Talk:A Rape on Campus

BIG FUCKUP: Ref collision

Article has

On December 6, the Washington Post's media critic Erik Wemple called for all Rolling Stone staff involved with the story to be fired. Wemple posited that the claims presented by the magazine were so incredible that editors should have called for further inquiry before publication. "Under the scenario cited by Erdely," Erik Wemple wrote, "the Phi Kappa Psi members are not just criminal sexual-assault offenders, they're criminal sexual-assault conspiracists, planners, long-range schemers. If this allegation alone hadn't triggered an all-out scramble at Rolling Stone for more corroboration, nothing would have."[13]

where 13 -> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/07/updated-apology-digs-bigger-hole-for-rolling-stone/

[13] does not contain the quote. But if you look at the source for that paragraph, the correct article was cited for this quote. The problem is that both articles were tagged "wapo1", and the collision is fucking up all the references.

Somebody's going to have to go through the history and fix this stuff. I don't know the cool advanced wiki-nerd tools, so I'm hoping somebody else will. Dingsuntil (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's even worse than you thought, looks like multiple (more than two I think) Washington Post stories have been conflated. I am going through all the Post refs and trying to fix these issues. Shearonink (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jackie's friend's names not needed.

I've taken out the main lists of their real names, which is gratuitous. I left in Ryan, because a specific relevant statement was attributed to him by name. Disagreements? Dingsuntil (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

They were named in a mainstream media source, but they aren't as central to the story as Jackie, Emily Renda (the campus activist who pushed the story to the media in spite of knowing that it was iffy), and the article's author, fact-checker, and editor. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryan, Kathryn & Alex were interviewed by numerous news organizations (ABC News, CNN, Daily Caller, Washington Post...the list goes on), and they were central in disputing Jackie's claims. They were the ones who made the world aware of "Haven Monahan," the alleged rapist who apparently doesn't exist. It's silly not to include Ryan's, Kathryn's & Alex's names. I'm a journalist for a major TV news network. I would chyron their real names if I showed an interview with them. Dollar4dollar (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're names need to be secret, but you wouldn't just list them, would you? We're supposed to have a bias towards privacy.

How about this: we take out plain listing their names, and just list their pseudonyms. If they're quoted or otherwise referred to the article, then refer to them by full name and note the pseudonym: "Ryan Duffin ('Randall' in the original article) said ..." It makes the article less cluttered, and helps ensure the bias towards privacy, because we only identify them by name if it comes up. Go ahead and find relevant references for all of them to ensure their names all get in if you want. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the actual names should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of information from reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources state these three people's names, especially in regards to the unraveling of Erdely's story. In this particular cited source, ABC News, the actual names behind the pseudonyms - first/last for two of them, and first for one of them - were stated for the record by the individuals themselves. Speaking to privacy concerns and regardless of what information has been reported elsewhere about the actual identities of "Jackie's" three friends, Ryan(Randall's) last name is not revealed in the ABC News story per this individual's request so that information should not be included in the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dingsuntil (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Since that linkage has been posted as part of this discussion, I looked up what it states:

• "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."

So, the names are clearly verifiable but the question seems to be 'should they be included in the article'? It is clear that there are multiple verifiable sources that mention the real names of Jackie's friends. It is clear that multiple reliable sources go into detail about these three people - to remove almost all mentions of their names ignores the fact that they are part of the story, it could even be said that they ARE the story. Without these three people coming forward, without them naming their own names, Jackie's assertions could be allowed to stand on much firmer ground.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE goes on to state:

• "WIkipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works..., Lyrics databases..., Excessive listings of statistics..., Exhaustive logs of software updates...."

So far as I can tell, including all three of the names is none of these things.

If the issue would be to lean in favor of privacy, then WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE could have some bearing on this matter, so I'd like to see if they have any bearing on including the three names in this article:

• WP:BLPNAME states - "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed." Initially, yes the three persons' identities were concealed, but they themselves broke the pseudonymous veil and revealed their names in multiple news venues. Why should Wikipedia disregard their own actions? To me, their actions were done freely and they became a large part of the story - why shouldn't Wikipedia honor their decisions?
• WP:BLP1E refers back to "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and goes on to state "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" so this guideline is mainly concerned with creating an article about people known for only one thing.
• WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE states "include only material relevant to the person's notability". Their names, their willingness to reveal their identity, became a major part of the story. To ignore this aspect of this story makes no sense to me.

So, yes, Wikipedia editors do exercise discretion as to what is or is not included in articles. Some editors think the names should be included, some don't. I think it is worthwhile to open up a WP:RFC on the issue to see what editorial consensus is. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is overkill. I made what I consider a good compromise: include names where these people are relevantly referred to. All I'm asking is that they not just be listed. Maybe you don't think this is an acceptable compromise, but you should speak to the point before opening an RfC. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion their actual names are absolutely relevant to this story. Ignoring the fact that these three people sat down with reporters and went on record themselves as to the discrepancies in Erdely's report made them relevant. The INDISCRIMINATE linkage was posted as if it answered my concerns, I decided to look at the guideline being cited and decide for myself if it applied in this situation. It is my opinion it does not. These three people *chose* to reveal their names after the story was published and that decision along with their subsequent interviews made them even more a part of the story than they had been initially. I think sourced content could perhaps be added elsewhere in the article to be more integrated within the narrative of the initial reporting unraveling. It appears your opinion differs. I think it is important enough to open an RFC. What's the harm in that? If interested editors responding to the RFC state that the actual names not be included then that's the way the article should go, I have no problem abiding by an RFC. I only want to seek a widest possible editorial consensus. I havShearonink (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If later on in one of the "responses" sections, you mentioned that they spoke to journalists, revealed their names, and gave their views, that'd be a good place to stick their names. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is, in "Questions emerge" or "Existence of Drew" or similar, where articles interviewing the three provide verification. I still think it's better to, e.g. identify Randall as Ryan iff you quote him as Ryan or refer to him as Ryan, but if you really want a list, that's where it should go. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that using pseudonym/real-name constantly could be visually jarring within the text. Since the whole Wikipedia article deals with the unraveling of Erdely's Rolling Stone article, it only makes sense to me to include and integrate the actual names of the three people who had such a large part in that narrative somewhere within this Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

