Johntex\^talk 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not saying it would be usable information at the criminal trial concerning her alleged rape, I am saying that it is relevant to the overall article about her life, which is what this article is. We are not charged with putting either her or her accused rapists on trial, we are charged with presenting the verifiable and notable information about the person. Clearly the information is verifiable as we have 2 sources. I maintain that it is notable as well. Johntex\^talk 03:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. What does grand theft auto have to do with rape accusations years later? Nothing. The accuser is not notable in any way, other than being the accuser. WP:LIVING strongly hints we should not be a tabloid. I think the criminal record should be removed, unless someone can link the theft of the car to the rape accusations. Was it a Duke lacrosse player's car? I doubt it. Abe Froman 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Use her criminal record in conjunction with accusations by those who have challenged her claims, then the "what does this have to do with the article?" argument would be ended. --tomf688 (talk - email) 10:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:LIVING "...editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." The accuser is not notable for stealing a car. She is notable for making accusations against Duke lacrosse team members. The passage should be removed based on WP:LIVING. Abe Froman 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The accuser is not notable for being a navy veteran (of questionable discharge) nor for being a mother.

[edit] Birthday Rv

The accuser has not come out publically. According to the Wikipedia policy on living persons, WP:LIVING:

Privacy of birthdays Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

I have removed the date and birthplace, leaving the year.

Abe Froman 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this. Leaving the year is sufficient. Johntex\^talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discharge

Some editors are claiming Mangum was dishonorably or generally discharged, without citing that claim with sources that meet WP:RS. Since this is the biography of a living person, care must be taken to ensure the information in this article is correct and cited with reliable sources. I do not think her discharge status matters, given Mangum is notable for something completely unrelated to her military service. Posting the claim she was generally/dishonorably discharged without sourcing it with reliable sources is defamation, and will be reverted on sight. Abe Froman 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the discharge status does matter to a biogarphy on her, but I agree with Abe Froman that it needs to be sourced from reliable sources before it is included. Johntex\^talk 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

* Agreed. Therefore I have removed the reference to her being a Navy Veteran. Since no one can find a reliable source to report that she was honorably discharged, we can not say with any accuracy that she is in fact a Veteran. To have a status of Veteran she must be honorably discharged. Please do not revert this change unless you have a reliable, verifiable, reputable source which says that she was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy.

She served. How she was discharged is unknown at this time, so it is not speculated on within the article. Abe Froman 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "serving" and being a veteran. She can only be a veteran if she was honorably discharged. Since it is unknown at this time how she was dicharged, we can not say with any accuracy that she is a veteran. Suggesting that the only requirement to be a veteran is to have served is an insult to every man and woman who honorably wore a uniform, served this country, and may have even died for this country. Try reading http://usmilitary.about.com/od/benefits/a/vetbenefits.htm and you will understand the difference between being in the military and being a veteran.

Mangum serving in the navy is a fact, supported by citations in the article. How she was discharged is unknown. The article carries the fact. Please do not remove it again without better reason than simply disliking Mangum and her military service. Abe Froman 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a fact that she served in the Navy. No one is disputing that. What you seem to not understand is that being a Veteran requires more than just serving. Stop adding original research to the article. Without citation you are adding pure speculation, and possibly incorrect information to the article.

It is not up to us to determine if Mangum is 'worthy' of veteran status. Webster's defines a veteran as A person who has served in the armed forces. Based on this clear and understandable definition, I am readding the phrase. Abe Froman 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a vet, anon is correct. Abe shares a popular misconception that all who serve are considered vets. The United States Government has a legal definition of veteran which differs greatly from Websters dictionary. You may find it interesting to know that the current president of the United States is unable to claim veteran status because he was not honorably discharged, despite having served in the Air Force reserves. Don't feel bad Abe, lots of people make this mistake. Mutant Zero 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Find a reliable source claiming she is not a veteran, then. Until then, the phrase remains. Can't pick your facts. Abe Froman 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point Abe. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one suggesting that she is a Veteran without having any proof that she is. You are the one who is required to supply a reliable source that she IS a veteran. Mutant Zero 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Proof? Here you are. "She is a 27-year-old mother of two who married young, served in the Navy..." [15] Definition of Veteran: "A person who has served in the armed forces" [16]. Mangum served in the US Navy. Therefore, by serving in our armed forces, Mangum is by definition, a veteran. Case closed. Abe Froman 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple analogy will help out here. Every man is also a son, right? You can't be one without the other. However, not every man is also a father, because you have to do certain things in order to be called a father. Likewise, you can only be called a Veteran if you have done certain things. Does that help? It is your assumption that she is a veteran. She may or may not be. Until such time as her military record becomes public, we should not have any assumptions about her military status on her page. Wikipedia is supposed to only have facts. It is a fact that she served in the military, and no one is removing that fact. It is an assumption that she is a veteran, and that is why it has been removed.