* Disagree that actual names of "Jackie's" friends are not needed. First, they provided transparency by coming forward and being interviewed under their own names. Second, they provided the critical evidence that the whole thing was a hoax, at a time when many wanted to believe the hoax. Third, their names are included in many WP:RS and it would be undue censoring to delete them from the article. XavierItzm (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We've already converged to a semi-consensus. You should weigh in on that, if at all Dingsuntil (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why I deleted the auto-archiver

Apparently, there is mild disagreement on this point, so my position is: Archiving is for dealing with talk pages that get too big. This one isn't too big yet. When it gets worse, or if the volume of talk goes up a lot, we can worry about archiving then. In the meantime, having all the conversations easily accessible is good. If you're making a potentially controversial edit, you can look at the talk page and see if there was already a discussion, and what the result was. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving old threads is not strictly cosmetic. Moving old threads from main talk pages to an archival page makes it easier for people accessing Wikipedia from a variety of devices, it keeps the main talk's size down to a manageable length for all the computers/laptops/notebooks/cellphones/netbooks that have such differing capabilities. When you deleted that code you affected nothing about the present talk page's content. Threads that have no replies for 21 days/3 weeks would have gotten moved, but every single thread on this page has had posts within the past week, so it would have all stayed on the main page until there had been no replies for whatever timeframe was put into that particular parameter. If the editorial consensus is that the timeframe should be 30 days or whatever, that shouldn't be an issue. And if the same discussions keep on getting rehashed over and over again, then appropriate notices about those issues, like the ones at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Talk:George Washington, could be implemented. Shearonink (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, stick it back in if you like Dingsuntil (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Are the real names of the "three students" relevant?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the real names of "Jackie's" three friends - "Cindy", "Randall", "Andy" - be included in this article? Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether their names may be included in the article is not under dispute. The question is whether there should be a simple list of their real names, or whether their real names should be connected to their aliases only when, for example, they are quoted under their real names. Recommend closing this. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Well apparently I have misunderstood what you implied up above when you stated that we're supposed to be biased towards privacy and to take out the real names. Are you now stating that, in your opinion, the real names of all three could be included? I am going to be WP:BOLD, add the sourced content as it makes sense to me, maybe that will fix the 'list' issue, see what you think.Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. It's kind of a process issue. It's like, if you want to list their names, you have to ask a bunch of policy questions, since the bias towards privacy would clearly suggest that just listing names would be bad. If you refer to one of them by real name, the reference meets the criteria for inclusion, and the individual referred has voluntarily identified himself with the alias, and this is confirmed by an RS, then you can identify him there without having to think as hard about whether you're doing the right thing. Confirming that a non-sequitory list of their names isn't a BLP violation requires more background knowledge, so it's more likely that a well-meaning editor will take out their names later when you've moved on to other stuff. Finally, it just reads better without a list of their names there. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. See my extensive reply under the "Jackie's friend's names not needed." section. Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

discredited

If you feel the article ought to begin '"A Rape on Campus" is a discredited article by Sabrina Erdely' rather than '"A Rape on Campus" is an article by Sabrina Erdely,' please say why here. Note that the reason which allow a reader to conclude that the Erdely article is discredited are given later in the paragraph and throughout the article generally. Dingsuntil (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, This is a poor way to begin the article.It reads better as "an article" as opposed to "a discredited article". There are refs for discredited but the lede reads better. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally feel the article used the term "discredited" too much, and have sought to introduce some variety here and there. Dingsuntil (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The ones you removed today seem okay (though 'collapse of the story' doesn't seem to be a better wording at all), but I am still disputing its lack of presence in the lead (as awkward as 'discredited' there is). However, as the report is about to come out tomorrow evening, I'm happy to wait and see whether it results in a complete retraction (therefore bypassing this debate over whether 'discredited' is awkward wording or not), or if it results in some other way we should word it. ― Padenton|✉   21:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

re "collapse" fair enough, although it has to be "in the aftermath" of an event, and I wasn't sure "The discreditation of the article" was even English.

re "retracted", I think the same objections to "is a discredited article" apply to "is a retracted article." If we should write "is a $provably_shit article," then the contents of the report will certainly be cause for setting provably_shit="retracted" rather than "discredited." But my argument has always been that we should write "...is an article...The article is $provably_shit." Dingsuntil (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shearonink:@Dingsuntil:Now the only mention of 'retracted' is in the last sentence of the lead. I don't see the grammar issue with referring to it as a 'retracted article'. This is key information, more important than that the article was called a journalistic failure, that some institute named it the error of the year, none of that stuff. The only reasoning I hear from you is that the article uses discredited too much. You've already removed quite a bit of the 'discredited' from the article, and I had no issue with that. But now the article has been retracted, 'retracted' needs to be in the lead sentence or the one after to provide context. Not hidden in the bottom of the lead. ― Padenton|✉   15:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not grammar, it's style. "X is a retracted article..." has a droning, look-at-me-push-my-pov quality to it that we should avoid. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." So the first sentence should be a concise description of the subject. ― Padenton|✉   15:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the word "discredited" from the article, somewhere I've stated that "discredited" is being used too much? I don't think so. And I am hiding nothing. Crafting the section or the first sentence can be a process and sometimes that process is messy, wording gets changed, an editorial consensus is sought - these things sometimes take time. My issue is that, when the article was published it was held up as complete truth, it was not published as a discredited article. As to the construction of the lead section (not just the first sentence or couple of sentences - which is what I think of as the "lede"), when I looked at the section just now it lays out the developments following the story's publication in a linear fashion, so the complete retraction comes at the end of that timeline. I'm not sure what the wording should be, but thought that my most recent attempt:

In December 2014 Rolling Stone published "A Rape on Campus", an article by Sabrina Erdely that told the story of a purported gang rape at University of Virginia. The article claimed that, as part of an initiation rite, several members of a fraternity viciously raped a woman identified only as "Jackie" during a chapter house party.

was clear with the wording of "told the story" "purported" "claimed" but if that is considered to be going against the WP:LEADSENTENCE WP:MOS guideline then perhaps a consensus could be towards something like:

In December 2014 Rolling Stone published Sabrina Erdely's "A Rape on Campus", an article that has since been retracted by the publisher {or "has been discredited by outside investigations"}

or even better:

In December 2014 Rolling Stone published Sabrina Erdely's "A Rape on Campus", an article that has since been discredited by outside investigations and retracted by its publisher. The article told the story of a purported gang rape at University of Virginia and claimed that, as part of an initiation rite, several members of a fraternity viciously raped a woman identified only as "Jackie" during a chapter house party.

I think the last one, especially, might be clear enough. It also lays out the timeline that the article was written, it was published, the article & its story were then investigated by newspapers/magazines/various other media sources/a police department/a journalism school, discredited by the media and official reports and *then* the publisher retracted it. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the last one, too. It is well written and fits the facts. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I wrote that to both you and Dingsuntil, some applied to you, Dingsuntil was the one who said discredited was being used too much in the article. WP:LEADSENTENCE just says that the first sentence should provide a concise description of the whole article, and I feel it needs to somehow indicate that the story was retracted. That the article's factual accuracy has been discredited eventually leading to its retraction is central to its notability (beyond the article's original viral spread). As for your proposed solutions here, I like either one, leaning towards the second one. ― Padenton|✉   19:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: Hopefully we can agree on more or less my last edit. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Dingsuntil, here's why I added "a discredited article". WP:LEADSENTENCE clearly states that "Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article." The fact that the story was discredited is not given by the title of the article, and the fact that the story was discredited is very relevant information. Nor is it redundant. The first sentence of an article should be descriptive about the subject (in this case, the Rolling Stone story). For god's sake, the article did accuse three innnocent boys of rape, I believe the fact it was discredited should be mentioned in the first sentence. Also, the word "discredited" is repeatedly used throughout the article, so I don't really know why you have a problem with it being used in the first sentence. Jhamilton303 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jhamilton303: First, I want to keep the tone as NPOV as possible so that the article is read by more people who don't already agree with us & the facts become more widely known. Second, we already say "retracted." Some articles are discredited, but the evidence is not so overwhelming as to force a retraction, as happened here. Third, the fact that we explain further about the discreditedness of the article is in my view a reason why we don't necessarily need it there. It's retracted. Why was it retracted? It was thoroughly discredited. How so? Read on. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dingsuntil: There is nothing non-NPOV or unknown about calling the article discredited. Whether Jackie made a false rape allegation about an incident that never occurred is a separate discussion. ― Padenton|✉   01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: Adding every legit bad thing about the article wherever possible creates a POV tone that we should avoid. "Retracted" usefully summarizes the state of the article for first-sentence purposes. Also, nice thing about "retracted" is it's so unambiguously true compared to "discredited" (which is also true, but harder to verify). By all means, note all the reliable sources who have called it discredited throughout the article. Dingsuntil (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dingsuntil: yeah, I'm fine with the lead as it is now, just wanted to be clear. I wouldn't object to the longer version though. ― Padenton|✉   01:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dingsuntil, Padenton, Jhamilton303, and Shearonink: I won't revert since it appears it will just be re-reverted, but I would like to make clear that I oppose the lead sentence as it stands. And I think I can finally articulate why. Let's say a writer fabricated a story out of thin air, invented characters, etc and Rolling Stone published this story as a nonfiction piece. If and when the story was later found out to be untrue, Rolling Stone would rightfully retract it. The example that comes to mind is Jayson Blair. On the other hand, this is a much different situation. The RS story names real places, interviews real students, and alleges real crime/a real event. The retraction isn't nearly as important as the fact that the allegations within the story were found to be completely untrue. So I would almost say get rid of "retracted" totally, as long as the first sentence makes it clear that the events purported to happen within the story never did. I think "discredited" is the best way to say this, although I would fine with something like "A Rape on Campus is an article by Sabrina Erdely, that was published in Rolling Stone and subsequently retracted after being proven false by outside investigations". Others here are better wordsmiths than I, but I think you get my drift. The gist of this wikipedia article shouldn't be just the retraction, it's the untruth behind the retraction. Cavalierman (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: Don't accuse other people of being unwilling to change their minds (maybe that's not what you mean, but it sorta sounds like that) because it won't help. Tell us why you think it should be different, we may think you're right. I think we should include no more than one "this article is bullshit"-type descriptor in the lead. If you think 'discredited' is better than 'retracted' that's arguable, but the advantage of 'retracted,' particularly for the lead, is that it's more obviously true and readily verifiable. Also, having been retracted, discrediting the article is moot. Saying it's discredited it like introducing evidence of guilt in a trial where the defendant has pled guilty. In this case, the "defendant" pled guilty b/c it got a look at the prosecution's case and realized it was screwed, but the most obvious result was "convicted" not "we had a really strong case and you almost certainly would have been convicted if you had tried to fight." Dingsuntil (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in a trial, if someone has pleaded guilty to a crime, evidence still has to be presented. Their claim of guilt has to be backed-up in court. I think the discrediting should be presented along with the retraction. Without the various investigations (Washington Post, ABCNews, other journalists, Columbia, etc., etc., etc.), Rolling Stone would have done nothing. Cavalierman's 1st sentence presented above (""A Rape on Campus is an article by Sabrina Erdely, that was published in Rolling Stone and subsequently retracted after being proven false by outside investigations".) is basically fine with me. Now, with the present first sentence - from a stylistic point of view - the sentence construction seemed lopsided and the second clause somewhat truncated (""A Rape on Campus" is an article by Sabrina Erdely published in the December 2014 issue of Rolling Stone, and since retracted.") so I've adjusted it slightly (still not sure that comma is needed but that's a minor point) to ""A Rape on Campus" is an article by Sabrina Erdely published in the December 2014 issue of Rolling Stone, that has since been retracted by the publisher."Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC

Don't get lost in the metaphor. The point is that if you were quickly summarizing the case, you'd say "Dude pled guilty." They you'd talk more about the evidence. Anyway, I prefer my version (for concision, less extraneous information), but I'm willing to compromise & take that version (razzinfrazzin "Consensus" ...) Dingsuntil (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than change the first sentence, I simply added a "falsely alleged" to the second sentence. Any objections to this? Remember, the article being retracted is one thing, but the story behind the article also has to be debunked. Cavalierman (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I changed the wording to falsely claimed, although I think falsely alleged is probably more accurate. If you have any ideas on how to better communicate the non-event, I'm all ears. Pleaase keep in mind I am rather new to wikipedia. Cavalierman (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Report to come out Sun 4/5/15 8PM EDT

Just so watchers are aware: [1] ― Padenton|✉   21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also being reported in Jezebel: [2] and CNN: [3]. It is also being reported that the original Rolling Stone story will be pulled from the RS website and replaced with the Columbia University's School of Journalism report. (Quick, someone run Wayback etc.) Erdely is expected to make a public apology. Shearonink (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

[4] ― Padenton|✉   23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some good quotes in the report, like, "The problems with the article started with its source, Mr. Wenner said. He described her as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who managed to manipulate the magazine’s journalism process." Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What a retraction. So "Jackie" is to blame? Ok. Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Rolling Stone has decided to throw Jackie under the bus, especially evident since they decided not to fire Erdely. Purely a business decision, I'm sure, since they expect to get sued. Did you notice that Erdley conspicuously declined to name the fraternity in her "apology?" She and the magazine staff are circling the wagons. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM Dingsuntil (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe more of Wenner's statement could be added to the article... Would it be worthwhile to devote an entire section to the (final) retraction by RS? Shearonink (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, do we currently have the article False accusation of rape linked to from this article? I think it's highly appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I took out the separate link in "see also," but the article itself is still linked via the short description of the duke lacrosse case Dingsuntil (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that the Columbia J-school report has been published, I think we should delete all the quotes which had been speculating about the report when it was unpublished (like the Huffington Post article based on emails).
We now have a comprehensive, authoritative report on the subject of this article. I think we should describe it and quote from it extensively. (That's why they wrote it -- so people would read it and quote from it.)
I also think we should stick closely to the report, and not be "creative" in rewriting and paraphrasing it.
And to anticipate your objections, Close Paraphrasing WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. Sometimes when editors summarize in their own words instead of closely paraphrasing, they change the author's meaning. There was a reason why those Pulitzer prize-winning writers used the words they did. For example, there's a big difference between saying that Jackie was "a sexual assault survivor" and saying that she "described herself as a sexual assault survivor."
I think the main message of the Columbia J-school report is this:

Journalistic practice – and basic fairness – require that if a reporter intends to publish derogatory information about anyone, he or she should seek that person's side of the story.

I think the nut paragraph that summarizes the whole article is this:

Rolling Stone's repudiation of the main narrative in "A Rape on Campus" is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine's editors to reconsider publishing Jackie's narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine's reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.

I think that confirms what we already have in the entry:

Bruce Shapiro of Columbia University said that an engaged and empathetic reporter will be concerned about inflicting new trauma on the victim: "I do think that when the emotional valence of a story is this high, you really have to verify it." He also explained that experienced reporters often only work with women who feel strong enough to deal with the due diligence required to bring the article to publication.