The plain meaning of the definition of "veteran" is anyone who has served [17]. I stick with the plain meaning. It is a fact Mangum served. [18] It is a fact the definition of veteran is anyone has has served. The phrase goes back. I believe the editors who continue to remove the passage are not acting in good faith, driven instead by some antipathy toward this veteran in particular. Abe Froman 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous and petty disputes I have seen in a while. I've reworded the phrase as "She previously served in the United States Navy" from "She is a Navy veteran". The new version sounds a bit more encyclopedic anyways. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no conflict with the edit Tomf688 has made. Mutant Zero 21:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to put a nail into the coffin of this discussion. The only way that Crystal would be a legal Veteran under United States law is if she 1: received an honorable discharge, and 2: served as part of Operation Joint Endeavor / Joint Guard (Bosnia and Herzegovina) for at least 14 consecutive days between November 20, 1995 and June 20, 1998. ^{[1] [2]}. Otherwise she is not a Veteran. Mutant Zero 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary works just fine. The plain meaning of the definition of "veteran" is anyone who has served [19]. If Mutant Zero feels so strongly about this, then please show his colors by going to the Oliver North page and removing his veteran status. He was convicted of felonies. See how far he gets with those editors. Abe Froman 11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You cite the Oliver North page, but it's pretty obvious that you didn't read it. 1: The page does not claim that he currently holds the status of Veteran. 2: The page clearly states that his convictions were overturned. I would have thought that your 12 hour ban would have given you time to cool off and get a level head. Your opinion of what qualifies someone to be a Veteran does not matter. The Law trumps you. Mutant Zero 15:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Why is there an infobox which contains nothing but her name and a year of birth? That's a ridiculous use of an infobox. Her name is on the article and her birth year can go in the first sentence. When I deleted it, I was told by an anon that there was a lengthy discussion of it here, but I don't see any such thing, and now Mutant Zero has deleted me again. This is silly. This is like having an infobox just to have an infobox. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you scan above, you will see that the infobox used to contain the actual date of her birth, as well as additional information. Some people complained that it was too much information for a living person, and invited possible identify theft. The solution was to remove the Day and Month, and just to leave the year. This was the compromise we came to. I reverted your deletion because you didn't discuss the change first. Your proposal of including the date in the first paragraph sounds like it could work. However, I'd like to point out that this is not what you did. Instead of moving content, you deleted it. Mutant Zero 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what I did was to delete non-content. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This infobox truly does look ridiculous. Now that the year of her birth is listed in the first sentence, there is no useful information in it other than that she was born in the US. Since this should be assumed (surely someone would point it out if she *weren't*), it's not information that needs to be so predominantly shown. If no one objects, I'm going to delete the info box. Andyparkerson 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is there so that other editors will see the lack of info and add more useful stuff, like specifically where she was born and perhaps a picture at some point. It should be left for a while to see what happens. Joe1141 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm going to take out the birthday, as per discussion above. Also, I don't think that her birthplace of Durham, NC has been established. It is merely her residence as of the alleged rape. This leaves us with an infobox whose only info is that she was born in 1978. There is no evidence of her current occupation or enrollment status, so listing her occupation as dancer/student. Hardly enough reason for an infobox. Andyparkerson 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC) I can't find an attribute for her birthsite, but she grew up in Durham, and there's no reason to think she wasn't born there. I'll withhold my judgement on the infobox for now :) Andyparkerson 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race?

Is there a reason CGM's race has been left out of the article? Maybe I missed a discussion regarding it? Dubc0724 20:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That fact was probably lost amid the endless edit-warring. I don't see a reason not to include it as it is a significant part of this entire affair. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured, given the number of edits being made. I'd agree that it should be included, given the context of the controversy (well-to-do white college students/poor black single mother). Thanks for your input Dubc0724 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - it was part of the controversy so it should go in the article. Johntex\^talk 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"well-to-do white college students"? Care to describe "well-to-do white college students"? I don't think it fits all of these accused kids. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. If they were all "well-to-do" then we should probably say "affluent" instead. It sounds less judgemental. Johntex\^talk 02:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There's that, but since one family had to borrow the money for their son's bail from friends and family it probably means that they weren't all that affluent either. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that "well-to-do" or "affluent" needed to go in. I was explaining that the racial/socioeconomic context of the controversy was important, and that her race should not be ignored in the article. That's all. Thanks Dubc0724 12:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And I was explaining that the characterization of the incident the way that you describe it on this page ("well-to-do white college students/poor black single mother") may not be factual. That's all. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but they're going to Duke, so they're not exactly starving. I apologize for any ruffled feathers. Dubc0724 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not perhaps; some fairly poor students attend DUKE (just like many other schools). You tried to paint a picture here that is not true. Nice try. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubc apologized for any hard feelings. Don't you think we should drop this and get back on focus now? Johntex\^talk 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - let's move on. Dubc0724 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Her race has been included as of today. Thanks for your input. Dubc0724 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Early Accusations with Criminal history and credibility

I moved the Duke Scandal section to the top, since that is what CGM is known for. I also merged Early Accusations section with the Criminal History & Credibility section, since there was duplication. And I took the Navy stuff out of Early Accusations where it did not belong and stuck it in the Education section, renaming it Education & Military History. Andyparkerson 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Credibility questions raised

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16009088.htm

Days before a woman said Duke University lacrosse players raped and beat her, she was passed out cold at a Hillsborough strip club and had to be carried to the parking lot, according to the club's former manager. In that gravel parking lot on the night of March 11, the four people carrying the woman accidentally dropped her, said Yolanda Haynes, the club's former manager. Haynes' account of that night at the club offers a possible explanation for the scratches doctors would later note on the accuser's body.

someone find an appropriate place to work this in please. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)