I think this is the most important point of the whole episode, which was repeated by many WP:RSs, and we should be sure that this entry makes that point clearly, probably in the summary.
The most important facts that they didn't check were the name and existence of the lifeguard and the 3 friends. The most important parties that RS didn't give a chance to respond to derogatory information were the lifeguard, the 3 friends, and the fraternity. The reason they didn't check those facts or get responses was that the editors were too accommodating of Jackie because she described herself as a sexual assault survivor. Rolling Stone had a good editing and fact-checking system, according to the report. The fact-checker raised warning flags, but they ignored those flags because she was a junior staffer, and because of confirmation bias. --Nbauman (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm....I'm not sure I understand correctly. I agree with removing speculation about what the report would contain (if we added any in the past few days), but I feel the criticisms and discrepancies discussed by other news organizations provide additional viewpoints than the Columbia report and should remain. WP:PARAPHRASE may be an essay, as is WP:LONGQUOTE, however they are both widely used in discussions and generally accepted practice. That they are an essay is not reason to not follow them. That being said, I agree that the paraphrasing should not be creatively done to shift the source towards a particular point of view. ― Padenton|✉   19:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

False accusation of rape in See Also

@Dingsuntil:

This diff here: [5]. I'm not sure I agree. At this point, there is no evidence that anything claimed remotely happened, or even that the accused even exists. ― Padenton|✉   14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be listed in the See Also section. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning is: it's debatable whether the UVA shitstorm is an example of a false accusation of rape, because who was accused? 9 John Doe frat boys, maybe. Or two nonexistent guys (which is not the sense of "false accusation" linked article is referring to). Putting it cat "False Allegations of Rape" is fine b/c rape was alleged. I don't mind having another link to that article, but I don't want to imply UVA was a case of false accusation unless the consensus says so (in which case the consensus is a ass, a idiot, but w/e) Dingsuntil (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC) @Pandeton: @Cla68:

Hey why are you calling people names? A lot of people suffered here because they were FALSELY accused of rape. Jackie falesly accused them and there were people on campus who believed it at first. Why should the article not say it? Cavalierman (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Question here is about "accused" not "false" (it's definitely false) Dingsuntil (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am reverting again b/c nobody's opposed (except Cavalierman, who appears to have quit), although possibly you haven't gotten around to it yet (no big deal; little danger of running out of edits here) Dingsuntil (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

please don't revert. I have not quit-quit-yet Cavalierman (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: please address my specific reason for reversion (we agree about false). Dingsuntil (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dingsuntil:It should be pretty clear. Jackie accused some college students of rape. Yes, one of them, "Haven Monahan" is a fictional character. The other nine students are real members of a real fraternity who suffered threats and vandalism because they were accused (incorrectly) of rape. Perhpas I am missing something - maybe you can explain to me why you don't think this qualifies as a false accusation. Every other editor currently involved on this page agrees that the story falls under the category of a false accusation. Cavalierman (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: the paradigm case of a false accusation is Alice saying "Bob raped me." The only people accused in this way were fictional characters (Haven, Drew). The other nine students are not real members of a real fraternity, because it didn't actually happen. It's not like she said "It was PKPs members Charlie, David, ..." She just pointed vaguely in the direction of PKPs and a mob atmosphere directed violence at PKPs members generally, rather than, say, a specific 9 members of PKPs but not others. PKPs definitely suffered, and I've made edits to make this more clear (cinder blocks is key; makes it assault with deadly weapon rather than just vandalism), but we shouldn't add just everything possible that rolling stone partisans would rather people didn't think about. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dingsuntil: I've thought about it, and I believe you are right. This really isn't a case of a false accusation in the legal sense, insofar as Jackie went to the police and gave them a name of a real student on campus and pressed charges. So I see where you are coming from. If you think it should be changed back, I won't put up an argument. I WILL say however, that I feel the article still does not go far enough in making it clear that yes, although the article is retracted/bullshit/whatever, the reason it's retracted is because this girl fabricated a story that had some very serious consequences. Rolling Stone didn't fabricate the story out of thin air. And I read what you wrote earlier - It's not about her being a "lying bitch", it's about the fact that everyone wants to pile on Rolling Stone without looking at the real reason for this whole mess. Cavalierman (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Emily Renda

The Colombia report, if I read it right, states that Erdely was originally referred to Jackie by Emily Renda, a UVA rape activist. Renda had previously tried to promote Jackie's unverified account to the media and in congressional testimony. Should we get this in the article somewhere? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, although we should probably look for other sources first to determine the significance of this particular point. Cenarium (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, according to many WP:RS Erdely found out about Jackie from Renda. According to the Columbia Journalism School report, the congressional testimony was significant for 2 reasons: (1) It gave the Rolling Stone editors additional reason to believe Jackie (2) The testimony was used to promote new laws. I think that makes it significant. You can search Google for "rolling stone rape congressional testimony" and find lots of WP:RS that refer to it. eg http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-06/rolling-stone-can-t-even-apologize-right --Nbauman (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to be careful with how we portray Renda. Need good TPA if we want to suggest she was engaged in calculated political activism with mens rea, as opposed to just being head rape crisis girl and thus natural person to match Erdly with rape victims for journalism or similar. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It was documented in several WP:RS that Renda said she was raped, she became a rape activist, a rape counselor, and testified before Congress. Her testimony included Jackie's account that Erdely based her story on. I read the testimony online. The reason that's significant is that Renda believed, as a rape counselor whose job is to be supportive of her clients, that she should "trust the woman." One of the issues that came up was that journalists shouldn't "trust the woman." Journalists have to subject all claims to fact-checking and skepticism. I don't think Renda was doing anything wrong with calculated political activism. That's democracy. But it's not journalism. --Nbauman (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but "trust the woman" is a lot more reasonable in rape counseling than law or politics. Need clear evidence that she imported this principle into activism or other fields it doesn't belong. Clearly, lots of people have, but can't put blame on Renda without reason. Dingsuntil (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why name the fact checker?

According to the Columbia Journalism School report, the fact-checker didn't want to be named. Why does this entry name her?

It doesn't name Jackie's 3 friends, even though they were willing to be identified and their names are widely distributed in the media.

I personally think that we should name the 3 friends, since there's no reason not to, and they gave permission. I read the discussion and I don't think we have a consensus to keep them out. But we didn't name them.

So why name the fact-checker, when there is a reason not to, and she asked not to be named? --Nbauman (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually,all three of "Jackie's" pseudonymous friends are identified in the article in the Key discrepancies in Jackie's allegation, according to ABC News section plus Randall is identified in Questions emerge & Existence of 'Drew'. I saw in the Columbia Report that Rolling Stone asked for her not to be identified in the report as she did not have decision-making authority ("Coll and Coronel agreed to Rolling Stone's request not to name the story's fact-checker in its report on the grounds that she was a junior employee without ultimate decision-making authority." and "(Rolling Stone requested that the checker not be named because she did not have decision-making authority.)" As I see it, the problem with *not* id'ing the fact-checker in the Wikipedia article is that the name is a matter of public record. The Huffington Post submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the emails between UVa officials, Erdely and the fact-checker & then stated the fact-checker's name on December 19th. I am not sure that the fact-checker herself wishes to not be named, her employer made that request of the people responsible for the Columbia Report. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact-checker's name (1) has been in the article for months. In fact, (2) it was in the lead section for months. (3) Elisabeth Garber-Paul's name and position as the fact-checker for A Rape On Campus is a matter of public record, and in fact came out as the result of a FOIA request (what could be more public than that?) (4) Her name was published by the Chicago Tribune, a major WP:RS (5) Garber-Paul's boss, Coco McPherson, also claimed that decisions not to fact check were made "above her pay grade," as reported by the Washington Post, and yet McPherson's name isn't being censored out anywhere; why should Elisabeth's? Bottom line: the WP:RS mention Garber-Paul's title, responsibility and name, in some of the crucial articles when the hoax was first exposed and Wikipedia editors cannot be in the business of censoring out that which the WP:RS highlighted during the discovery process. XavierItzm (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just want to add, I think it would be fair, however, to clarify her mention in the article with a statement on what control she had over the article. ― Padenton|✉   03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Support this Dingsuntil (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to craft something short, will use the Columbia report as a source, that's the only place I've seen that gives details about what the fact-checker tried to do/was allowed to do in the context of the article moving forward within Rolling Stone's editorial process. Shearonink (talk)

I bet Erdley'd rather not be named too much these days either. This is a story about epic fact-checking failure, so who failed is notable. I'm in favor of naming any journalist responsible for this, module RS's. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I read it again. I'm fine with this. I don't understand why the fact-checker doesn't want her name mentioned. She was one of the few people who caught the problem and reported it up her chain of command. If they had listened to her, they would have avoided the whole scandal. --Nbauman (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If the fact-checker herself is quoted in a WP:IRS as stating she wants/wanted to remain anonymous, then per WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME I'd consider eliminating her name from the article. However, the *only* request I have seen on this matter is from her employer Rolling Stone and that request was only that her name be kept out of the Columbia report. Shearonink (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Her request (if in fact made) doesn't cut much ice at Wikipedia, but I agree BLPNAME does. Unlike Erdley, fact-checker probably not even limited-purpose public figure here. Dropping her name would be ok, I guess. Dingsuntil (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that WP:BLPNAME can be used as argument to censor out important information brought out by the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post and the Huffington Host where Gerber-Paul's name was mentioned. Sure, the policy calls for "caution" but only when the name has not been disseminated or has been concealed. Well, when you are on the pages of at least three of the most widely read media in the country, have you not been disseminated? You could censor out her name, but what about context, especially as the CT/WP/HP articles regarding the FOIA were pivotal in debunking the hoax at a time when certain people Wanted To Believe and attacked anyone who questioned the story? There is significant value in that Garber-Paul raised the issue yet her editors were among the Truest of Believers. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects: well, evidently this part of the WP:BLPNAME does not at all apply either. XavierItzm (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't say "Censor," it's inflammatory. Say "remove." Help other talk page users focus on the facts supporting your argument (like newspaper citations) instead of getting all "rah rah freedom." I'd say the key question is: do we plan to have significant content about the role of the fact-checker in the article, which is notable, sourced, etc? If so, the argument for naming fact-checker is stronger. When I last looked, there was only a 1-line "Fact checking by Gerber-Paul" mention, and otherwise she was ignored. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

implied contact

In this edit, IP seems to assume the language is straight up error, but I think the point was to suggest that many readers/journalists got the impression that Erdley had interviewed lots of relevant people like Jackie's friends, and that this was Erdley's fault. I can't fault the edit, being more correct that the prev copy, but think this wrong impression is important. Source which covers this: http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2014/12/04/beyond-the-missing-men/ (should get others). Dingsuntil (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh. The fabulist's friends were never interviewed by Erdley and were only interviewed by other, actual journalists, later, in an effort to verify R Stone's very hard-to-believe tale. Yet the cited edit above makes it sound as if Erdley interviewed anyone after publication, which is untrue. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it was an awkward way of saying that Erdley purported to have interviewed Jackie's friends, but in fact had not. But awkward enought that it's easy to read as a false statement. I'm saying exactly how much Erdley bullshitted on this particular point should be made clear & sourced. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

UVa | UVA

I was going to do | this, but I found that UVa seemed more common in, e.g., the UVa newspaper (which oughta know, right?). Continuity is good, but think this might be wrong continuity. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Acronyms/abbreviations for universities seem to use capital letters to refer to a new word, such as UNM - University of New Mexico, or UCLA - University of California/Los Angeles, UNLV - Univertsity of Nevada/Las Vegas, etc. I have seen both UVA and UVa online, but all caps just seems so *wrong* to me. I found a style guide on the UVa alumni website, it says to use "U.Va", the UVa Admissions Office uses "UVa" , the UVa Sports Office also uses UVa. I agree with using "UVa" instead of "UVA". Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was in favor of 'UVA' but if the university's style guide says 'UVa' I see no reason to not abbreviate it as 'UVa'. ― Padenton|✉   18:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jackie

Is it time to create a new article on Jackie and/or name her? At this point it seems clear that her actions are at the very least borderline criminal and she does not deserve the anonymity/protection she has been receiving so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosfot (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with both of the above.

An article on Jackie would just be a repetition of this article. We know nothing about her outside of what has appeared in the media in connection with the Rolling Stone/Erdely piece.

As to naming her, I have only seen some speculation (nothing in a reliable source so far as I can tell) as to her actual identity. If Wikipedia breaches the anonymity and names someone as being Jackie, there is the very real risk that the wrong person could be named. I do not want to be responsible for 1)identifying the wrong person as "Jackie" or even 2)identifying the correct person as "Jackie". Regardless of what happened or didn't happen to this woman, according to the three friends and others, they all believe something traumatic happened to her. Personal feelings aside as to what she might deserve, I would not wish to add any more of a burden to someone who is obviously very troubled.

Shearonink (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Very controversial. Needs RS, and so far the RS's have been all gentlemanly about it. Main thing is that story was bullshit, and that's amply demonstrated. Dingsuntil (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As much as I think she deserves less protection from this, the fact his she is still only notable for this one event (WP:1EVENT). I wouldn't oppose a section on her in this article, but as Shearonink said, it would need to be reliably sourced (Ideally from multiple sources). However, it's also not our place as WP editors to defend anyone's actions. If this was anything but a rape accusation, everyone would be calling her out for it, but everyone's afraid to be called 'victim blaming' by every blogger on the internet. And whatever traumatic event happened to her, she is partly at fault for this story as well. The frat is likely to file lawsuits against both Rolling Stone and "Jackie". So we'll likely know soon enough her name and how much special treatment she deserves. ― Padenton|✉   19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

+1. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

judgement

in the 'Rolling Stone apologizes' section, there's no need for the multiple [sic]s embedded in the will dana quote. judgement (with 2 'e's) is a variant spelling still used all over the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement) and not an error, and the sics make for jarring reading. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

more lede talks

"was retracted and discredited" is bad. "was retracted" is better because it's more concise, and "retraction" is a worse fate than "discredited." Something might be discredited, but not badly enough that the publisher couldn't brazen through, for example. The fact that it was questioned, then discredited, then retracted (& by whom) is what the rest of the article is for. Dingsuntil (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Was going off the editorial consensus that seemed to develop in the "discredited" section above but if the community thinks that "retracted' is appropriate for the lede sentence, I've no problem with dropping "discredited". Shearonink (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am brand new to this so please understand I am not familiar with wikipedia. I believe this is in the right place though. Why are they not including the word "discredited"? If Rolling Stone decided to not retract the article it would still be discredited according to the Columbia article. I have an interest in this topic but I am not doing it for a school project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavalierman (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: I am generally trying to reduce the level of invective in this article and give a more WP:NPOV tone. Aside from it being the rules, it's also a good idea. The facts in this case are so clearly against rolling stone et al that a neutral presentation which doesn't try to beat you over the head with its POV best serves the cause of the opposition. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At one point I had crafted the following:

In December 2014 Rolling Stone published Sabrina Erdely's "A Rape on Campus", an article that has since been discredited by outside investigations and retracted by its publisher. The article told the story of a purported gang rape at University of Virginia and claimed that, as part of an initiation rite, several members of a fraternity viciously raped a woman identified only as "Jackie" during a chapter house party.

But other editors objected to the first sentence. Wikipedia articles are crafted according to editorial consensus, which means all of us get to work on writing the articles and running this place *together*. Shearonink (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes the sentence you wrote sounds very good. Also they are making it sound like the blame lies with Rolling Stone but the blame does not just lie with them. They printed a false story that they knew was false. So I think it is like 50% Jackys fault and then 30% the lady who wrote it and 30% Rolling Stone. I know we cant put that in the article but I dont think the article does a good job of telling people that these guys were falsely accused - it is more about the story being bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavalierman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Well if they don't want to change it to the way you had, what about "A Rape on Campus" is an article in Rolling Stone by Sabrina Erdely that has since been retracted by its publisher and proven false by outside investigation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavalierman (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Shearonink's proposed text is very appropriate. Also, "retracted" alone is weak sauce. Makes it sound as if R Stone woke up one day and said "oh my bad" out of thin air, like a person who suddenly realises she forgot her keys at home. The facts are that many people for a long time expended enormous resources to _discredit_ "Jackie"'s hoax, and the Wiki entry should clarify that the story was retracted only because it became discredited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: I disagree. The retraction was the culmination of the questioning and investigating and discrediting process. By all means, make this clear in the rest of the article, but the first sentence should be tight. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorial consensus means we all work together to craft an article that reflects our considered opinions and reliable sources... so much fun. I think the last lede sentence I wrote into the article took much of what had been written by others, adjusted the wording to be more grammatically and stylistically balanced. You reverted my changes. And I still prefer the variation I wrote above ("In December 2014 Rolling Stone...) that was in the article in the past, but you do not. I give up. Shearonink (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"In December..." is a very good way to start an essay on the case, but definitely wrong for the start of an encyclopedia article. We keep it pedantic, homebody, this is wikipedia. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, it seems that "discredited" or "debunked" should be incorporated in the first sentence. As it stands, all the lede does is make it look like Rolling Stone messed up. But that is NOT the case. This all started with malicious lies from an individual. Everything she said was proven to be false. So yes, the story was retracted, but it was retracted because of the false accusation of the individual. The story was retracted because everything in it was found to be a complete lie. Cavalierman (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, see my reply to Jhamilton303 above. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems!

Alright so I tried to do what everyone said. I changed the words so it made more sense. Then I got warned by two different moderators. Everyone agreed on the changes here at the talk page. Looks like I am about to get kicked out of wikipedia. Well all I did was try to protect people from getting a false accusation. I guess I give up too. Cavalierman (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Stick around, chill out, and try again. Key thing to remember is that we have to agree. Don't go around making changes because Something Is Wrong In The World and you know what's right better than everyone else. I've had to compromise a lot on my edits. Listen to the other editors. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey bro you are calling people names. Not cool. It's fine I am leaving anyway. You guys can go around not thinking about how this might affect people. Think about it for a minute? IF something terrible happened to you and it was all over the internet wouldn't you want people to use some common sense? How do I turn off my membership. Cavalierman (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me earlier (re names). We are thinking about it, and you should assume we are per WP:AGF. Dunno how to delete account, try the helpdesk. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

move part of retraction lede bit to new section

now that we have a section on the retraction, i propose that most of paragraph 4 of the lede be moved down to it, leaving only "RS retracted & published columbia report, which said it failed at fact checking, journalistic standards, and was misleading." In particular, the bit about how there was no fabrication should be placed somewhere where TPA can explain "Constructive Fabrication" without burdening an already bloated lede Dingsuntil (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jackie is first name - not a psuedonym

The article is very clear that "Jackie" is not a pseudonym, it is the actual first name of the accuser. I don't see this clarified anywhere in our entry so I went ahead and made the change. Cavalierman (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

On that account, I think you are mistaken. The original Sabrina Erdely article identified the accuser as "Jackie" but it is not clear whether or not that is the accuser's actual first name or a pseudonym. Your source for stating that this name is the accuser's actual name is being somewhat sloppy when they eliminate quotation marks around the accuser's name. Also, sourcing anything from Yahoo.News is problematic because it is difficult to figure out when the interviews were made - where are the dates? The one URL you mentioned within that edit summary is dated "April 5, 2015" but that is to a report written by Katie Brinn with a Couric taped interview of Duffin running over top of it, and the Couric material is apparently from an interview/news report originally broadcast sometime after the Charlottesville Police Chief Longo report but before the Columbia report. Brinn is being incorrect when she states that the accuser was "identified only by her first name, “Jackie,” ". No, the accuser is identified in the original story as "Jackie", it is not explicitly stated that this is the person's actual name or a pseudonym. And considering Erdely's deference to the accuser in how Erdely handled the material I doubt that the writer would use the accuser's actual name. Shearonink (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You may very well be right, it was just something I noticed when looking at the yahoo news story. Is there a link somehwere to the original story by Erdely so we might be able to figure this out for sure? Cavalierman (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Reuter's said Jackie is her real first name. I think WaPo(?) said it was a shortened version of her real name. Presuambly Jacqueline or some such. Other RS refs have used the term pseudonym. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I just checked out the archived version of the story as well as the original retraction by Rolling Stone (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0Yi2WUgRe-gJ:www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)and both are pretty clear - Jackie is the first name, not a pseudonym. Last month, Rolling Stone published a story entitled A Rape on Campus, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie during a party at a University of Virginia fraternity house, the University's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. I'm all for protecting privacy especially when there is a victim involved, but in this case we are reporting exactly what the reliable sources say, and no where is Jackie referred to as a pseudonym. Cavalierman (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to this per se, but lots of people got the impression that Jackie was a pseudonym at first, especially since the other names were specifically identified as pseudonyms. It was only later clarified that Jackie was really her first name, which is I think why it appears like that in the "How we fucked up" report. This is why I like the original version better. Can totally clarify that Jackie was revealed to be her actual first name later in article though. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That makes pretty good sense actually. Cavalierman (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since in the original story Erdely did not state a pseudonym was used I think it is appropriate to remove all the quotes around the accused's first name in this Wikipedia article, so have gone ahead and done so. The quoted-form appeared in other sources and crept into the narrative somewhere further down the timeline of the Erdely-article's aftermath. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. And on that note, editors here might want to take a closer look at Cavalierman (talk · contribs). You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

not sure why my name is in this. If you are talking about the edit from a couple days ago I followed the directions to undo it. Here is the LinK:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655546593 Cavalierman (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned you because of the first edit you made to Wikipedia, and because I can clearly see that you are not entirely new to editing Wikipedia. I'm done replying to you in this section. I wasted my time with Cali11298's denials as Jhamilton303, but I am not going to waste time debating you on your non-newness. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Like I stated above, my user page lists reasons why I know when an editor is new or not, and there are reasons not listed there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)